[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 117 (Thursday, July 24, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4877-S4894]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF PAMELA HARRIS TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE
FOURTH CIRCUIT--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Wildfire Management
Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, we have an opportunity to address an
issue of concern to foresting communities in Wisconsin and across the
Nation in the emergency supplemental appropriations bill now pending
before Congress.
The supplemental addresses a number of very urgent issues. The issue
of unaccompanied minors who are crossing our southern border has
rightly received much attention and there is, indeed, a crisis. I
believe Congress must pass a supplemental appropriations bill to help
address this humanitarian crisis.
This afternoon I wish to call attention to another emergency that
Congress must address: extreme wildfires and the dysfunctional way the
Federal Government manages our firefighting operations.
Devastating wildfires are raging in Washington and Oregon States, and
many other States have felt the heartbreaking impact of major forest
fire destruction. As I presided earlier today, I heard the two Senators
from Washington State come to the floor and talk about the devastation
the wildfires in their State are causing and the bravery of citizens
who are facing these destructive fires. It is why I am pleased
Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Mikulski has drafted an emergency
supplemental appropriations bill that includes $615 million for
wildfire suppression. I thank her for her tremendous leadership in
putting together a strong bill, and I urge Congress to take up and pass
this legislation without delay to provide much needed support to these
suffering communities.
But it is not just Western States that feel the impact of wildfires.
In fact, a State such as Wisconsin is hurt very significantly by a
broken budget process called fire borrowing. It forces the U.S. Forest
Service to take funding intended to manage our forests and instead use
it for wildfire suppression. In fact, fire borrowing is a misnomer. The
money is never paid back. This cripples the U.S. Forest Service and
diverts critical funding from my home State and many others.
In Wisconsin, over 50,000 people are employed in the forest products
industry, from jobs in forestry and logging to paper makers in the
State's many mills. The industry pays over $3 billion in wages into the
State's economy and ships products worth over $17 billion each year.
Unfortunately, fire borrowing has led to long project delays that are
impacting this vital industry and jeopardizing the jobs which it
supports.
The practice of fire borrowing has increased in recent years,
triggered when we have a bad fire season and the Forest Service runs
out of funds available for firefighting. When the firefighting funding
is gone, the agency transfers funds from other parts of its budget and
borrows them to pay for the fire suppression. When these funds are
diverted, agency work is simply put on hold.
No business owner would select a supplier who couldn't provide a
clear delivery schedule or who would routinely delay delivery of
products for undetermined amounts of time. Loggers and other local
businesses that partner with the Forest Service have to deal with just
such uncertainty because of fire borrowing. Government can work better
than this.
Fortunately, the Senate emergency supplemental appropriations bill
would solve this broken process by treating the largest fires as other
natural disasters such as hurricanes or tornadoes, and it would
stabilize the rest of the Forest Service budget so that other essential
work, ranging from timber sales to the management of forest health, can
be completed on schedule.
Furthermore, the proposal is fiscally responsible, because it would
help reduce long-term costs by allowing for increased fire prevention
activities and because it would not increase the amount that Congress
can spend on natural disasters.
Ending fire borrowing has strong bipartisan support. In fact, over
120 Members of the House and Senate, and more than 200 groups ranging
from the timber industry to conservation groups, to the National Rifle
Association, support the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act--the bipartisan
bill that contains the fire borrowing fix included in the supplemental.
The consensus is we need to get this fix done this year.
While there is strong bipartisan support for ending fire borrowing,
it is unclear if the House of Representatives is going to support this
fix in the supplemental appropriations bill that is being considered
now. In fact, my friend, the House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan,
has consistently stood in the way of bipartisan solutions offered in
both the House and the Senate. He has ignored the fact that the current
budget structure is flawed and has resulted in the Forest Service
taking the forest management funding Wisconsin's forests rely upon and
instead using it to fight wildfires.
As his Republican House colleague Representative Mike Simpson
recently pointed out:
Unfortunately, continuing the status quo, as Chairman Ryan
advocates, prevents us
[[Page S4878]]
from reducing the cost and severity of future fires by
forcing agencies to rob the money that Congress has
appropriated for these priorities to pay for increasingly
unpredictable and costly suppression needs.
I urge my friend and fellow Wisconsinite to join us and support
ending fire borrowing.
I thank Chairwoman Mikulski and subcommittee Chairman Reed for
including this important provision in the supplemental bill. I wish to
also thank Senators Wyden and Crapo for their tireless leadership in
the fight to end fire borrowing.
The proposal included in the emergency appropriations supplemental is
a fiscally responsible solution to a devastating problem with wide-
ranging impacts. It will help us respond to wildfires and it will
support businesses and thousands of jobs in the timber industry in
Wisconsin as well as throughout the country.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate and in the House to come together
to solve this problem once and for all.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Unrest In Israel
Mr. HELLER. Madam President, last week the Washington Post ran an
opinion piece titled ``Moral clarity in Gaza.'' The thesis of the
article states that Israel is not interested in cross-border violence;
rather, the goal of the current military action is to establish peace.
I believe the writer correctly suggests that Israel has been left with
no choice but to act in order to defend herself from the terrorist
organization Hamas.
The piece also made the important conclusion that Hamas wants to
provoke a fight with Israel and that this group is willing to sacrifice
their own people in order to win international support and ultimately
undermine Israel's legitimacy and right to defend itself.
There is no question regarding Israel's legitimacy, and there is also
no question regarding Israel's right to defend itself. The
international community has affirmed this principle. Further, this body
affirmed Israel's right to defend itself when the Senate recently
passed Senator Graham's resolution on this matter.
As a cosponsor, I believe this resolution speaks in clear terms: The
Senate stands with Israel's right to defend itself, and it demands that
Hamas immediately--immediately--stop attacking Israel.
While the Senate has made its position on this issue clear, Israel
has been forced to take matters into its own hands. As we speak,
Israeli defense forces are engaged in Operation Protective Edge,
working to identify and destroy the infrastructure Hamas has used to
execute attacks and move artillery underneath Gaza City.
Recent reports have stated that the IDF has destroyed more than 20
tunnels and identified many more as ground troops moved from building
to building. They are utilizing air, ground, and sea to strike
designated targets and provide support as IDF works its way through
Gaza City.
The fighting will likely continue and more casualties on both sides
will increase until either a cease-fire can be negotiated or Israel
believes the tunnel system has been successfully negated.
I believe Israel has been left with no choice but to defend herself.
Israel has faced a barrage of rocket attacks from Gaza Strip, and
according to Secretary of State Kerry Hamas has attempted to sedate and
kidnap Israelis through the network of tunnels used to stage cross-
border raids.
Prime Minister Netanyahu cannot tolerate rocket attacks and cannot
tolerate kidnappings aimed at Israelis. Their right to defend
themselves is without question. But through the process, innocent
Palestinians are being killed. This tragic loss of innocent life must
not go unnoticed, but we must acknowledge Hamas's role in risking the
lives of their own through their own actions.
Hamas stores and launches rockets from heavily populated areas. They
do this because they know it will draw return fire from Israel, and
even if some Palestinians are killed, the coverage aired worldwide will
be favorable to Hamas and therefore well worth the loss. Hamas is
sacrificing its own to win a media war against Israel. In contrast, in
the lead-up to military action, Israel dropped thousands of leaflets
explaining to Palestinians where they can go to be safe.
There is no clearer picture of right versus wrong than Israel
fighting to protect its citizens against a terrorist operation
operating underground and using Palestinians they live with as human
shields.
Hamas is a terrorist organization willing to let women and children
die if there is a possibility it advances international sympathy for
them and underscores Israel in any way.
The footage of innocent Palestinians dying in Gaza is tragic, but the
blame is not at the foot of Israel; it is on Hamas.
Over the next weeks and months, the military action in Gaza may
escalate. If a cease-fire is not negotiated, the United States cannot
turn its back on Israel. We must continue to stand with them and allow
them to eradicate this terrorist threat and shut down these underground
tunnels. It is their right as a nation, and the United States must
stand with them.
I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I wish to compliment the distinguished
Senator from Nevada for his very cogent remarks. They are true, and I
appreciate his leadership on this matter.
Bring Jobs Home Act
Madam President, the Senate is currently debating the so-called Bring
Jobs Home Act--a bill supposedly aimed at preserving and creating jobs
in the United States. However, as I noted here on the floor yesterday,
the Bring Jobs Home Act is little more than political posturing and
election-year messaging. It really does get old. We have gone through
that over and over while we do not do what we ought to do for this
country.
The Senate Democrats want to portray the Republicans as the party of
outsourcing, which is a joke. So they have crafted a bill that will do
nothing to actually address the problem of outsourcing but will provide
them with a few days' worth of talking points on the subject. We went
through precisely this same exercise in 2012. We voted on the exact
same bill during the last election cycle. It was meaningless then, and
it is meaningless now.
As I said, I went over this yesterday. I talked at some length about
the shortcomings of this bill, and I do not want to rehash all of that
again today. Instead, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about
some things we could be doing to create and protect American jobs. I
have filed some amendments to this bill that I think would actually do
something along those lines. If we get a chance to offer amendments to
this bill--which is, of course, doubtful under the way the Senate is
currently being run--I think these are the types of amendments we
should consider.
One of my amendments is a four-part tax amendment that would help
businesses create jobs in the United States. If enacted, it would
provide additional cash flow for businesses that would allow them to
hire workers, increase wages, and invest in plant and equipment in the
United States, among other things. It would do so by making four
separate temporary tax provisions permanent.
The first of these provisions relates to section 179, small business
expensing. My amendment would permanently increase the amount of
equipment, certain real property, and software a business can deduct in
a year to $500,000 and index that amount to inflation. That makes
sense.
The second provision would make bonus depreciation permanent,
allowing businesses to permanently deduct 50 percent of the cost of
qualified property in the first year that property is placed in
service.
My amendment would also make the research and development tax credit
permanent, increasing the alternative simplified credit to 20 percent
and eliminating the traditional research and development credit test.
Finally, the amendment would permanently provide for a full exclusion
of capital gains income derived from the sale of stock of certain small
subchapter C corporations held on a long-term basis.
All of these would be tremendous amendments and would really create
jobs. They ought to be allowed on this
[[Page S4879]]
bill. Together, these four provisions would provide much needed
certainty for job-creating businesses and allow companies to more
effectively plan for the future.
If we are going to amend the Tax Code in the name of creating jobs,
this is a far better approach, as it removes uncertainty and simplifies
elements of the code. The Bring Jobs Home Act would actually do the
opposite.
I have also filed two health-related amendments to this bill.
The first of these amendments would repeal the medical device tax
that was included as part of the so-called Affordable Care Act.
ObamaCare's $24 billion tax on lifesaving and life-improving medical
devices is reducing U.S. employment.
A recent study by industry group AdvaMed estimated that the tax has
cost as many as 165,000 jobs. That is 165,000 American jobs eliminated
by this misguided tax. Ten percent of respondents to that survey have
relocated manufacturing outside of the country or expanded
manufacturing abroad rather than in the United States.
This would help solve the inversion problem, but our colleagues on
the other side will not do anything about it. Yet they are trying to
blame the Republicans for the inversion? Give me a break.
The tax is also curbing American innovation. Thirty percent of
AdvaMed survey respondents have reduced their investments in research
and development--30 percent.
If we really want to keep companies from moving American jobs
offshore, this is a far better approach. It is far more substantial,
and, as the survey data shows, it will have an immediate, real-world
impact on jobs in the United States.
It is bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats support repeal of the
medical device tax. Last year 79 Senators on this floor--including 34
Democrats--voted to repeal the tax. It really is a no-brainer. I hope
we can finally get a vote on it. But sooner or later, we are going to
get a vote on it, and it is going to be on a bill that will pass both
Houses.
My other health care amendment would repeal ObamaCare's job-killing
employer mandate. As we all know, the so-called Affordable Care Act
requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide health coverage
to their workers or pay a $2,000 tax per employee. This deters business
growth as it discourages small businesses from hiring more than 50
employees and has led many employers to cut workers' hours to keep from
going over the mandate's threshold. How stupid can we be? Even the
administration has acknowledged that the employer mandate is harmful.
They have already delayed it several times in hopes of delaying its
harmful impact during an election year. Isn't that nice?
If we really want to keep people in their jobs and encourage
businesses to hire more American workers, repealing the employer
mandate would go a long way.
My last amendment would advance U.S. trade policy by renewing trade
promotion authority. Specifically, the amendment contains the text of
the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014, a bill I
introduced in January along with Chairman Camp of the House Ways and
Means Committee and former chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator
Max Baucus of Montana.
This bill establishes 21st-century congressional negotiating
objectives and rules for the administration to follow when engaged in
trade talks, including strict requirements for congressional
consultations and access to information. If the administration follows
these rules, the bill provides special procedures to more quickly move
a negotiated deal through Congress.
Renewing TPA, which expired in 2007, is necessary to successfully
conclude ongoing trade negotiations, such as the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, the TPP, negotiations as well as free-trade agreement
talks with the European Union, often referred as T-TIP, involving 28
nations, including ours. These are two landmark trade deals with the
potential to greatly boost U.S. exports and create jobs here.
The TPP countries--which represent many of the fastest growing
economies in the world--accounted for 40 percent of total U.S. goods
exports in 2012. Think of the jobs that would be created.
Another, the EU, the European Union, purchased close to $460
billion--with a ``b''--in U.S. goods and services that same year,
supporting 2.4 million American jobs.
In addition, the United States is negotiating the Trade in Services
Agreement, or TISA, with 50 countries, covering about 50 percent of
global GDP and over 70 percent of global services trade. This agreement
would create many opportunities for U.S. jobs in this critical sector.
It is vital that we get these trade agreements over the finish line,
and the only way we are going to be able to do that is to renew trade
promotion authority. My amendment provides a reasonable, bipartisan
path forward on renewing TPA and would do far more to create jobs and
grow our economy than the legislation before us today, which is
minuscule in effort. As with other amendments, I hope we can vote on
this TPA amendment.
Of course, I am not the only Senator who has offered reasonable job-
creating amendments to the Bring Jobs Home Act. Numerous amendments
have already been offered, and I am sure more are on the way--or should
I say filed because we have been prohibited from really offering
amendments on these bills and really having a robust debate for a long
time now because of the actions of the current leadership of the
Senate. The Senate is hardly operating as the Senate always has in the
past; that is, in an effective, let's-be-positive way.
Sadly, if the recent past is any indication, there will not be any
votes on amendments to this bill. The Bring Jobs Home Act is not
designed to create jobs. It is not even designed to pass the Senate.
Once again, the entire purpose of this bill is to give Democrats some
political talking points as the August recess approaches. Having an
open and fair debate on amendments would distract from this partisan
goal. We understand that everything is partisan around here. Everything
is political right now. But my gosh, when are we going to start acting
as the Senate?
That being the case, it is doubtful that any amendments are going to
be considered on this legislation, which is, of course, a crying shame.
The stated purpose of this bill is to create and protect American jobs.
The Republicans have amendments that would do just that and more. I
mentioned a few such amendments that would have a far greater impact on
American workers and businesses than the bill before us today--most of
which are bipartisan amendments.
That is what is amazing to me. This is just a game that is being
played. It is really an irritating game to me. If we are serious about
the idea of creating jobs in the United States, let's have a real
debate about it. Let's discuss some alternative approaches. I know my
friends on the other side will have great ideas on some of these, if
they would be allowed to act like legislators for a change.
Let's talk about the real problems that are hampering job growth.
Let's set votes on some of the ideas we have proposed. I hope we can do
that this time around. But of course I am not under any illusions that
the Democratic leadership here in the Senate is about to change course
and let this body function the way it is supposed to. They are not
about to let the Senate be the Senate. They are not about to let both
sides have a full-fledged opportunity to improve these bills. They are
not about to allow full and fair debate on both sides.
To me, it is mind-boggling in the case of this bill. I hope I am
wrong. I hope we can get amendments up that would make this bill a real
bill about jobs, instead of just politics. But, sadly, I do not think I
am wrong. My experience has been that politics is triumphant around
here and getting the people's work done is secondary.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren.) The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S4880]]
Child Refugee Crisis
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the child refugee crisis on America's
border is a human tragedy.
Two weeks ago in Chicago I met 70 of these children. It was a meeting
I won't forget. These are children, some are infants. How they ever
made it to the United States is nothing short of a miracle, and many
who tried didn't.
Those who made it--some of them--come scarred from the journey--young
women who were assaulted, children who were beaten. Some lost their
lives on the way, but these were the survivors. They made it. They were
in a transitional shelter in Chicago that has been there for 19 years,
and 70 of them were getting physical exams and meals. As one person
there said, for the first time in their lives, many of them, were free
to be children.
These children are in the United States and they are testing us. It
is a test for the United States as to whether we care. I believe we are
a caring nation. We proved it over and over. How many times in far-
flung places in the world have we rallied--politically to stand behind
300 girls who were kidnapped in Nigeria, to be there during the Haitian
earthquake to make sure the families and children would at least have
shelter, medicine, and food. The list goes on and on for this caring
nation.
But this is different. This is not about a problem over there. This
is about a challenge here. What President Obama has said to us is we
must rise to this challenge. As we have in so many places in this
world, we must rise to the challenges at home. When it comes to these
children, we can be humane and caring and do the right thing.
He sent us a bill to pay for the services they need. It is expensive.
Some people argue it is too expensive. Well, we can argue about the
exact amount of money, but I hope we aren't arguing about the value and
the principle that is being tested. I hope we are not arguing about
whether the United States is a caring and compassionate nation.
I just left a meeting with the Presidents from the three Central
American countries which are responsible for 80 percent of these
refugees: El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Yesterday we met with
their Ambassadors.
It is easy to understand what is happening. It is easy to understand
when the economies are so poor in this area that families cannot feed
their children. It is easy to understand when the drug gangs are so
powerful that these children are being threatened, exploited, raped,
and killed. It is only then that in desperation some member of the
family says: There is only one chance. We send you to the United
States--putting these children in the hands of coyotes and smugglers
who take them on a journey that doesn't last hours but days and is
2,000 miles. Imagine. Imagine a mother taking her child to the freight
train--this 12-year-old boy--watching him climb up the ladder on the
side and hang on. She says: You will be there in 4 days.
Can you imagine that. Can you imagine the family in Honduras, who
before they send their young girl on this journey with the coyote,
giving her birth control pills in anticipation that she will likely be
sexually assaulted during the course of that journey? How desperate
must that family be? That is the reality of this human child refugee
crisis that we face.
The President has said we need to do several things. First, we need
to tell these countries: Don't send these children. It is too
dangerous, and when they have arrived, they have no special legal
rights to be citizens or to stay. We need to get that message through
loudly and clearly: Do not send your children. The countries involved--
Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala--are joining us now in getting
that message out.
Secondly, we need to start apprehending and prosecuting these
coyotes, these smugglers. They extort from these families 1 year of
wages to try to bring children into this country.
Some of these children are teenagers--most of them are--but many of
them are babies and infants.
Five women walked into the dining room at the shelter carrying
newborn babies. All of these women are from Honduras and all are
victims of rape. They had gone on these buses for 8 days to bring these
newborn infants to a safer place so that they might survive.
I am heartened by the fact that religious groups all around the
United States have rallied behind these children. I am proud the
Catholic Church--which I associate with; occasionally they associate
with me--I am proud the Catholic Church and the bishops have spoken.
Evangelicals are one of the first groups to come forward and say: We
have to do something for these children.
Even some of the most conservative political commentators have said:
First, America, show your heart that you care for these children.
That is what the President is asking us to do.
So let us take care, when we consider the supplemental appropriations
bill, that we don't lose sight of our values. To those who politically
disagree and sometimes even despise the President, I urge them not to
try to show how tough they are with this President at the expense of
these small children. Let's show how big we are as a nation first. The
political debate can be saved for another day.
I support this legislation. I think it is the right thing to do.
I want history to write this chapter about America, and I want it to
be a chapter of which we are proud. I want a future generation to look
back to this year and say that in this year, when the United States was
presented with this border crisis with children, America showed its
heart; America stood and did what was right for these children, as we
have so many times in the past.
Iron Dome
There are other parts of this bill. One of them is a section I have
worked on in my capacity as chairman of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee. This is called Iron Dome, and it is much different than a
debate about children or refugees.
Over the past 3 weeks, more than 2,000 rockets have been fired from
Gaza into Israel. According to press reports, civilian casualties have
been limited--maybe even only 2 out of 2,000 rockets. There are two
reasons for the low number of injuries from this barrage.
First, many of these rockets land in uninhabited areas. Second, these
rockets are headed for cities and towns, but these rockets are stopped
and destroyed before they strike their targets. The reason? The Iron
Dome missile defense system, a joint effort by the United States and
Israel to protect against just an attack. The United States and Israel
have deep ties on this program. Of the 10 Iron Dome batteries that have
been fielded, the United States provided funding for 8 of them. I am
pleased we have because this system has saved innocent lives.
Our country has been asked for additional assistance to ensure that
the Israeli stockpile of Iron Dome interceptors is adequate to the
challenge. We don't know when this crisis will end. Secretary of
Defense Chuck Hagel endorsed an additional $225 million in funding for
Iron Dome in a recent letter.
The requested funds are in addition to next year's appropriations. It
may be some time before the appropriations bills are enacted, and that
is why the President has asked to include in this supplemental
appropriation $225 million to speed up the production of Iron Dome
missiles.
The Senate simply has too little time. There is next week, and then
we are gone for 5 or 6 weeks, return for perhaps 2, and then we are
gone until November. So we have to act and act now.
This supplemental appropriations bill with the Iron Dome money needs
to pass. I am going to be supporting it. This is an emergency which is
front and center.
The Ambassador from Israel to the United States came to see me last
week. He said at one time two-thirds of the population of Israel was in
bomb shelters during these attacks. It is a serious threat to them.
Let me add too that all of us are praying this violence and war
between Gaza and Israel will come to an end soon, that they will
institute a cease-fire, sit at a table and resolve their differences.
But we cannot expect any country--not Israel, not the United States--
any country--to sit and take 2,000 incoming rockets and not respond.
This saves lives--the Iron Dome.
But now we need to take the next step, bringing peace to this region
so
[[Page S4881]]
that innocent people on both sides of the border are going to be
spared.
Hamas, a group which we have characterized as terrorist since the
late 1990s, is leading this attack on Israel. This terrorist group is
politically popular in some parts of Gaza. How do they protect their
rocket launchers? They place them in homes, they put them in crowded
areas, and they build tunnels under Gaza streets for their weapons and
to escape when they are attacked.
The latest report is they were building these tunnels under
hospitals, knowing that Israel and other countries would spare these
hospitals. Meanwhile, the hospitals are covering tunnels, which is just
the source of much more violence in the area.
Child Refugee Crisis
I wish to close on the issue about the child refugees. I see Senator
Portman of Ohio is on the floor. I will close and yield in a moment for
him.
One of the questions I asked of the Ambassadors from Honduras, El
Salvador, and Guatemala was this: We believe the children who come into
the United States once given a chance to state why they are here--we
believe that half of them or maybe more will be returned to their
countries.
I asked the Ambassadors from these countries: Can we have confidence
that if these children, who have come to our border, are returned back
to their countries, they will be safe. A simple question, Will they be
safe. Do you have people, charities, agencies of government to
guarantee that when they return, when they get off the plane or the
bus, they will be safe?
The Ambassador from Guatemala said: Yes, we do. The Ambassador from
Honduras said: No, we don't. The Ambassador from El Salvador said:
Neither do we.
Let us think about this for a moment. Let us reflect on this for a
moment. Let us make sure we do everything in our power to hand these
children over to a safe situation.
Let us work with these countries to stop the flow into this country,
but to make certain that when they return, they are returned to a safe
setting.
Can you believe that in Chicago a brother and a sister--a 6 year-old
and a 3-year-old brother and sister--came to one of these shelters? I
could see from the bruises on their bodies they had been through
something on their way here. It took 2 months before these children--
the 6-year-old--finally talked about what she can remember from this
horrendous journey. I won't recount the details, but it is
heartbreaking to think that a child of 6 years would have endured this
experience.
Let's do right by these children. Let's make sure at the end of the
day America has proven again we are a caring nation and that for those
children who come to our shores, come to our borders, we will treat
them humanely and compassionately, as we would want our own children to
be treated if they were ever in such a desperate circumstance.
Let's set the politics aside. Let's put these children front and
center.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Bring Jobs Home Act
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, earlier today the Senate voted to
proceed to debate on legislation called the Bring Jobs Home Act. It is
about tax reform. It is about the tax system in this country.
I am glad we are having the debate. I voted to proceed to the debate.
I think it is important we talk about it.
I had a reporter come to me earlier today who said: I hear that
Democrats are going to talk about inversions. That means when a company
of the United States goes overseas and buys a company--usually smaller
than they are--and then inverts, they become a foreign corporation.
They said: Are you concerned about that?
I said: No. I think that is great. I think we need to talk about it.
I think it is a hidden problem that no one is talking about, and I
think it is terrific that we are talking about it.
So I hope what will happen over the next week on the floor of the
Senate is we will have an honest conversation about what is happening
in our great country, where we have more and more American companies
saying, because of the Tax Code they are saddled with, they cannot
compete around the globe.
So what do they do? Having a responsibility to their shareholders,
they go and find either a foreign company to become part of and become
foreign--or they make themselves a foreign company by being acquired by
a foreign company. Some of them are simply not growing because they
can't compete with other companies from other countries that are buying
some of their assets.
A company recently came to me from Ohio, my home State, and said: We
do work in Korea. We were in South Korea. We wanted to buy this
subsidiary there so we could expand what we are doing in Korea and push
more of our product there, more of our exports there. We finished the
negotiation with the Korean company, and a company from Germany stepped
up and said: Do you know what. Whatever you guys have negotiated, we
will take it, but we will pay 18 percent more.
The reason the German company could pay 18 percent more is their
after-tax profits were higher, because the German tax code treats the
German company better than the American Tax Code treats the American
company. That is the reality, and it is happening.
Over the last 5 years, they say there have been 35 American companies
that have gone overseas through these inversions, but there are also a
lot of American companies that have become foreign entities.
I am a beer drinker, and it is hard to find an American company that
can sell you a beer these days. Why? Because they are almost all
foreign companies. The two largest American beer companies each have
about a 1.4-percent market share--Sam Adams and Yuengling. Great beers,
by the way. But this is sad to me.
It doesn't mean these companies have all left the United States. A
lot of them still have production here, breweries here, and so on. But
by headquartering somewhere else for tax purposes we lose something as
Americans. We lose executive jobs over time, but we lose this
intangible thing--which is, companies that are willing to invest in our
communities--in hometowns, like in my hometown, probably everything we
are involved with on the charitable side, some local company has been
involved with and helped with. A lot of them tend to be international
companies that do a lot to help make our cities a better place to live
and to work. But they do it partly because it is where their
headquarters is. This is where their towns are. If they are not here--
if they are in Dublin, Ireland, or if they are in London, England, or
if they are in Beijing or in Rio, Brazil, or somewhere else, they are
not going to be making those investments. So this is a big deal.
It is also a big deal because it is not just about the inversion. I
see that as kind of the tip of the iceberg. It is also about all these
companies that are losing right now in foreign competition because,
again, they can't compete. They have to pay more in terms of taxes than
their foreign competitors. So their foreign competitors can afford to
broaden their market share, get more customers, can afford to buy a
company when one comes up for acquisition.
I had a fellow come up recently from the Boston area. Boston does a
lot of biopharmaceutical research, as the Presiding Officer knows. It
is very exciting what is going on there, and throughout our country. We
are still doing top-notch research. They showed me the list of
companies that have been purchased in the last 4 or 5 years.
Unfortunately, the majority of those companies were purchased by a
foreign company. It wasn't by a U.S. company coming in and
consolidating. It was by a company under different tax laws--a Swiss
company, a French company, a German company, or a Japanese company--
that had bought an American company, the majority of them--by far the
majority. This is happening all over the country, and it is happening
under our noses.
We are sitting here in Washington, allowing this to happen because we
are abdicating our responsibility to reform the Tax Code so that it is
competitive.
By the way, we are the only country that is not waking up to this.
Every single one of the other developed countries in the world--the
countries that are members of what is called the
[[Page S4882]]
OECD, which is all the developed countries--every single one of them is
reforming their tax code, except us.
In the 1980s, we established the rate we have now, which is 35 now--
then it was 34 percent. When we add the State tax rates for the
companies, it is about 39 percent on average in America. We are the
highest rate in the world.
So at the time we set our rate in the mid-thirties, that was just
below the average. It was done deliberately, and it was done as part of
the 1986 tax reform. We said: Let's set the business rate at something
below the average so we can be competitive.
But since that time, we have become the highest rate, and every
single one of our developed country competitors--all of them--have
reformed their tax code and lowered their rate.
But they haven't just lowered their rate to make us No. 1 in the
world--which is not a No. 1 you want to be if you want to compete and
develop jobs--they have also reformed their tax code to make it more
competitive internationally. We haven't done that. We have been
bystanders in this effort to attract jobs and investment opportunities.
We still have what is called the worldwide system, where we don't tax
income where it is earned. That has created a real problem.
So I am glad we are having this debate on the floor. I am glad there
is an opportunity to talk about this. I must say that, unfortunately,
the bill before us, the Bring Jobs Home Act, is not going to help
because it doesn't get at this underlying problem we have been talking
about today. It does nothing about lowering the rate. It does nothing
about changing the international system of taxation. It tinkers around
the edges with one issue, and that is to remove deductions and tax
credits that, according to the authors of the bill, incentivizes
companies to move overseas.
There is a group here in Washington called the Joint Committee on
Taxation. They are nonpartisan, and they tell us in Congress what tax
policy means, how much it costs, and what the effects are going to be.
Here is what they say:
Under present law, there are no targeted tax credits or
disallowances of deductions related to relocating business
units inside or outside the United States.
So why are we having this debate? Why aren't we debating the core
issue--the real problem? I guess because this is the better political
debate and it is easier to do. But it is not going to help. It would be
nice if there were these targeted tax credits that some of the authors
claim, because then we could get rid of those and that might help some.
But, as the Joint Committee on Taxation has said, that doesn't exist.
Let's take a look at the numbers.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the very small tweaks
this legislation will make to the Tax Code by disallowing some of these
deductions will amount to around $143 million over 10 years. So they
say $143 million over 10 years, because even though there is no
targeted allowance or targeted tax credits, they think this legislation
will have some effect on the way the IRS will interpret it. By the way,
it is left up to the IRS to interpret it, and it is a subjective
decision by the IRS since it is not targeted.
But let's say that $143 million over 10 years is the right number.
That is what the Joint Committee says. So $143 million over 10 years.
Let me give one example.
There is a company in Ohio that is about a Fortune 200 or Fortune 300
company. So it is a big company--not the biggest company, but it is a
big company in Ohio. They decided a year or so ago to do an inversion.
They bought a company that was one-quarter their size overseas and they
became a foreign company. Based on the public filings, we know this
year that company will save $160 million on its taxes because it chose
to become a foreign company. That is wrong. Our tax system should be
fair, it should be competitive. It shouldn't be driving these companies
to do this on behalf of their shareholders and under their fiduciary
responsibility.
That is $160 million a year versus this bill that, even if it works
as the folks are talking about, is intended to be a $143 million impact
over 10 years. See what I mean about this not being a serious proposal?
Let's get at the core problem.
The other problem is, if we continue to make it harder to be a U.S.
company--whether it is to take away a tax credit, whether it is to take
away a deduction, whether it is to do something else, to try to block
inversion, what will happen? What happens every time we try to put up a
wall to stop something but don't deal with the underlying problem?
These companies will continue to look overseas, and they will be
targets for acquisition.
We talked about the fact that there are no American beer companies
anymore, except ones that have less than 2 percent market share. These
companies didn't invert. They were bought by foreign companies. That is
happening right and left in America, and that is what would happen even
more if we make it even more disadvantageous to be an American company
because we are trying to block this.
We have to get at the core issue. We can't have the highest tax in
the world, and we can't have an international system that is not
competitive and hope to have these companies stay American companies.
So let's deal with the underlying problem.
Thirty-five companies over the past 5 years have chosen to invert,
but so many others have done other things to try to be competitive,
including to sell to foreign companies, or not to grow, not to be able
to compete with acquisitions, because their after-tax profits are not
as high as their foreign competitors.
It is not going to be easy to do tax reform. I understand that. It is
never easy. That is not what we were hired to do, the easy things. We
are on the floor right now debating this proposal called the Bring the
Jobs Home Act, which I think is a misnomer, unfortunately. I guess that
would be easy. It wouldn't help, but it would seem easy.
Tax reform is going to be hard, because we do have to lower the rate
and broaden the base and get rid of some of these deductions and
credits and exemptions and so on that are out there. The Tax Code is
now riddled with them. Everybody likes their special provisions. But it
is an effort well worth undertaking, because it is about our economy,
it is about our future, it is about our kids having jobs here. It is
about keeping American companies here. We simply have to do it.
By the way, Congress has done this before. We did it back in 1986. It
was led by a Republican, Ronald Reagan, and a Democrat here in the
Senate, Bill Bradley; and in the House, Dan Rostenkowski, Tip O'Neill.
This was a bipartisan effort. It should be again. There is no reason it
shouldn't be bipartisan.
The President has talked about it as a big problem right now in our
economy, that our Tax Code is so inefficient, antiquated, needs to be
updated. He has talked about lowering the rate, broadening the base. I
agree with him, let's do it. Unfortunately, we haven't seen a proposal
from the administration.
We had a hearing on this recently and I asked the administration:
Where is the proposal?
They said: Well, we are interested in working with you.
Great. I am, too. All of us are.
Some Republicans, including Dave Camp, have put out very specific
proposals in the House Ways and Means Committee.
We have to move forward on this. And we have done this before. We can
do hard things. It is our job to do hard things. We did welfare reform
a year before an election--actually, months before election day, with
President Clinton, working with Republicans, including Newt Gingrich.
This seems to be the kind of thing that is harder and harder to do
around here, and yet there is more and more urgency to do it.
People call it corporate tax reform or business tax reform and think:
It must be about the boardroom and about the executives. It is not.
They will be fine either way. We don't need to worry about them. We
need to worry about the workers. CBO, the Congressional Budget Office,
which is the group that analyzes legislation, has looked at this and
said: Do you know who is hurt more by these high corporate taxes we
have? It is the workers, of course. More than 70 percent of the burden,
they said, is borne by the workers in the
[[Page S4883]]
form of lower pay, lower benefits, and fewer job opportunities.
So we need to do this not because we are looking to help the
boardroom but because we are looking to help the American worker at a
time when it is already tough.
Over the last 5 years, they say, average take-home pay has gone down
about $3,500 for a typical family. So pay is not going up, it has gone
down. Health care costs have gone up. In fact, they are skyrocketing.
I talked to some folks in Ohio last weekend who asked: Why aren't you
doing more to get health care costs down?
I said: Well, I didn't support the ObamaCare proposal. It was
promised that the costs would go down, and they are now going up. That
is why we need real health care reform.
This is a middle-class squeeze. Health care costs are up, and wages
are down, now stagnant. This is an opportunity, not through a sideshow
like we are going to see on the floor here talking about how to do
these tweaks that aren't going to make any difference, but to really
get at the problem is the way to get payback. That is what the
Congressional Budget Office tells us.
Our Tax Code should draw companies to our shores, should bring
investment here and bring jobs here instead of pushing companies away.
All we are looking for is a level playing field. If Americans have a
level playing field here, we will be able to be competitive, and we
will be able to bring back jobs. We have the greatest innovators in the
world, we have the greatest resources, and we have incredible
infrastructure in this country. We have a lot of advantages. Our energy
advantage now, thanks to what we are doing now on private lands--we
should do more on public lands, but what we are doing on private lands
is really giving us an advantage in terms of a stable supply of
relatively low-cost natural gas, particularly for manufacturing. We see
this in Ohio. It is a great opportunity, but to take advantage of that
opportunity, we have to reform and improve these basic institutions of
our economy, including the Tax Code.
By the way, it is not just the Tax Code, it is about regulatory
relief to ensure that American companies are not being saddled, as they
are now, with higher and higher costs and more and more regulations
that make it harder for them to compete, make it harder for them to
create jobs.
It is also about being assured that we have a trade policy that
actually works to expand exports. That is a huge issue in my home State
of Ohio. We do a lot of exporting. We could do a whole lot more.
Twenty-five percent of our factory jobs are now export trade jobs. One
in every three acres planted in Ohio is now exported. We want to do
more. That gets the prices up for farmers. That is adding more jobs and
creating more opportunity for good-paying jobs. These great jobs tend
to pay more and have better benefits. We are sitting on the sidelines
there too.
Congress could move quickly to provide this President with the
negotiating authority every President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt
has had. Since FDR, every President has also asked for it. This
President has now asked for it. You heard him in his State of the Union
earlier this year. He hadn't asked for it earlier in his term, but now
he has asked for it. Let's provide it to him. Let's give him the
ability to knock down the barriers of trade for our workers, our
service providers, and our farmers to get this economy moving, along
with tax reform and regulatory reform. These are things that would
actually make it better for the American people.
On the regulatory side, I am offering amendments in the context of
this legislation, and they are bipartisan amendments. One has to do
with ensuring that we do allow companies to permit something more
quickly. Right now it can take years to permit a project in the United
States of America. We have a bipartisan bill. Senator McCaskill and I
are the two lead sponsors, but we have other Democrats and Republicans
onboard saying this is just common sense. Let's make one agency
accountable. Let's be sure there is a way for everybody to
transparently look at a windshield and see what the status of the
project is and move it forward. Let's reduce some of the legal
liability in some of these projects.
What people tell me--whether it is the solar companies I talked to
yesterday or whether it is some of the oil and gas producers or whether
it is some of the wind companies or whether it is the hydro people who
brought this to my attention initially a few years ago--they cannot get
foreign investors because it takes so long to permit something in
America.
We used to be at the top of the heap, by the way, and now in the
annual ease-of-doing-business surveys that are done, America has fallen
behind. America is now something like 34th in the world in terms of the
ease of doing business on permitting because more and more regulations
have been added. For an energy project, there are sometimes up to 34
Federal regulations. Usually it is one after the other because there is
no coordination and accountability.
That is what this bill does. It is very simple. It is common sense.
It already passed the House. It is the kind of bill that, if passed,
would create jobs and good construction jobs, which is why the building
trades support it.
By the way, the labor unions, building trades, and others who support
this kind of legislation do so because they figured out that America
cannot be competitive unless we have these basic institutions of our
economy--whether it is regulatory reform or whether it is a smarter
energy policy or whether it is the ability to have a tax code that
works, they want to be sure we are expanding opportunities for their
members. So I appreciate the building trades stepping forward.
The other one is simply to make sure regulations are accountable,
make sure there is a cost-benefit analysis, make sure we use the least
burdensome alternative in Washington, DC, to get to a policy that is
passed by the Congress--commonsense stuff. Again, that has passed the
House, too, with bipartisan support.
I am offering these because I do think it is important for us to have
this debate on tax reform, and I look forward to further debate on
Monday and Tuesday of next week. I think this is a great opportunity
for us to talk about the real problems.
I am not going to support this solution because I don't think it will
help, but I welcome the debate, and I am glad we have proceeded to this
debate. I am glad my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
raising this issue.
To the reporter who asked the question I got today--Are you concerned
that Democrats are talking about inversions?--no, I am really happy
they are talking about it. We should all be talking about it--
Republicans, Democrats, Independents alike. As Americans, we should be
focused on this issue and the broader issue that by our companies not
being competitive, we are hurting American workers. If we don't turn
this around--not by show votes, not by something that looks good
politically but doesn't make any difference, but by actually getting at
the root of the problem--the highest rate in the developed world, an
international system that doesn't let us be competitive globally
because people cannot move around their assets to find the best, most
efficient use for them--those two issues, if addressed, will unlock all
kinds of opportunities. That is the potential we have. There is a
better day ahead, right around the corner, if we do some of these basic
things.
I was also asked today at a press conference we do every week with
Ohio reporters: How would you grade this Congress? Are they doing the
things they ought to be doing?
I have to tell you there are small things that have been done, but,
no, Congress is not doing the work of the people. And the work of the
people at its core means that the laws, the Federal laws that this
place alone--the House and the Senate and the President--have control
over, those laws need to help the American people to be successful. It
needs to be an environment for success, an environment for people to be
able to say: Hey, my kids and grandkids could have it better than I
have it because we see America on the upswing.
That is not what we see today--the weakest economic recovery since
the Great Depression. I talked about wages going down, not up. I talked
about the higher cost of health care. I talked about the fact that we
have now in this
[[Page S4884]]
country a lot of people who are discouraged about the future.
CNN did a poll recently, and normally when people are asked in a poll
whether they think their kids or grandkids are better off, they say:
Yes. That is the American dream. The next generation will be better
off.
That is what my grandparents believed, and that is what my parents
believed. That is not what today's generation believes. Sixty-three
percent of the people said: No, I don't believe that is going to
happen.
What is even more troubling is that 63 percent of young people do not
believe that. They don't believe their lives are better off than their
parents'. We can change that.
I hope we get a vote on these amendments I talked about. I hope we
will have a good discussion and debate on these issues. We owe it to
the people we represent to solve these big problems.
I thank you for the time, Madam President, and I yield the floor.
Moment of Silence
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
observe a moment of silence in remembering Officer Jacob J. Chestnut
and Detective John N. Gibson of the United States Capitol Police.
(Moment of silence.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask to be recognized as if in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
Israeli-Gaza Conflict
Mr. RUBIO. Thank you, Madam President.
I come to the floor today to discuss the ongoing situation in Israel.
We all watch with great concern the images of the loss of life, young
children, innocents who have lost their lives over the last few days,
and also the men and women who served in the defense forces of Israel
who have lost their lives in this operation. Our hearts also go out to
the men and women who live in the nation of Israel who are living under
the constant threat of rockets that are coming over from Gaza.
I came to the Senate floor a week ago to express not simply my
concerns with this but also my solidarity--and I believe that of almost
everyone in this body--with our ally Israel, and I received a response,
a pretty heated letter from the Palestinian Ambassador in Washington,
DC. He expressed outrage that I and my colleagues had not expressed the
same level of concern for Palestinians as we had for the Israelis. He
particularly pointed to the case of the three murdered Israelis but
said we had not expressed similar feelings for the young Palestinian
who lost his life.
I responded to his letter by pointing out a number of things. The
first is that I believe that I and all my colleagues wish and pray and
will do all we can to further the ideal that the Palestinian people
could live peacefully side-by-side with their Israeli neighbors. It is
a sentiment I expressed when I visited the Palestinian officials in the
West Bank a year and a half ago.
But I also expressed that there was a significant difference between
the way Israel and the Palestinians reacted to these two horrible
incidents. The Palestinian Authority had to be basically nudged into
expressing any sentiment about the three young people who were missing
at the time. In fact, when the bodies were discovered, it led to street
demonstrations. It led to celebrations on the streets of the West Bank
and Gaza.
In Israel, the discovery of the death of the young Palestinian led to
strong statements by the Prime Minister and condemnation. It led to a
phone call from the Prime Minister to the family of the Palestinian. It
led to visits by Israelis to the family of the Palestinian. It led to
real outrage. There was a difference there, although both are horrible
tragedies.
But I think there is something now emerging that is not being talked
about. We have all seen the images of people being killed, civilians
who are losing their lives in Gaza, and some are beginning to say that
this is all Israel's fault, that this is Israel's fault. In fact,
earlier today--or maybe it was last night--the Prime Minister of Turkey
said that what the Israelis are doing in Gaza is worse than what Adolf
Hitler did to the Jews. It is, of course, a ridiculous statement, but
it gives an indication of where this is headed.
There is a story here that is not being told and that the Palestinian
Ambassador himself has ignored, as I point to in my response to him.
The first thing he ignores is that we have never in the modern history
of the world seen any organization use human shields like Hamas is
using human shields today. In fact, the reality behind it is
unbelievable.
I would like to read from some press accounts with regards to this.
Washington Post correspondent William Booth, reporting from Gaza,
wrote in an article on the 15th of July:
At the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, crowds gathered to
throw shoes and eggs at the Palestinian Authority's health
minister, who represents the crumbling ``unity government''
in the West Bank city of Ramallah. The minister was turned
away before he reached the hospital, which has become a de
facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the
hallways and offices.
Another report by the Washington Post on July 17 recounts:
During the lull--
I imagine in the action--
a group of men at a mosque in northern Gaza said they had
returned to clean up the green glass from windows shattered
in the previous day's bombardment. But they could be seen
moving small rockets into the mosque.
The Japanese Mainichi Daily's correspondent in Gaza reported on July
21:
Hamas criticizes that ``Israel massacres civilians.'' On
the other hand, it tries to use evacuating civilians and
journalists by stopping them and turning them into ``human
shields,'' counteracting thoroughly with its guerilla tactics
. . .
It doesn't end there. A Globe and Mail correspondent in Gaza, Patrick
Martin, wrote on July 20:
The presence of militant fighters in the Shejaia became
clear Sunday afternoon when, under the cover of a
humanitarian truce intended to allow both sides to remove the
dead and wounded, several armed Palestinians scurried from
the scene.
Some bore their weapons openly, slung over their shoulder,
but at least two, disguised as women, were seen walking off
with weapons partly concealed under their robes. Another had
his weapon wrapped in a baby blanket and held on his chest as
if it were an infant.
If you think that is bad, it gets worse. I obviously cannot play a
video on the floor of the Senate, so instead I will read a statement
from Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri. This is a quote on television
in Gaza:
The people oppose the Israeli fighter planes with their
bodies alone . . . I think this method has proven effective
against the occupation. It also reflects the nature of our
heroic and brave people, and we, the [Hamas] movement, call
on our people to adopt this method in order to protect the
Palestinian homes.
The response to this is, Israel drops fliers and sends text messages
and makes phone calls telling people--civilians--we are going to
undertake a military operation, you should leave the area. What does
Hamas do? I will tell you what they do.
This is from the Facebook page of their Interior Ministry
spokesperson:
An important and urgent message: The [Hamas] Ministry of
the Interior and National Security calls on our honorable
people in all parts of the [Gaza] Strip to ignore the
warnings [to vacate areas near rocket launching sites before
Israel bombs them] that are being disseminated by the Israeli
occupation through manifestos and phone messages, as these
are part of a psychological war meant to sow confusion on the
[Palestinian] home front, in light of the [Israeli] enemy's
security failure and its confusion and bewilderment.
This next statement was on television on July 14:
We call on our Palestinian people, particularly the
residents of northwest Gaza, not to obey what is written in
the pamphlets distributed by the Israeli occupation army. We
call on them to remain in their homes and disregard the
demands to leave, however serious the threat may be.
[[Page S4885]]
This is evidence that Hamas is using its own people as human shields.
It doesn't stop there, Mr. Ambassador. Ask yourself: Why did your
organization--why did your government--unify with this terrorist
organization that uses its own people as a human shield? You didn't
mention that in your letter. You didn't mention in your letter that you
aligned yourself with an organization that calls for the destruction of
the Jewish state. You left that out of your letter as well, Mr.
Ambassador.
What has been the international reaction to this? Well, I already
told you about what came out of Turkey. Just yesterday the so-called
United Nations Human Rights Council--and I say so-called because it has
such distinguished human rights beacons as Cuba and China on its
membership--voted unanimously, except for the United States, to condemn
Israel and to call for an investigation into war crimes against Israel.
There is a 700-page document that briefly mentions rockets and does not
mention Hamas or human shields whatsoever. Meanwhile, this crisis
continues.
What do we see coming out of Hamas? Have they stopped what they are
doing beyond the human shields? No. What we discovered--and what has
been discovered now--is an intricate web of underground tunnels
designed to bring killers into the Israeli territory. They attempted,
by the way, to carry out a massacre at a kibbutz near the border with
Gaza. Luckily they were intercepted by Israeli defense forces. They
discovered tranquilizers in their possession, the purpose of which, of
course, was to use them to abduct and kidnap Israelis and take them
back to Gaza for ransom or worse. The rockets continue to rain down as
well.
You also didn't mention in your letter, Mr. Ambassador, the cease-
fire, which, by the way, Israel agreed to even though it was extremely
unpopular in Israel. Why? Because three times in the last 5 years they
had to face this.
I want you to imagine for a moment that you lived in a country with a
neighbor that blitzed you three times in the last 5 years with rockets,
trying to kill your children and destroy your cities and disrupt and
paralyze your economy. There comes a point where you say enough is
enough, we have to put an end to this. So you can just imagine how
unpopular that cease-fire must have been among some elements of the
cabinet and the unity government in Israel, and certainly among the
population. Yet the Prime Minister went ahead with it because they
desire peace, and in just a few hours Hamas violated the cease-fire.
So please don't come to me and say that both sides are to blame here.
That is not true. This crisis would end tomorrow if Hamas would turn
over its rockets and stop bombarding people. This would end tomorrow,
by the way, if the Hamas commanders were not such cowards. I will tell
you why they are cowards. While they are on TV asking these people to
go to the rooftops of these buildings, you know where they are? They
are hiding in their basement command center, which, by the way, is
located in the basement underneath a hospital.
This would end tomorrow--the civilian deaths could end tomorrow--if
they stopped storing rockets in schools, including a U.N. school. By
the way, when the U.N. discovered these rockets, do you know what they
did with them? They turned them back over to Hamas. Don't tell me both
sides are to blame here because it is not true. It is not true. This is
the result of one thing and one thing alone: Hamas has decided to
launch rockets against Israel, Hamas has decided to build this
extensive network of underground tunnels so that in a moment of
conflict they can get these commandos into Israel and kill Israelis.
What is Israel doing? What any country would do. Of course this is
not an excellent example, but imagine for a moment if one of our
neighboring countries decided to start hitting us with rockets. What
would the United States do? Would we sit there and say: We really have
to be restrained and hold back here? We would not tolerate that.
Imagine that every night and every morning sirens were going off in
your city because rockets were on their way in and you spent the better
part of the day running in and out of shelters and taking cover. What
would you say? You would say: Take care of this problem once and for
all.
Why would we ever ask Israel to do anything less than we would do if
we were in the same situation? And that is what they are doing.
In the process of taking care of the situation, tragically, civilians
are dying, and do you know why? Because Hamas is deliberately putting
them in the way. I just read the quotes. Hamas is asking their people
to do what their leaders won't do. They are asking their own people to
get in harm's way and act as human shields because they want these
images to be spread around the world. They are willing to sacrifice
their own people to win a PR war.
I think it is absolutely outrageous that some in the press corps
domestically and most of the press corps internationally are falling
for this game. So please don't tell me that both sides are to blame
here, and please don't tell me this was caused by Israel.
In my time here in the Senate, I had the opportunity to visit
multiple countries. I have never met a people more desirous of peace
than the people in Israel. But peace cannot mean your destruction, and
that is what they are facing here--an enemy force that wants to destroy
them and wipe them out as a country. It is impossible to reach any sort
of peace agreement with an organization like that. That is what Israel
is facing here.
Mr. Ambassador, I ask that you go back to your government and ask
them to separate completely from Hamas, condemn what Hamas is doing to
your own people--condemn the use of human shields. That is what I ask
you to do. Stop writing letters to Senators and being angry at us when,
by the way--although we should not be doing it because the law says no
money should be going toward any organization linked with Hamas--the
United States has been helping you to stand up your security forces in
the West Bank through our taxpayer money. Don't write letters to the
U.S. Congress complaining to us about what Israel is doing when the
people you just created a unity government with are launching rockets
against civilians in Israel and using its own people as human shields.
I think you need to take responsibility for your own people and your
own part of the world. If you truly want peace, peace begins with
laying down your arms and stopping these attacks and condemning those
who are conducting these attacks and using innocent civilians as human
shields. If you want peace, that is what you should spend your time
doing and not trying to rally public support around the world for the
idea that Israel is responsible for war crimes.
From our perspective, I hope the United States continues to be firmly
on the side of Israel because there is no moral equivalency here. What
is happening between Israel and Hamas is totally 100 percent the fault
of Hamas. There is no moral equivalency here. All of the blame lies on
Hamas.
For this crisis to end, Hamas must either be eliminated as an
organization or they must lay down their weapons and adhere to the true
precepts of peace, which is the desire to live peacefully side by side
with our neighbors in Israel.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Alabama.
Border Security
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are dealing with a very disturbing
crisis on our borders. The situation that has developed is
unbelievable. It is unbelievable how rapidly it has developed, but it
has, indeed, been building up for more than a year. It is a direct and
predictable result of the President's policies and not enforcing the
laws of the United States when it comes to immigration. It is a very
sad day, and it can only end when the President stops suspending laws
and starts enforcing laws.
The President is the chief law enforcement officer in America. Every
Border Patrol officer, every ICE officer, every Coast Guard officer,
every military officer, every Department of Justice employee, and FBI
employee works for him. He supervises them and directs them. He has
been directing them not to enforce the law rather than to enforce the
law. The evidence of that is undeniable.
The law enforcement officers--the ICE officers, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement officers--sued their supervisor directly appointed
by President
[[Page S4886]]
Obama for blocking them from fulfilling their oath to enforce the laws
of the United States of America. There is a Federal court case that is
still ongoing, and the judge found, at least at one point in his order,
that the President has no right to direct officers not to comply with
the law.
We now know that we are facing an exceedingly grave threat of an
unbelievable expansion of his unilateral Executive orders of amnesty
that go beyond anything we have ever seen in this country and which
threatens the very constitutional framework of our Republic and the
very ability of this Nation to even have borders, it seems to me, and
certainly to create a lawful, equitable, consistent enforcement in our
country.
The respected newspaper National Journal, which is here in
Washington, a nonpartisan and respected organization, reported on July
3--and a lot of people have missed this, and we need to know what this
is saying. We need to know what it means, and we need, as Members of
Congress and this Senate, to resist it. We cannot allow it to happen.
We will not allow it to happen. The American people, when they find out
what is being discussed, will not allow it to happen, in my opinion.
Congress needs to be directed by the people--I hate to say--to resist
it. It says:
Obama made it clear he would press his executive powers to
the limit. He gave quiet credence to recommendations from La
Raza and other immigration groups that between 5 million to 6
million adult illegal immigrants could be spared deportation
under a similar form of deferred adjudication he ordered for
the so-called Dreamers in June 2012.
The DREAMers being the young people. Five to 6 million would be given
legal status in the United States of America when they have entered
contrary to law or are in the country contrary to law and are not
entitled to work in America.
The article goes on to say:
Obama has now ordered the Homeland Security and Justice
departments to find executive authorities that could enlarge
that non-prosecutorial umbrella by a factor of 10. Senior
officials also tell me Obama wants to see what he can do
with Executive power to provide temporary legal status to
undocumented adults.
What we know is with the children's group, they were provided with an
ID card that at the top of it, in big print, says, ``employee
authorization card.'' This is exactly what is being talked about here,
what the President of the United States is saying.
Remember, the Congress has been asked by activist groups and certain
business interests to provide an amnesty for people who are here. The
Congress has declined to do so. It has been fully and openly debated
and has not passed into law. That is the decision of the Congress. That
is the decision we have made--the duly elected body that passes laws.
As such, they not having been given amnesty, the President of the
United States is not entitled to do so. By declaration of duly passed
law, people aren't entitled to come to America unlawfully, to come to
America and stay unlawfully. They are not entitled to do that. How
simple is this? They are not entitled to be able to take jobs if they
do. They are not entitled to certain government benefits if they come
illegally. Of course they are not. Of course they are not able to work
and take jobs and get benefits if they came into the country illegally.
So when this first got talked about in more general terms, 22 Members
of the Senate wrote President Obama and questioned what we are hearing.
The Senators wrote this:
These policies have operated as an effective repeal of duly
enacted federal immigration law and exceed the bounds of the
Executive Branch's prosecutorial discretion. It is not the
province of the Executive to nullify the laws that the people
of the United States, through their elected representatives,
have chosen to enact. To the contrary, it is the duty of the
Executive to take care that these laws are faithfully
executed. Congress has not passed laws permitting people to
illegally enter the country or to ignore their visa
expiration dates, so long as they do not have a felony
conviction or other severe offense on their record. Your
actions demonstrate an astonishing disregard for the
Constitution, the rule of law, and the rights of American
citizens and legal residents.
Our entire constitutional system--
The letter goes on to say--
is threatened when the Executive Branch suspends the law at
its whim and our nation's sovereignty is imperiled when the
commander-in-chief refuses to defend the integrity of its
borders.
You swore an oath--
The letter says to the President--
to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States. We therefore ask you to uphold that oath and
to carry out the duties required by the Constitution and
entrusted to you by the American people.
The President is limited. He is not all-powerful. He is entrusted
with certain limited powers by the people of the United States of
America.
Now we understand he intends to go even further. In the response we
got back, he never addressed it at all, except for his Secretary of
Homeland Security, Mr. Jeh Johnson. He announced that, yes, he is
indeed, at the order of the President of the United States, conducting
a review of how many other people he can provide this amnesty for and
work authorization for.
So last week one of our able colleagues, Senator Ted Cruz--a former
solicitor general for the attorney general's office in Texas who has
argued cases in appellate courts in the country--identified this
problem and proposed I think a legislative fix that every Member of
this body should sign. Some may say, Well, the President, I don't think
he is going to do this. OK. Why not bar him from doing it? Some say, I
don't think we should sign it. Why not? He basically said he has
already done it with the younger group, and he said it is going to be a
tenfold increase in the 5 million to 6 million people who are suggested
to be legalized by the President's unilateral Executive order;
represents about 10 times the number of people who have already been
given lawful status, in effect, by the President's unlawful Executive
order.
At this time perhaps it would be appropriate, and I would appreciate
it, if the Senator from Texas would explain his analysis of this issue
and how his legislation would be effective in ensuring that we don't go
down this illegal road any further.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the junior Senator from
Alabama, for his very kind comments and for his relentless leadership
in defense of the rule of law and standing against amnesty.
What I wish to speak about this afternoon is the humanitarian crisis
that is playing out on our southern border right now and the abdication
of responsibility that is playing out in Washington, DC.
A couple of weeks ago President Obama was in my home State of Texas.
He found time to go to two Democratic Party fundraisers, to pal around
with some Democratic Party fat cats, to collect a whole bunch of
checks. Yet somehow he didn't have time to make it down to our southern
border.
The day before he was in Colorado and he found time to play a game of
pool with the Governor there. I am glad he enjoyed himself playing
pool. Yet somehow he didn't have time to go visit Lackland Air Force
Base and see the 1,200 children who are being held there who are paying
the price for the failure of the Obama immigration policy. In the
coming weeks he is headed to Martha's Vineyard. He is, I am sure, going
to enjoy himself paling around with swells. Yet the people held in
detention facilities up and down the border are not going to see the
Commander in Chief because he cannot be bothered to address the human
suffering.
He was just in California, in Hollywood, where the producer of
``Scandal'' hosted him. That is kind of fitting because it is
scandalous that the President has more time to be ``Fundraiser in
Chief'' than he does to do his basic job as Commander in Chief in
securing our borders.
Let me tell my colleagues, while the President was running around
collecting checks from Democratic Party fat cats, I was back home in
Texas. I was on the border this weekend down in McAllen. I sat down
with the chief of the Border Patrol in McAllen. I sat down with the
line officers of the Border Patrol in McAllen. I visited the detention
facilities that are being constructed to hold these children. I saw a
remarkable facility. It used to be a gigantic warehouse, and in 18 days
the Border Patrol had to stand up a facility to house 1,000 children
because that is the volume coming through there every couple of days.
[[Page S4887]]
The President is right in one regard. He has publicly stated we are
seeing a humanitarian crisis, and that is correct, but it is a crisis
of his own creation. This humanitarian crisis is the direct consequence
of President Obama's lawlessness. I will note he cannot even be
bothered to cast his eyes on the people who are suffering because of
it.
If we want to know what is causing this crisis, a simple examination
of the numbers will suffice. Just 3 years ago, in 2011, the number of
unaccompanied children entering this country was roughly 6,000. Then,
in June of 2012, just a few months before the election, President Obama
unilaterally granted amnesty to some 800,000 people who were here
illegally in this country who entered as children. He did so,
presumably, because he thought there would be a political benefit. It
was a few months before an election and he thought there was good
politics in ignoring the law and granting amnesty. But the foreseeable
consequence of that amnesty--the predictable and the predicted
consequence of that amnesty--if we tell people across the globe that if
they enter as children, they get amnesty, suddenly we create an
incredible incentive for more and more children to come and more and
more children to come alone.
This year, the Department of Homeland Security estimates that 90,000
unaccompanied children will enter this country illegally. Next year
they estimate 145,000. I want my colleagues to compare those numbers
for a second. Three years ago, it was 6,000. Now it is 90,000, and next
year we expect 145,000. The direct and proximate cause was President
Obama's amnesty.
There are some in this body who might not believe what a Member of
the opposite party says on this. There is a whole lot of partisanship
in Washington. It truly has shut down the ability of this body to deal
with real challenges facing this country.
If people don't believe what a Member of the opposite party says,
perhaps they will believe the Border Patrol. Just a few weeks ago the
Border Patrol conducted a confidential study that was given to members
of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a whistleblower in the Border
Patrol, where they interviewed over 200 people who had entered the
country recently illegally, and they asked them the question: Why are
you coming? Ninety-five percent said we are coming because we believe
we will get amnesty; that if we just get here, we will be allowed to
stay.
The administration has been giving lots of supposed causes for this
humanitarian crisis. One of their favorites is the violence in Central
America. It is true. Tragically, there is a great deal of violence in
Central America and it has been increasing, but I would note violence
is not new to the human condition. There have always been countries
across the globe that are racked by violence, racked by civil war, and
we have always seen when violence rises, the immigration from a
particular country goes up. We see legal immigration from that country
go up and we see illegal immigration from that country go up. What we
haven't seen in the past is the explosion of children.
The violence in Central America is a reasonable cause to explain the
increase in immigrants from Central America, the increase in families
coming up to get away from the violence. What it doesn't explain is
this new phenomenon: 90,000 unaccompanied children. That is a new
phenomenon. There is no reason violence would dictate saying, I am
going to take my little boy, I am going to take my little girl, and
send them alone. That instead is a direct response to what President
Obama did by granting amnesty that was targeted to those who entered as
kids. Why are kids entering? Because the President has said, if you
enter as a kid, I will grant you amnesty.
Several weeks ago I visited Lackland Air Force Base where roughly
1,200 of these children are being held. I visited with the senior
officials there. It is worth understanding that there are many victims
of the President's refusal to enforce the law, but some of the most
direct victims are these little boys and little girls because the
coyotes who are bringing these children in are not well-meaning social
workers. They do not have beards and Birkenstocks, and they are not
there out of love. These coyotes are hardened, vicious transnational
drug cartels, and these children are being subjected to horrific
physical and sexual abuse.
When I was at Lackland Air Force Base, a senior official there
described to me how these coyotes get custody of these kids to smuggle
them illegally into this country, and then sometimes they will decide
to hold the children for ransom, to get even more money from the
families. If the families cannot or will not pay, horribly, what these
coyotes are doing is severing body parts of these children and sending
them back to the families.
The senior official at Lackland described coyotes putting machine
guns to the back of the head of a little boy or a little girl and
ordering them to cut off the fingers or the ears of another little boy
or little girl. If the child refuses, they shoot that child and move on
to the next one. They described how on our end we are seeing children
come into this country--some of whom have been horribly maimed by these
violent coyotes and drug cartels, others of whom have enormous
psychological damage--from a little boy or a little girl forced to
commit such atrocities upon pain of death.
I asked the officials at Lackland: How many of these children have
been victimized? The answer: All of them. That was from the senior
official at Lackland. By the way, one of the things we hear reports of
is these families with the girls, before they send them up, they give
them birth control because the expectations are that the risks of
sexual assault and rape are so high. That risk is being undertaken
because of the promise of amnesty.
When I was down in McAllen this weekend, I asked the line agents--I
said: Listen. Every day you guys are on the river, you are in the
helicopter, you are securing the border. Why are they coming? What has
changed? Just 3 years ago it was 6,000 kids. Now it is 90,000. What has
changed? Every single one of the Border Patrol agents gave the exact
same answer. They said they are coming because they believe they will
get amnesty.
It is important to understand, by the way, the coyotes smuggle them
across the border, and as soon as they get across the border, they
actively look for the Border Patrol. They are not being captured. They
are not being caught. They go look for someone in uniform. They may
have ragged clothes falling off their back, they may not have food or
water, but they have their papers. They have their papers with them.
They cross the border illegally with a coyote and they endure the
physical and sexual abuse and then they look for the Border Patrol to
hand their papers to. Why? Because they believe once they get here and
hand their papers over, they get amnesty.
If we want to solve this crisis, there is one, and only one, way to
solve this crisis; that is, to eliminate the promise of amnesty. I
mentioned a few moments ago that I wanted to talk about this
humanitarian crisis and talk about the abdication of responsibility
because Washington has always been lousy at taking responsibility for
the suffering our policies create. But the response of this President,
and I am sorry to say the Democratic majority in this body, has been
particularly callous.
President Obama proposed a $3.7 billion supplemental plan. Mind you,
he did not have time to visit the border, to visit the children, to see
the suffering, but he proposed yet more spending. The $3.7 billion
supplemental is an HHS social services bill. It spends a whole bunch of
money. By the way, to give you a sense of just how much $3.7 billion
is, for $3.7 billion we could purchase a first-class airplane ticket
for each one of these 90,000 children to return them home--first
class--sitting in the front row of a commercial airline. After doing
so, we could deposit $3.6 billion back in the Federal Treasury. It is a
massive amount of money he has asked for, and what is striking, less
than 5 percent of it goes to border security.
Here is the cynical part. Here is the sad part. Nothing in the
President's proposal does anything to solve the underlying problem.
Nothing does anything to eliminate the promise of amnesty. Nothing does
anything to solve the problem. What the President is
[[Page S4888]]
saying is he is perfectly content for this crisis to continue in
perpetuity. Under the President's bill, next year we can expect
145,000--DHS expects--to come. We can expect tens of thousands or
hundreds of thousands of little boys and little girls to be physically
assaulted and sexually assaulted by coyotes.
That is not humane. That is not compassionate. Any system that
continues to have children in the custody of these vicious drug cartels
is the very opposite of humane and compassionate. As my friend the
junior Senator from Alabama pointed out, the magnet of amnesty has been
significantly exacerbated in recent months. Why? Because President
Obama, in a very high-profile way, met with far-left activists and made
a promise. He said: I am going to study how to expand amnesty and to
grant amnesty to another 5 or 6 million people here illegally.
Let's be clear. There is nothing--zero--in U.S. immigration law that
gives the President the power to grant amnesty. It is open lawlessness
and contempt for rule of law, but yet that promise is heard. That
promise is heard throughout Central America. That promise is heard by
those mothers and dads who make the heart-wrenching decision to
hand their sons and daughters over to these coyotes. They do so because
they love their kids and they believe, as terrible as the journey will
be, that if they get here, they get a permiso, they get to stay in the
``promised land.'' That promise of amnesty is why this crisis has
happened.
So I have introduced legislation to solve the problem. Last week I
introduced a very simple bill that puts into law that President Obama
has no authority to grant any additional amnesty. It is a very simple
bill. It prevents the President from taking the DACA Program that he
unilaterally and illegally implemented in 2012 and expanding it to
cover any new immigrants.
It is interesting. Representatives from the administration go on
television and they say: These children are not eligible for amnesty.
If that is their position, the administration should support my bill.
If that is their position, all this bill does is put into law what they
say their position is; that these children are not eligible for
amnesty.
Have they supported the bill? They have not. Instead the majority
leader of this body took it upon himself to go out and hold a press
conference. What is the top priority for the majority leader of this
body? To come after and attack the legislation I introduced, to
personally come after the freshman Senator from Texas. The majority
leader is welcome to impugn any Member of this body. Sadly, that
happens all too often. But yet nowhere in the majority leader's
comments was a word said about solving this problem. Nowhere in the
majority leader's comments was a word said about changing it so little
boys and little girls are not physically and sexually assaulted so we
do not have tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of kids coming
illegally into this country.
Look, we all understand politics in this town. It is an election
year. The election is a few months away. Scaring people and
demagoguing, unfortunately, is not new to Washington. But the cynicism
that is reflected in President Obama's and the majority leader's
approach to this issue is a new level for this town.
This week I am introducing broader legislation that not only includes
what was included last week--a prohibition on the President granting
amnesty--but includes two other elements: a reform of the 2008 law to
expedite the humane return of these children to their families and a
provision to reimburse the cost for the States calling up the National
Guard to secure their borders.
I would like to say a word about the 2008 law. That has actually been
discussed a lot in this body. Indeed, the Obama administration has two
talking points. If we ask the administration what has caused this
crisis, the first one is violence in Central America. There is
something convenient about that talking point because if it is violence
in Central America, it is not President Obama's fault. It is not
anything they have done. It is something else extrinsic. But the second
talking point that sometimes the administration will say is that the
cause of this crisis is the 2008 law.
There is a reason they point to that. Because it seems there is
nothing President Obama enjoys more than blaming everything bad on this
planet on George W. Bush. The 2008 law was signed by George W. Bush. So
if this crisis was caused by the 2008 law, then mirabile dictu, it is
not this administration's fault.
But John Adams famously said: Facts are stubborn things. If someone
is going to make a claim that a crisis is caused by the 2008 law, they
have to be willing to take at least a moment to look to the facts.
The 2008 law was passed, unsurprisingly, in 2008. The number of
children entering unaccompanied did not spike in 2008. It did not spike
in 2009. It did not spike in 2010. It did not spike in 2011. In 2011 it
was roughly 6,000. If the 2008 law were the cause of this crisis, we
would have seen the numbers spike in 2008 or 2009 or 2010 or 2011. No,
they did not spike until 2012--June of 2012--when the President pulled
out his pen and granted amnesty. That is the cause--the direct cause--
the cause that the Border Patrol tells us these immigrants are telling
us is why they are coming.
Once the crisis was created, the 2008 law has had unintended
consequences. The 2008 law allowed expedited removal for unaccompanied
children from Mexico and Canada--our immediate contiguous countries--
but created slow, delayed, bureaucratized removal for children from
more distant countries.
That did not create significant problems in 2008 or 2009 or 2010 or
2011 because we did not have a massive influx of kids from those
countries. But once the President illegally granted amnesty and we
started getting--as we are expected to this year--90,000 unaccompanied
children--most of whom are from Central American countries--now we are
seeing the 2008 law cause real problems because returning these
children home is delayed, often delayed indefinitely.
When I was in the McAllen meeting with the line Border Patrol agents,
I asked them another question. I said: Listen. Washington is
dysfunctional. Partisan politics rips the town apart. If you could
ignore the politics, what do you say on the frontlines? How do we
actually secure the borders? How do we solve this problem? Every single
one of the Border Patrol agents answered the same way. They said: We
have to send them home.
We treat them humanely. We treat them compassionately--because that
is who we are as Americans; those are our values--but humanely and
compassionately we need to expeditiously return them to their families
back home. Why? Because if the children are allowed to stay--and, mark
my words, President Obama wants these children to stay and he wants to
grant amnesty to the next children and the next children, which means
that promise of amnesty will cause tens of thousands and hundreds of
thousands of children to continue to be physically assaulted and
sexually assaulted in perpetuity.
If we grant amnesty, all it will do is incite yet more kids to be
victimized. The only way to solve this problem--this is coming from the
Border Patrol agents--is to humanely and expeditiously send them home,
reunite them with their families.
The legislation I am introducing this week changes the 2008 law so
the policies for sending them home are the same as the policies for
Mexico and Canada. We treat Mexico and Canada with great friendship and
compassion. There is no reason the very same procedures cannot apply to
children from Central America.
The final element of this bill is dealing with the real security
crisis that is occurring.
Just today the junior Senator from Alabama and I both heard a
briefing from one of our senior military leaders on the national
security threats caused by our porous borders, by the same avenues that
are taking those kids in and that are also being used to smuggle vast
quantities of drugs. The same corridors that are taking those kids in
are also being used to smuggle in thousands of aliens from special
interest countries, from the Middle East, aliens from countries that
face serious issues of radical Islamic terrorists.
A number of our border Governors have stepped forward to respond to
this crisis. I commend the Governor of my home State of Texas, Rick
Perry, for
[[Page S4889]]
showing leadership and calling up the National Guard in Texas. It was
the right thing to do. He should not have to do it. The Constitution
gives that responsibility to the Federal Government. The Governor
should not have to step in and fill the breach. They are doing so
because the President and the Federal Government are refusing to do
their job. But I commend the Governors for doing so. The legislation I
am introducing simply provides that when a State steps up and does the
job that is our responsibility, the Federal Government will reimburse
the costs.
In all likelihood, next week we are going to have a vote on a bill
that is denominated a ``border security'' bill. It is a bill the
majority leader wants us to vote on that is a version of the
President's HHS social services bill and spends a whole bunch of money
and does nothing, zero, nada, to solve the problem.
The majority leader knows that. The President knows that. The
intention is to have it voted down. One of the incredible things about
where we are right now is this Democratic Senate is a do-nothing
Senate. We do not pass any legislation of consequence. There is a
reason for that. The majority leader has decided we are not going to
pass any legislation of consequence. So instead what do we have? We
have a series of show votes, every one of which is designed to fail,
every one of which the majority leader knows will fail, and every one
of which is poll tested or focus-group tested to allow Democrats
running for reelection to campaign based on those votes.
It is not legislating. It is not doing the job the Senate was meant
to do. This border security bill that we will likely vote on next week
will do nothing for border security. It is not designed to. Even if it
were to pass, it is not designed to. It is not designed to do anything
to stop President Obama's amnesty. It is not designed to do anything to
expedite reuniting these kids with their families back home. It is
simply designed to be a fig leaf, to say: The Democrats have responded
to this crisis. The evil, mean, nasty Republicans did not go along.
That is a political narrative that is not new. It is common in
partisan politics. It just happens not to be true. Unfortunately, the
Democratic majority in this body has demonstrated no interest in
actually solving this problem. You want to know just how cynical the
majority leader's strategy is? They have added to this border bill a
provision that would replenish the Iron Dome missiles for the nation of
Israel.
I would note that has nothing to do with the crisis at our southern
border. It is a policy that is unambiguously good. Every Member on the
Republican side of this Chamber supports replenishing the Iron Dome
missiles that are right now keeping Israel safe from the Hamas
terrorist rocket fire. So why has the majority leader stuck that onto a
bill that he knows will fail and is designed to fail?
Well, it is called partisan politics. Because when it fails, the
talking points will come out. The majority leader will come out and
say: The Republicans do not want to solve the problem on the border.
The Republicans are unwilling to stand with our friend and ally Israel.
Let me tell you right now, every Republican on this side of the Chamber
would vote right now, this afternoon, to replenish the Iron Dome
missiles. To be honest, we should be voting. You know, in most parts of
the country, Thursday afternoon, 4:30, people who actually have an
honest job are still at work. Not in the Senate. The Senate people head
on home. People are out campaigning. How about we actually have
Senators show up on this floor more than one or two at a time and
debate these issues? How about we actually see Senators stand, debate
the issues, and resolve the problems?
The majority leader went on television and said: The border is
secure. I find that an astonishing assertion. I recognized how from the
perch of Washington, DC, it might seem that way. Perhaps the DC/
Virginia border is secure. But I would invite the majority leader and I
would invite any Member of the Chamber: Come down to Texas. Come to
McAllen. Come visit the border. When I was in McAllen on Saturday, the
Border Patrol agents told me the day before they had apprehended 622
people.
I went to the processing center. They had 10 holding centers with 600
or 700 people there. One holding room had little girls below age 14,
unaccompanied. Another holding room had little boys under age 14,
unaccompanied. The third holding room had girls ages 14 to 19,
unaccompanied. The fourth room had boys ages 14 to 19, unaccompanied.
The fifth and sixth rooms had family units, mothers and fathers and
little bitty babies, including tiny infants needing diapers and
formula. Then the final four holding areas held adults.
That was one day. That was not a week. That was not a month. That was
one day. Ninety thousand unaccompanied children are expected to enter
the country this year. The majority leader of the Senate says the
border is secure. I would invite the majority leader to say that to
those little boys and little girls who have just been victimized that
the border is secure. That sure would surprise them. I would invite the
majority leader to say that to the farmers and ranchers and the
citizens in South Texas because that sure would surprise them.
By the way, when you get outside of Washington this issue is not
partisan. When you go down to South Texas and you visit with the
elected leaders there, many of whom--most of whom--are elected
Democrats and often Hispanic Democrats, and you ask: What is your top
priority? Among Hispanic Democrats on the border, they say: Border
security--because the border is so far from secure that their
communities are paying the price.
I would invite the majority leader to come to Brooks County, TX. In
Brooks County, TX, hundreds of men, women, and children are found dead
from crossing illegally. I would invite the majority leader to look, as
I have, at the photographs of these bodies. Pregnant women are
abandoned and left to die. Those are vicious cartels and coyotes. This
is the face of amnesty. Ninety thousand children being victimized,
being physically assaulted and sexually assaulted. This is the face of
amnesty: Children held in detention centers with chain-link fences
going up 18 feet, separating them in separate pens. This is the face of
amnesty. Our heart breaks for these kids. But if it really breaks for
those kids, we should do something about it. The only way to stop this
humanitarian crisis is to stop President Obama's amnesty. As long as
the President continues to promise amnesty, these children will keep
coming, and they will keep being victimized.
Sadly, as long as Senate Democrats are unwilling to stand up to their
President and say, let's actually show some leadership and fix this
problem, then the Senate will continue to be the Democratic do-nothing
Senate. We will not solve those problems. We will fail in the
fundamental obligation all of us owe to the men and women who elected
us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas because
it, indeed, is the face of amnesty. He has documented for us, I think
indisputably, that this surge of immigration was a result of the
amnesty provided for these children by the President of the United
States. I think that has been shown. I think we have never had a
clearer analysis of it.
I am reading now further in the National Journal article about what
the President plans to do next. The concern we have is about the
future. I am not making this up, colleagues. This is a very real action
the President is considering, as I read from that chart on amnesty. He
would execute, contrary to law, what would give legal status and work
status to 5 to 6 million people, 10 times the number that he has been
provided for in this action.
What did the National Journal report? Well, I am quoting here.
The President also told a group--This is the group of La
Raza and other activist groups that are demanding amnesty
and, really, open borders. He told them that Boehner, the
Speaker of the House ``urged him not to press ahead with
executive actions because that would make legislating more
difficult next year.''
In other words, Speaker Boehner said: Do not use this executive
amnesty in the future, Mr. President. So now the President is talking
to the group, these activists that have been pushing him and demanding
things. This is what the article says.
Obama told the group, according to those present, his
response to Boehner was: `Sorry
[[Page S4890]]
about that. I'm going to keep my promise and move forward
with executive action soon.'
It makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck as a former Federal
prosecutor in Federal court for almost 15 years to have the President
say this. The article went on to say:
In the room, there was something of a collective, electric
gasp. The assembled immigration-rights groups had been
leaning hard on Obama for months to use executive action to
sidestep Congress and privately mocked what they regarded as
Pollyanna hopes that House Republicans would budge . . .
Obama told the groups what they had been dying to hear--that
he was going to condemn House Republicans for inaction and .
. . provide legal status to millions of undocumented
workers--all by himself.
Mr. CRUZ. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SESSIONS. I would be pleased.
Mr. CRUZ. The junior Senator from Alabama has just described
President Obama's stated intention to grant amnesty to an additional 5
to 6 million people here illegally in the months preceding this next
election. As the junior Senator from Alabama is certainly aware, there
are a number of Senators up for reelection, including a number of
Democrats in bright red States where the constituents of those States,
whether in Louisiana or Arkansas or North Carolina or many other
States, do not support amnesty for another 5 to 6 million people here
illegally.
The question I would ask my friend from Alabama: Is he aware of any
Democrat in this Chamber, including those Democrats running for
reelection in conservative States where the citizens strongly oppose
amnesty--is he aware of any Democrat in this Chamber who has had the
courage to stand with him in standing up to President Obama and saying:
Do not grant amnesty illegally? Is he aware of any Democrat who has
joined the two of us in our legislation to prohibit President Obama
from illegally granting amnesty to 5 to 6 million people?
Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I am not. One of the things I think the American
people do need to understand is when Majority Leader Reid, in
conjunction with the President of the United States, blocks even
amendments up for a vote, where does he get his power? He gets his
power from every Member of his conference.
None of them are breaking in and saying: This is not right.
Senator Cruz's bill would deal with this future danger, that the
President might do this again. I think--and we have looked at it hard,
our Judiciary staff--we both serve on that committee--and have said
this will actually work to ensure that we don't have another rogue
action, unlawful, by the President of the United States, directly
contrary to deciding the will of the American people and congressional
action.
The President is happy that Congress doesn't pass his law, and he
says: They won't act, so I will.
But, colleagues, when we don't act, we act. That is an act. It is a
decision as sure as if we had passed a law. A decision not to act is a
decision. The President of the United States can't simply go around and
say: I can do anything I want because Congress won't act. How
ridiculous is that? A National Journal article calls this policy
explosive, and I believe that is a direct action.
One more question. Senator Cruz, I know, is a student of the
Constitution, and Professor Turley at George Washington University has
testified numerous times before Congress. I think he considers himself
a Democrat, a liberal, but he is deeply concerned about the future of
our Republic because of the President's overreach and exceeding the
lawful powers given to the President.
Is some other President going to expand it further and very soon
Congress becomes nothing? I would ask if the Senator shares this
concern, because he was very active in the attorney general's office in
Texas. Professor Turley said:
The President's pledge to effectively govern alone is
alarming, and what is most alarming is his ability to fulfill
that pledge. When a president can govern alone, he can become
a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger the
framers sought to avoid . . .
What we're witnessing today is one of the greatest crises
that members of this body will face. . . . It has reached a
constitutional tipping point that threatens a fundamental
change in how our country is governed.
Does that cause the Senator concern and does he have any thoughts
about that?
Mr. CRUZ. Senator Sessions, it causes me great concern. One of the
most troubling aspects of the Obama Presidency has been the persistent
pattern of lawlessness from this President. We have never seen a
President who, if he disagrees with a particular law, so frequently and
so brazenly refuses to enforce it, refuses to comply with it, and
asserts the power to unilaterally change it.
The President famously said: I have a pen and I have a phone, and he
seems to confuse his pen and his phone for the constitutional process
of lawmaking our country was built on.
Rule of law does not mean you have a country with a whole lot of
laws. Most countries have laws, and many totalitarian countries have a
whole lot of laws. Rule of law means no man is above the law. It means
that everyone, everyone, everyone, and especially the President, is
bound by the law.
President Obama openly defies his constitutional obligation under
article 2 of the Constitution to take care that the laws will be
faithfully executed.
I would note that Professor Turley, as the junior Senator from
Alabama quoted, is a liberal Democrat who in 2008 voted for President
Obama. Professor Turley also testified before the House that President
Obama has become the embodiment of the imperial President. Barack Obama
has become the President Richard Nixon always wished he could be.
Those are the words of a liberal Democratic constitutional law
professor who voted for Barack Obama.
But my friend the junior Senator from Alabama is learned and
experienced in the ways of the Senate. He has seen lions of the Senate
walk this floor. It is unprecedented to have a President so brazenly
defy the rule of law, but I state what is equally unprecedented, to
have the Senate lie down and meow like kitty cats.
Abuse of power by the President is not a new phenomenon. Presidents
of both parties have abused their power. That is a job, sadly, where
that tendency has been significant. But in the past, when Presidents
have abused their power, Members of their own party stood and called
them to account for it. When Richard Nixon abused his power, Members of
both parties rightfully decried his abuse of power, so much so that he
was forced to resign.
I can state when George W. Bush was President, he signed a two-
paragraph order that purported to order the State courts to obey the
World Court. I know this because I was at the time serving as the
solicitor general of Texas, and it was our State courts that the
President's order purported to bind.
George W. Bush is a good man. He is a former Governor of Texas, he is
a Republican, and he was a friend and is a friend. Yet I was proud that
the State of Texas did not hesitate to stand up to that abuse of power.
I went before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the State of Texas
and argued that President George W. Bush's order was unconstitutional,
that no President has the authority to give up U.S. sovereignty. I am
pleased to say the U.S. Supreme Court agreed and struck down the
President's order by a vote of 6 to 3.
What is unprecedented today is that on the left side of the Chamber
it is both literally and figuratively empty.
We had, not too long ago, the President abuse his power with recess
appointments. One of the important checks and balances the Constitution
creates on Presidential authority is it gives this body, the Senate,
the power of confirmation. President Obama apparently didn't like any
checks and balances on his power, so he made a series of recess
appointments when the Senate wasn't in recess. It was brazen, it was
naked. The President simply asserted: I say the Senate is in recess.
Mind you, the Senate didn't say we were in recess, but the President
claimed the power to declare us in recess when we weren't.
Do you want to know how extreme that was? Do you want to know how
brazen that was? Do you want to know how extraordinary that was?
Just a few weeks ago the Supreme Court unanimously struck it down as
unconstitutional.
[[Page S4891]]
It is important to underscore that. There is a lot of coverage in the
newspaper that suggests we have liberal Justices, conservative
Justices, and on any close issue it is going to be 5 to 4. This wasn't
5 to 4, it wasn't 6 to 3, it wasn't 7 to 2, and it wasn't even 8 to 1--
9 to 0. Every Democratic appointee on the Court--both of President
Obama's appointees on the Court. They looked at the substantive issue
and they said: This ain't hard. The President doesn't get to say when
the Senate is in recess, the Senate gets to say when the Senate is in
recess. And if the Senate isn't in recess, the President has to respect
the checks and balances of confirmation.
So we have an easy, no-brainier layup of a constitutional law
question about the President usurping the constitutional prerogatives
of the Senate, and how many Senate Democrats stood up to their party's
President? Not a single one. Not the majority leader of the Senate, who
we would think might have some interest in the credibility of this
institution and, I am sorry to say, not a lone Democratic Senator. It
wasn't that long ago there were lions of the Senate on the Democratic
side who prided themselves on defending this institution: Robert Byrd,
who stood for years defending this institution; Ted Kennedy.
I would say to my friend the junior Senator from Alabama, what is
truly unprecedented is that there are no Senate Democrats who say:
Enough is enough.
I am hopeful at some point we will see a Senate Democrat listen to
their constituents, listen to the Constitution, and listen to the rule
of law.
I can assume the reason why Senate Democrats don't do it and why our
friends in the press often don't report on this. I can assume their
reasoning goes something such as: Well, I basically agree with the
policies of President Obama. I like the policies. I agree with what he
is doing, and he is our guy. We kind of have to back our guy.
I am guessing that is a reason, but I will note, as the Scriptures
say: There came a pharaoh who knew not Joseph and his children.
President Barack Obama will not always be President of the United
States. There will be another President. And even to my friends on the
Democratic side of the aisle--I must say something shocking and
terrifying to you--there will come another Republican President.
If the President has the authority to do what President Obama is
claiming, with ObamaCare--28 times--he simply unilaterally changed the
text of the law, said: It doesn't matter what the law says, I say it is
something different. If the President has that power, a Republican
President has that power too.
So I would encourage all of my friends on the left who like these
policy issues--well, imagine some of the policy issues you don't like,
whether on labor law or environmental law or tort reform or let's take
tax law. I will give an example.
Imagine a subsequent Republican President who stood up and stated
quite sensibly the economy might do much better if we move to a flat
tax, so I am therefore instructing the IRS: Do not collect any tax
above 20 percent.
Now one might say, well, that sounds extreme. That sounds radical. As
a policy matter, that would be a terrific policy.
But could the President instruct the IRS not to enforce tax laws?
Fifty-five Members of this body are already on record saying yes. Do
you know why? Because when the President suspended the employer mandate
for big business, the text for ObamaCare says the employer mandate
kicks in on January 1, 2014. The President said: I am suspending that
provision of law. I am granting my buddies in big business a waiver.
That was a tax law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Texas.
I think what he is saying is reflected in what Professor Turley said.
It is almost like a plea to his colleague, maybe his Democratic
colleague, his friend. He said: ``The President's pledge to effectively
govern alone is alarming, and what is most alarming is his ability to
fulfill that pledge.''
In other words, his ability to get away with it; that Congress
acquiesces in it. Let me say this the President is not going to get
away with a unilateral amnesty. We are going to take this to the
American people, and at some point this Congress will be held to
account if he does so. Remember, every Member is going to have to vote
and be responsible for allowing a President to run roughshod over the
law of this country, the people's representatives, and, in effect, the
people of the United States.
His plan for amnesty, under the circumstances he advocated them, has
been rejected.
Congress is always available to consider any issue and make any
decision it chooses, but it has, under the circumstances driven in this
body, been rejected.
He has no power to go forward and beyond that, and we are not going
to allow it to happen. It is wrong. Whether we agree or disagree about
how amnesty should be given, it is wrong for the President to
unilaterally execute such a policy, as Professor Turley said and as the
Senator from Texas has said, the former solicitor general of the State
of Texas. He understands it is law, and this matter is not over. We
will continue to advocate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Harkin pertaining to the introduction of S. 2658
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Climate Change
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam President. This is my 75th ``Time to
Wake Up'' speech, something of a minor benchmark, I suppose. I come
here urging my colleagues to wake up to the threat of climate change. I
do this every week we are in session, hoping someday a spark will hit
tinder. But even as the evidence of climate change deepens, the
dialogue in Washington remains one-sided.
Climate change was once a bipartisan concern. In recent years
something changed. I think I know what changed, and I will get to that.
First, let's reminisce about the bipartisanship. As we take a look back
in this body, we have Republican colleagues who once openly
acknowledged the existence of carbon-driven climate change and who
called for real legislative action to cut carbon emissions. Imagine
that. It wasn't that long ago.
We have a former Republican Presidential nominee amongst us who
campaigned for the Presidency on addressing climate change. We have
Republicans here who have spoken favorably about charging a fee on
carbon, including an original Republican cosponsor of a bipartisan
Senate carbon-fee bill. We have a Republican colleague who cosponsored
carbon fee legislation in the House and another who voted for the
Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill when he was in the House. For years--
for years--there was a steady, healthy heartbeat of Republican support
for major U.S. legislation to address carbon pollution.
Let me be specific. In 2003, Senator John McCain was the lead
cosponsor of Democrat Joe Lieberman's Climate Stewardship Act, which
would have created a market-based emissions cap-and-trading program to
reduce carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants from the
biggest U.S. sources.
Here is what Senator McCain said at the time:
While we cannot say with 100 percent confidence what will
happen in the future, we do know the emission of greenhouse
gases is not healthy for the environment. As many of the top
scientists through the world have stated, the sooner we start
to reduce these emissions the better off we will be in the
future.
His Climate Stewardship Act actually got a vote. Imagine that. When
it did not prevail, Senator McCain reintroduced the measure himself in
the following Congress. Republican Senators Olympia Snowe of Maine and
Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, my predecessor, were among that bill's
cosponsors. Other Republicans got behind other cap-and-trade proposals.
Senator Tom Carper's Clean Air Planning Act at one time or another
counted Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Senator Lindsey Graham of
South Carolina, and Senator Susan Collins of Maine among its
supporters.
[[Page S4892]]
In 2007, Republican Senator Olympia Snowe was a lead cosponsor of
then-Senator Kerry's Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act. Senators
Murkowski and Stevens from Alaska and Senator Specter of Pennsylvania,
then a Republican, were original cosponsors of the Bingaman Low Carbon
Economy Act. That same year Senator Alexander introduced the Clean Air/
Climate Change Act of 2007. Each of these bills sought to reduce carbon
emissions through a cap-and-trade mechanism.
Said Senator Alexander:
It is also time to acknowledge that climate change is real.
Human activity is a big part of the problem and it is up to
us to act.
That bipartisan heartbeat remained strong in 2009. Senator Mark Kirk
of Illinois, while he served in the House of Representatives, was one
of eight Republicans to vote for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade
proposal. In that same year, 2009, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, then
representing Arizona in the House, was an original cosponsor of the
Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act to reduce payroll taxes for employers and
employees in exchange for equal revenue from a carbon tax. On the House
floor then-Representative Flake argued the virtues of this approach. He
said:
If we want to be honest about helping the environment, then
just impose a carbon tax and make it revenue neutral. Give
commensurate tax relief on the other side. Myself and another
Republican colleague have introduced that legislation to do
just that. Let's have an honest debate about whether or not
we want to help the environment by actually having something
that is revenue neutral where you tax consumption as opposed
to income.
It was a good idea then and it is still a good idea now. Senator
Flake's words were echoed that year in the Senate by Senator Collins, a
lead cosponsor of the Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal
Act, Senator Cantwell's carbon fee bill.
``In the United States alone,'' said Senator Collins, ``emissions of
the primary greenhouse gas carbon dioxide have risen more than 20
percent since 1990. Clearly climate change is a daunting environmental
challenge,'' she said, ``but we must develop solutions that do not
impose a heavy burden on our economy, particularly during these
difficult economic times.''
Madam President, 2009--think of it. There was once not too long ago a
clear and forceful acknowledgment from leading Republican voices of the
real danger posed by climate change and of Congress's responsibility to
act.
What happened? Why did the steady heartbeat of Republican climate
action suddenly flatline?
I believe we lost the ability to address climate change in a
bipartisan way because of the evils of the Supreme Court's Citizens
United decision. Our present failure to address climate change is a
symptom of things gone awry in our democracy due to Citizens United.
That decision did not enhance speech in our democracy. It has allowed
bullying, wealthy special interests to suppress real debate. I have
spoken before on the Senate floor about the Supreme Court's
Citizens United decision, one of the most disgraceful decisions by any
Supreme Court, destined ultimately, I believe, to follow cases such as
Lochner v. New York onto the ash heap of judicial infamy, but we are
stuck with it for now. In a nutshell the Citizens United decision says
this: Corporations are people. Money is speech. So there can be no
limit to corporate money influencing American elections.
If that doesn't seem right, it is because it is not. Phony and
improper fact-finding by the five conservative activists on the Supreme
Court concluded that corporate spending could not ever corrupt
elections--just couldn't do it. By some magic it is pure. That is a bad
enough finding on its face, but they also didn't get that limitless,
untraceable political money doesn't have to be spent to damage our
democracy.
Unlimited corporate spending in politics can corrupt not just through
floods of anonymous attack advertisements, it can corrupt secretly and
more dangerously through the mere threat of that spending through
private threats and promises. The Presiding Officer was the attorney
general of her State, and she well knows how much mischief can be done
in back rooms by threats and promises. That is what attorneys general
see when they go out and investigate.
As we are evaluating the effect of Citizens United on our climate
change debate, let's remember this: A lot of this special interest
money has been spent against Republicans. I have had Republican friends
tell me, ``What are you complaining about? They are spending more
against us than against you.'' There have been times when that has been
true.
When the Koch brothers' polluter money can come in and bombard you in
a small primary election, that is pretty scary. When the paid-for
rightwing attack machine can be cranked up against you in your
Republican primary, that is pretty scary too. What the polluters can do
with political spending, they can threaten or promise to do in ways
that the public will never see or know, but the candidate will know.
The candidate will know for sure.
So I wrote a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court with
Senator John McCain to highlight for the Justices some of the failings
and pitfalls of their shameful Citizens United decision. ``The
dominating influence of super PACs,'' we wrote, ``makes it all the
easier for those seeking legislative favors and results to discreetly
threaten such expenditures if Members of Congress do not accede to
their demands.'' I think we were right.
How does this bear on climate change? All that bipartisan activity I
talked about preceded Citizens United. After that, polluter attacks
funded by Citizens United money and the threat of those polluter
attacks--perhaps promises not to make those attacks if you behave--cast
a dark shadow over Republicans who might work with Democrats on curbing
carbon pollution. Tens, perhaps even hundreds of millions of dark-money
dollars are being spent by polluters and their front organizations, and
God only knows what private threats and promises have been made.
The timing is telling. Before Citizens United, there was an active
heartbeat of Republican activity on climate change. Since then, the
evidence has only become stronger. But after Citizens United uncorked
all that big, dark money and allowed it to cast its bullying shadow of
intimidation over our democracy, Republicans--other than those few who
parrot the polluter party line that climate change is a big old hoax--
have all walked back from any major climate legislation.
We have Senators here who represent historic native villages that are
now washing into the sea and needing relocation because of climate
change and sea-level rise. We have Senators here who represent great
American coastal cities that are now overwashed by high tides because
of climate change. We have Senators representing States swept by
drought and wildfire. We have Senators whose home State forests by the
hundreds of square miles are being killed by the marauding pine beetle.
We have Senators whose home State glaciers are disappearing before
their very eyes. We have Senators whose States are having to raise
offshore bridges and highways before rising seas. We have Senators
whose emblematic home State species are dying off, such as the New
Hampshire moose, for instance, swarmed by ticks by the tens of
thousands that snows no longer kill. Yet none will work on a major
climate bill. It is not safe to ever since Citizens United allowed the
bullying, polluting special interests to bombard our elections, and
threaten and promise to bombard our elections with their attack ads.
Despite all the dark money, despite the threats and intimidation, I
still believe this can be a courageous time. We simply need
conscientious Republicans and Democrats to work together in good faith
on a common platform of facts and common sense to protect the American
people and the American economy from the looming effects of climate
change in our atmosphere, on our lands, and in our oceans. We simply
need to shed the shackles of corrupting influence and rise to our duty.
In courageous times, Americans have done far more than that. It is
not asking much to ask this generation to stand up to a pack of
polluters just because they have big checkbooks. In previous
generations, Americans have put their very lives, fortunes, and sacred
honor at risk to serve the higher interests of this great Republic. We
know it can be done because it has been done.
We do not have to be the generation that failed at our duty. We are
headed
[[Page S4893]]
down a road to infamy now, but it doesn't have to be that way. We can
leave a legacy that will echo down the corridors of history so that
those who follow us will be proud of our efforts. But sitting here
doing nothing, yielding to the special interest bullies and their
Citizens United money, pretending that the problem isn't real, will not
accomplish that.
As I have said before, 74 times, and as I say tonight for the 75th
time, it is time for us to wake up.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
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.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Supporting Israel
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, yesterday Secretary of Defense Chuck
Hagel wrote to the majority leader seeking $225 million in additional
U.S. funding for the production of Iron Dome components in Israel so
they can maintain adequate stockpiles and defend their population.
Republicans are united in support of our ally Israel. We have
legislation that would allow Congress to meet the Secretary's request,
and we hope our friends on the other side will join us in coming to a
sensible, bipartisan solution that can be passed quickly.
As most Senators know, the Iron Dome missile defense system has
played a critical role in defending Israel's population from rocket
attacks launched by Hamas from within the Gaza Strip.
While our friends in Egypt are working to bring Hamas to a cease-fire
and end this mirage of rocket attacks--attacks that indiscriminately
target the civilian population of Israel--the Iron Dome system will
remain critical to Israel's security until a true cease-fire is
achieved. It will remain vital afterwards as well, because this
defensive system helps blunt the impact of one of Hamas's preferred
tools of terror.
By passing a bipartisan measure to meet the Secretary's request, we
can send a message to Hamas that its terrorist tactics and its attempts
to terrorize Israel's populace will not succeed. And we can help Israel
defend its civilian population against indiscriminate attacks as it
continues its campaign--Operation Protective Edge--to destroy the often
Iranian-supplied weapons stockpiled within Gaza, as well as to
eliminate the tunnels that allow terrorists to infiltrate into Israel
and smuggle arms into Gaza.
Burma
Now, on a different matter in a different part of the world. For more
than two decades I have been coming to the Senate floor to discuss the
latest events in Burma. Typically, in the spring, I would introduce
legislation to renew the import sanctions on the then-Burmese junta
contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. In addition to
pressuring the junta, the annual renewal of the import sanctions
provided a useful forum to focus public attention on Burma.
After much deliberation, last summer Members of Congress chose not to
renew these sanctions for another year as Burma had demonstrated
progress toward implementing governmental reform. That said, Burma's
path to reform is far from complete. Much work remains to be done. As
such, it is important to continue focusing attention on the country in
a regular fashion. That is what I wish to do today, to highlight an
important, immediate, intuitive step that the country can take to
reassure those who wish the country well, that it remains on the path
to reform.
In many ways the Burma of 2014 scarcely resembles the nation that
existed in 2003 when Congress first enacted the BFDA against the
Burmese junta. Beginning about 3 years ago, Burma began to make
significant strides forward in several key areas.
Under President U Thein Sein, the Burmese Government began to
institute reforms that surprised virtually all of the onlookers. In the
following years, the government granted numerous amnesties and
political pardons to political prisoners and has released more than
1,100 political prisoners to date.
As a result of the new government's actions, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi,
the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, was released from house arrest after
spending 15--15--of the previous 21 years in detention. Since her
release from House arrest, Daw Suu has been permitted to travel abroad.
Moreover, a by-election was held in April 2012 and she was elected as a
member of Parliament along with a number of her National League for
Democracy colleagues. In fact, when she did travel abroad back in 2012,
at my invitation she came to Louisville, KY. It was an incredible
experience to have her in our State and in our country.
In light of these democratic reforms--many of which I witnessed
firsthand when I visited the country in January of 2012--I believe that
to no small degree Burma has been a remarkable story among many dark
developments in the world today.
However, even though the country has made incredible progress in a
relatively short period of time, to many Burma of late appears stalled
amidst a score of pressing challenges. These include continued conflict
between the government and ethnic minorities, governmental restrictions
on civil liberties, and ongoing humanitarian issues in Rakhine State.
All are serious concerns that command close attention. And related to
all of these issues is the need for Burma to continue to bring the
military under civilian control if it is to evolve into a more
representative government.
With the by-election in Burma scheduled for late this year and a
parliamentary election scheduled for late 2015, reformers in the
Burmese Government have an opportunity to regain their momentum. To my
view, the time between now and the end of 2015 is pivotal--pivotal--for
Burma. The elections will help demonstrate whether the country
will continue on the reformist path.
With that in mind, the Burmese Government should understand that the
United States, and the Senate specifically, will watch very closely at
how Burmese authorities conduct the 2015 parliamentary elections as a
critical marker of the sincerity and the sustainability of democratic
reform in Burma.
President U Thein Sein has made public assurances that the upcoming
parliamentary election will be ``free and transparent.'' However, his
pledge has already been challenged by several campaign restrictions.
One of those restrictions is a simple one. It involves who can be
chosen for the most important civilian office in Burma: The Presidency.
Burma has several requirements governing who can hold this highest
office. Some of them make sense. For instance, like the United States,
Burma has a minimum age requirement for its highest office. Its
President must be at least 45 years old. I suppose that helps assure
that only someone with a fair amount of life experience can be
President.
In addition, the Burmese constitution stipulates that the President
must be a citizen who is ``well acquainted'' with the country's
``political, administrative, economic, and military'' affairs, and is
``loyal to the union and its citizens.'' This requirement helps ensure
that a president is knowledgeable about public affairs and has a vested
interest in serving in Burma's executive office.
However, Burma's constitution also includes a deeply disconcerting
limitation on Presidential eligibility. Section 59 stipulates that the
Burmese President may not be a foreign national and may not have any
immediate family members who are foreign nationals.
This limitation on the home nation of a candidate's immediate family
has no bearing on an individual's fitness for office. This restriction
prevents many, including Daw Suu herself, from even being considered
for Burma's highest office. Daw Suu, for example, would not be
permitted to run because her deceased husband was, and her two sons
are, British nationals. To think that the nationalities of family
members have relevance for fitness to hold office or allegiance to
Burma is dubious at best.
Not only is Daw Suu discriminated against but so are the Burmese who
fled or were exiled from the country during the junta's rule. Many of
them
[[Page S4894]]
were out of Burma for years--not by choice, I would add--and during
this time many became naturalized citizens in another country out of
necessity. These men and women are also ineligible to be President.
Deciding who will be the next Burmese President is obviously up to
the people of Burma through their elected representatives and not up to
the international community. But, at a minimum, I believe that
otherwise qualified candidates should be permitted to stand for office.
More important than the provision's unfairness for certain
Presidential candidates is that this provision restricts the ability of
the people of Burma, through their representatives, to have a choice in
who can hold their highest office. This is profoundly undemocratic, and
it is profoundly undemocratic at a time when Burma's commitment to
democracy is actually open to question.
It is notable that one apparent roadblock to amending the
Presidential eligibility requirement is the fact that the military
holds de facto veto power over constitutional amendments. Under the
constitution, the military controls a block of 25 percent of the
parliamentary seats and in excess of a 75-percent vote is required for
a constitutional amendment to go forward. The military controls 25
percent of the Parliament; they need over 75 percent of the Parliament
to change the constitution. It becomes clear what this is about.
I understand the Burmese parliamentary committee is in the process of
finalizing plans for the implementation of constitutional reform, but I
am concerned that eligibility changes will apparently not--not--include
amending the narrow restrictions of the constitution that limit who can
run for President. To me, it will be a missed opportunity if this
provision is not revisited before the 2015 parliamentary elections.
Modifying this provision is one way the Burmese Government can
display to the world, in an immediate and clearly recognizable way,
that it remains fully committed to reform. Permitting a broad array of
candidates to run for President is an unmistakable symbol to the
world--even to those who do not follow Burma closely--that Burmese
reformers actually mean business; otherwise, such a restriction will
quite simply cast a pall over the legitimacy of the election in the
eyes of the international community and certainly to Members of the
U.S. Senate.
While Congress did not renew the BFDA's import ban last year and
there is little appetite to renew the measure this year, several U.S.
sanctions toward Burma remain on the books. They include restrictions
on the importation of jade and rubies into the United States and
sanctions on individuals who continue to hinder reform efforts. It is
hard to see how those provisions get lifted without there being
progress on the constitutional eligibility issue and the closely
related issue of the legitimacy of the 2015 elections.
As the 2015 elections approach, I urge the country's leadership--its
President, Parliament and military--to remain resolute in confronting
the considerable obstacles to a more representative government that
Burma faces. That is the only way the existing sanctions are going to
get removed--the only way.
I wanted to highlight the eligibility issue as an example of an
important step Burma could take to continue its reformist momentum.
Such a step is of course necessary but not sufficient. As I noted,
undergirding many of Burma's problems is the need to enhance civilian
control over the military. This concern manifests itself in many ways,
including the need to clarify that the commander in chief serves under
the President and the importance of removing the military's de facto
veto authority over constitutional amendments.
One tool the United States could use to help reform Burma's armed
forces is through military-to-military contacts. I believe that
exposure to the most professional military in the world--our own--will
help Burma develop a force that is responsive to civilian control and
to professional standards. Security assistance and professional
military education are not simply rewards to partnering countries, as
some view such programs. They are tools with which we advance our
foreign policy objectives. Helping the Burmese military to reform is in
our interest but it cannot be done through mere exhortation; it needs
to be done through training and regular contact with the highest
professional military standards. Only then, I believe, will the Burmese
military see that being under civilian control is not--not--inimical to
its interests.
This realization by the Burmese military, coupled with a successful
2015 election that is open to all otherwise qualified Presidential
aspirants, will greatly enhance the cause for reform and peaceful
reconciliation in Burma.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________