[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13540-13546]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




MAKING EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING 
            SEPTEMBER 30, 2014--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to speak on the pending 
business before the Senate.
  The Senate just achieved cloture on the motion to proceed to the 
emergency supplemental funding bill. Let me explain to the people who 
are watching this either in the gallery or on C-SPAN.
  The Senate has creaky rules, and these creaky rules are to make sure 
we can cool the passions that may be raging in the Nation at any given 
time so we can duly give consideration, that debate can be diligent and 
we won't be gripped by the fire of the moment or the passion of the 
motion. I appreciate that. However, now these rules require us to take 
a lot of time to get to the meat of the matter.
  We are now debating a motion to proceed to legislation related to 
supplementing existing funding to meet new emerging crises. The Senate 
votes on a motion to proceed not to the bill itself but on whether we 
should even go to the bill. So what we are debating now is whether we 
should proceed to the emergency supplemental funding bill. I want to 
say yes. Yes, vote on the motion to proceed. Let's get on with it. 
Let's have a real debate on real issues. Thirty hours has been set 
aside to debate whether we should proceed. I am here to say let's 
proceed, let's yield back our time, and let's get on the bill. We have 
a lot of things we need to get done in the next 48 hours. I want to see 
this emergency supplemental funding bill debated and voted on.
  We have three elements in this bill that meet compelling needs--need 
for our neighbors in our country; need for our treasured ally, the 
State of Israel; as well as need for a crisis at the border where 
children literally are marching across Central America in search of 
refugee status. We need to deal with all three of these issues.
  This emergency funding bill is about neighbor helping neighbor.
  First of all, it is about our own country. Wildfires are raging in 
the West. Over the last year 39 States have faced wildfires. Right this 
very minute eight Western States are coping with unbelievable 
wildfires, some of the largest fires in their history. What happens? 
Vast amounts of territory are going up in smoke. We are losing towns, 
businesses, homes. Our firefighters are worn out, as well as our first 
responders, and they need help. This legislation will provide $615 
million to the States facing this horrific Armageddon-like emergency.
  In addition, this legislation includes $225 million to replenish the 
rockets that are being used by Israel, deploying technology called the 
Iron Dome. The Iron Dome is a missile defense system that is destroying 
the rockets being sent into Israel by Hamas. The technology is working, 
but they are using up the rockets and they need to be replenished.
  Then there is the humanitarian crisis at our border. We have $2.7 
billion to meet the needs of children seeking refuge, in order to be 
able to deal with placing them while we determine their legal status 
but also being able to fight the crime of the narcotraffickers and the 
human traffickers who are creating this surge of children.
  This is a total emergency funding level of $3.57 billion. Why do we 
call it an emergency? Well, because under the law we can't just say 
this is an emergency. In order to get emergency funding, we have to 
meet the criteria of the Budget Control Act of 2011. The need has to be 
urgent. It has to be temporary. It has to be unforeseen. It is either 
to prevent the loss of life or in the interests of our national 
security. All three of these areas of funding meet this need.
  Under emergency funding, there are no offsets. That means we don't 
take from another important program being funded by the U.S. Government 
to meet that need. So in order to meet the needs of Iron Dome, we don't 
take from other national defense money. It will replenish that. When we 
help with wildfires, we don't take from other important areas, such as 
agriculture or interior or from other bills. This will help to not only 
meet the need but also not place an additional burden on other 
communities.
  Now I wish to speak about the urgency. This firefighting help is 
really needed now. We listened to the Senators from Western States. We 
see the photographs literally showing parts of our country going up in 
smoke. The Forest Service--the agency that actually is in charge of 
dealing with this--will run out of money in August. As I said, last 
year these wildfires burned in 39 States.
  Then we look at Iron Dome. Hamas--this violent terrorist organization 
that actually rejects Israel's right to even exist--from its tunnels is 
showering Israel with rockets. Iron Dome, Arrow Head, and David's Sling 
are missile defense systems designed to help them. The up-close missile 
defense system is Iron Dome. This bill will make sure we replace the 
interceptor rockets that are being used to protect them against this 
showering of rockets. The Israeli Embassy spoke to my staff yesterday. 
There have been over 2,000 Hamas rockets fired in the last week. Israel 
needs to replenish these rockets.
  Then there is the issue of the surge of unaccompanied children 
presenting themselves at our border, asking for refugee status. In 
order to really be able to meet this crisis--and they are coming in by 
the thousands; 59,000 kids have come this year. We know the immigration 
and customs service, if we don't meet this emergency funding, will run 
out of money in August. Border Patrol will run out of money in early 
September. That doesn't mean the Border Patrol agents or the 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents will stop working; it means 
the Department of Homeland Security--22 agencies--will take money out 
of existing funds to fund this. So it means they could take money out 
of Federal emergency management just as we are going into hurricane 
season, just as we are in high tornado season. We could be taking money 
out of FEMA to put it in Border Patrol unless we do this emergency 
funding. We have to do it.
  Health and Human Services runs out of money in August. They are the 
ones in charge when the children present themselves while their legal 
status is being determined. The children must be taken care of in a 
humane way, the American way. We don't treat children in an abusive 
manner. It means we will feed them, we will clothe them, we will 
shelter them, we will meet any emergency health needs they have, and we 
need to do that while we determine their legal status.

[[Page 13541]]

  My bill--the supplemental I am presenting--helps accelerate the 
determination of their legal status. My legislation and this 
supplemental spending actually provide more immigration judges and 
legal representation for the children. That is so we can quickly 
determine if they have a right to asylum while we are also taking care 
of them. We need to be able to do that.
  I hope others will get the briefings that I had and visit the border 
the way I did to find this out. The reason we have a crisis at the 
border is because we have a crisis in Central America. This legislation 
provides the money to do this. People say root causes such as poverty 
have been going on for years. This doesn't only deal with poverty. We 
want to work with the governments of Central America to really go after 
the narcotraffickers, the human traffickers, and the coyotes engaged in 
smuggling.
  Why do we want to do that? If we ask these children where are the 
home towns they are from, they will give us the names of little cities 
and little towns, and when we look at their poverty rate, we find the 
poverty rate in these communities has been consistent for a number of 
years. That is a sad circumstance. But when we look at the crime rate, 
the murder rate, the recruitment into violent gangs, the recruitment 
into human trafficking, with the threat of death or torture--that is 
where these kids are coming from.
  We have to go after the criminals in Central America and not treat 
these children as though they are criminals. We cannot treat children 
in this country as though they are the criminals. We need to go after 
the real criminals in Central America using our assets and working with 
the assets in Central America. They have programs and they have plans. 
Honduras is a great example of what they are trying to do. They need 
our help. If we don't want the crisis at our border, we need to deal 
with the crisis in Central America.
  That also deals with our insatiable, unending, vociferous appetite 
for drugs. The drugs have created the narcoterrorists. Once people 
start selling drugs, they are willing to sell women and children like 
commodities, and if they are willing to sell women and children like 
commodities, then that is where the vial, repugnant practice of human 
trafficking and human smuggling and even a new form of slavery--sexual 
slavery--begins.
  These children are on the march. And when we talk to these children, 
we learn they are terrific children. They are brave and gutsy. When we 
talk to the boys, we learn they don't want to be part of the gangs. 
They want to get out. They want to get out, so they start this long 
march from their home country to Mexico to make it on the Rio Grande on 
rafts and by swimming and so on so they can make it to our border. When 
we talk to the girls, we learn the girls want to go to school and get 
an education. They don't want to be recruited into these vial 
circumstances. These are earnest, hard-working children who want to 
have safety, who want to have a future, and we want to be able to see, 
by interviewing them, if they qualify for refugee status. If they 
don't, they will have to go back home, but if they do, they get to stay 
here. So they deserve the protection under law. We need to pass this 
legislation.
  This bill is a funding bill. It does not include immigration 
legislation. We say those kinds of things can either be brought up in 
another way or another method, but this is a clean funding bill. When I 
say ``clean,'' it means it has no legislative language on it related to 
immigration. So I hope we can pass this legislation.
  Now, I have listened to my own constituents, and many of them are 
saying to me: Hey, Barb, we are not against these kids. In fact, recent 
polling says 69 percent of the American people say if they are 
refugees, we should take care of them and they have a right to 
determine their legal status. But many of my constituents say: Hey, 
Barb, what about us? What does this mean? You are going to spend more 
money? What about my schools? When do we get help? My kids need help. 
They need schools; they need health care. You talk to families now. 
They are getting ready to go back to school. Many parents cannot wait 
for sales-tax-free day in Maryland, where you can get your backpack and 
your school supplies and your little clothes and shoes. My God, the 
cost of kids' shoes now is a small fortune, and they will outgrow them 
by the time they get to Thanksgiving. Parents are looking for bargains, 
for deals, to be able to do this. They are not hostile, but they wonder 
about them.
  I want to say to them, I hear you. I was touched by a very poignant 
story over the weekend about how we have a food bank at Steelworkers 
Hall in Baltimore. Bethlehem Steel closed. It will never, ever, ever 
come back. The steelworkers of America, who contributed to the United 
Way, were always the first in line if a blood bank was necessary. Now 
many of those who lost their job are using the very food bank that they 
once donated to.
  That story was so moving because we have lost our manufacturing. We 
have just lost a bill earlier today on bringing jobs back home--
something I know the Presiding Officer is for, I sure am for, and so 
on. So I know American families are hurting. Yes, they are. But I want 
to bring out that the cost of this bill is the same amount of money as 
we are going to spend on training the Afghan National Security Forces. 
Did you know that? So we are going to spend $4 billion--that is 
``billion'' as in ``Barb,'' not ``million'' as in ``Mikulski''--$4 
billion to train the Afghan National Security Forces. I am not going to 
debate the merits of that. But we can spend money all over like that 
and we cannot spend money at our border and also for threats to our 
border because of narco terrorism that breeds other vile, repugnant, 
heinous behavior? I think we have to get real here.
  The reason I want a supplemental--that is urgent and meets that 
criteria--is that we do not have to take the money from other important 
programs that do help America's families in education, in health, in 
job retraining in order to bring our jobs back home.
  So I really do hope we pass this bill. Not spending money will not 
save money. It means we will just take out of existing programs and the 
American people will pay for it doubly. They will pay for it through 
inaction, which will ultimately cost more. They will pay for it because 
they will lose programs they thought they were going to have access to 
or there will be limited availability.
  We have a chance here now to help our neighbors in our Western 
States. I know Wisconsin has been hit by it terribly, and we are so 
sorry for the loss of property and the danger to that community. It 
will help a treasured ally, Israel, which we must. Also, we will help 
our own country. The way to protect our border is two ways: fight it in 
Central America and also show what we stand for. If children are 
applying for refugee status, they should have their day in court and 
under the law proceed.
  So, Madam President, we are now on this motion to proceed. Let's get 
on with it. Let's yield back our time. Let's get to the bill. Let's get 
the job done. I hope at the end of the day the vote will be ``yes.''
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I want to talk principally in the next 
few minutes about a bill that Senator Boxer and I have introduced this 
week on Israel and talk about what is going on in Israel, but on the 
work that is the bill before us right now, I am always hesitant to 
disagree with the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, my 
chairwoman, my good friend, Senator Mikulski. I just think we are 
headed in the wrong direction here.
  Providing money, and not trying to solve this problem, not sending 
the right message, I think is a mistake. People are leaving these 
dangerous countries--if they are dangerous to be in, they are also 
dangerous to travel through, they are dangerous to leave.
  One of the concerns I have had during this whole debate is how many 
kids leave their home country and never get to the American border? 
What happens

[[Page 13542]]

to those kids? We have heard stories in briefings that were not 
classified about kids who never get here because they get sold into 
some sort of terrible situation, even kids whose organs are harvested 
and sold that way. This cannot be something we need to continue to 
encourage.
  In fact, if you do qualify for asylum in the United States, there is 
a way to do that. That is why we have embassies. That is why we have 
consulates. Surely, it is safer for someone in Guatemala City to go to 
the American Embassy in Guatemala City than it is to leave Guatemala 
City and try to come through their country, through other countries, 
through Mexico to get here, under the control of people who have tried 
to make the most of the President's announcement that if you get here, 
you can stay here.
  This is not the Red Cross bringing kids here. This is not some 
altruistic group bringing kids here. These are people who are taking 
advantage of misinformation in their country about what happens if you 
get here. And some of these kids do not get here. Doing this in this 
way--money without policy; acting like somehow it does not cost 
anything if it is an emergency, and so we can continue to do everything 
the chairwoman mentioned that needs to be done in the United States, 
but we can also do this because it is a supplemental, it is an 
emergency, and it is more money we borrow from somebody else--life is 
full of choices, and for our government we have choices.
  There are things that need to be done right now to send a message: Do 
not leave your home country. The door is not wide open, no matter what 
the President's announcement in 2011 led people to believe.
  The law needs to be changed so that immigrants from all countries 
coming to our borders are treated just like immigrants from Mexico and 
Canada coming to our borders. They have an immediate hearing within 7 
days or so. Almost all of them are told: You have to go back. Once that 
happens, almost all of them stop coming.
  It would be a mistake to do this in this way, and I believe this bill 
never winds up on the President's desk. The House of Representatives 
does not share this view, even if a majority of the Senate does.
  We need to send a message to Guatemala, to El Salvador, to every 
other country that the door is not open. Just getting here is not 
enough. This is not a safe ``Disneyland-type'' ride to the United 
States of America. This is a very, very dangerous thing for you to try 
to do, and you should not try to do it. When you get here, it is not 
going to be successful.
  Again, let me say, if you have a case that you should have asylum in 
this country, there is a way you do that which is much safer than 
showing up at the border. We should not encourage the danger that these 
kids go through. I think the case is very dramatic on the side that 
cares for the lives of these kids. We should send the message strongly 
and now: Do not come the way you are coming now. The kids who get to 
the border--we are concerned about what happens to them as a country 
because of who we are. We should be equally concerned about the kids 
who never get to the border because of this false message we have sent.


                 U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act

  But, Madam President, let me spend a few minutes talking about a bill 
that Senator Boxer and I introduced this week, the U.S.-Israel 
Strategic Partnership Act of 2014. This is an updated version of 
legislation we first introduced in March 2013.
  This bill that was introduced this week is already backed by more 
than three-quarters of the Senate. I am hoping we figure out how to get 
this done and get this done this week. There has never been a more 
important time to send a message to the world and to Israel about this 
relationship, about what it means to us, about how committed we are to 
it.
  This legislation reaffirms our unwavering commitment to Israel's 
security and the strong relationship that goes back to the founding of 
Israel. It supports deepened U.S.-Israel cooperation on defense, 
including continued U.S. assistance for the Iron Dome. By the way, the 
Iron Dome assistance in the Defense appropriations bill that the 
Appropriations Committee approved, that is the way to fund the Iron 
Dome. Do the work for the fiscal year that begins October 1. We are 2 
months and a couple days from the time this fiscal year is over. We 
should be having bills on the floor that talk about the Iron Dome, but 
it should be the Defense bill. It should not be some bill that we are 
talking about because we are unwilling to go through the regular 
process.
  But we do in this bill talk about the Iron Dome. We reiterate our 
support to negotiating a settlement, a political settlement that the 
Government of Israel is for where you would have two states, but both 
of those states have to recognize each other. You cannot have two 
states where Hamas and others that are significant parts apparently now 
of the coalition on the other side deny that Israel has a right to 
exist. But we do support the Israeli concept that we want to have two 
states peacefully coexisting. That is reiterated here. But it is also 
clearly understood that you cannot have one of those states say the 
other one does not have a right to exist.
  We have a longstanding relationship here. Really it dates back to the 
very moment that Israel was founded. My fellow Missourian, President 
Truman, in great leadership, decided we would immediately recognize 
Israel, and that moment, that decision, that commitment from the United 
States continues today through security, through energy, through trade. 
We would like to make that clear and make that clear this week.
  What does the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act do?
  First of all, it authorizes an increase of $200 million in the value 
of U.S. weapons held in Israel, to a total of $1.8 billion. What does 
that mean? Does that mean we are spending $200 million more? No. It 
means we are putting more of our equipment in Israel, with the clear 
understanding that it is there for us to use in the time of a crisis. 
It is also there for Israel to have access to when they need it. And 
when they use it, they pay us back and replenish that stockpile that we 
have strategically placed in Israel for our future use and for an 
immediate challenge to Israel where they may need to look at that 
stockpile of our weapons there.
  It requires the administration to take steps to include Israel in the 
top-tier category for license-free exports. The top-tier category of 
looking at the technologies we share with any other country we would 
suggest you should also be able to share with Israel. If they are 
uniquely held in our country, technologies that we do not want to share 
with anybody, they are not considered in that category.
  It authorizes the President to carry out cooperation between the 
United States and Israel on a range of policy issues. They include 
defense; water, things like the water salinization efforts that Israel 
is, frankly, ahead of us in and we need to understand, as we look 
forward to water needs; homeland security, alternative fuel 
technologies, more cooperation in cyber security. All those things are 
authorized in this bill.
  There is new language that encourages the administration to work with 
Israel to help the country gain entry status in the Visa Waiver 
Program, which would make it easier for Israeli citizens to travel to 
the United States without first having to get a waiver, but it would 
also make it easier for people in our country to go there.
  It requires the administration to provide more frequent and more 
detailed assessments of the status of a qualitative military advantage 
that we have committed that Israel would always have. This bill that 
Senator Boxer and I have introduced just says we are going to check 
that even more often and in more detail to be absolutely sure in that 
troubled part of the world that Israel's adversaries look at Israel and 
can clearly understand that Israel has an advantage that makes up for 
the difference in its size.
  It strengthens the collaboration between the United States and Israel 
on energy development. It encourages increased cooperation in academic, 
business, and governmental sectors.

[[Page 13543]]

  This legislation amends previous legislation related to how people 
can travel between our two countries. We do have a unique situation. In 
the recent fighting in Israel, two American citizens, members of the 
Israeli Defense Forces with dual citizenship in this country and in 
Israel, were killed in that fighting. This is one of the unique 
relationships we have in the world where people actually leave our 
communities, go to another country they also care about, fight in the 
uniform of that country, because this country is our ally. We need to 
look for ways to continue to emphasize that.
  It authorizes but does not require the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to waive the 
nonimmigration refusal rate requirement for Israel, but only if Israel 
meets all of the other program requirements, and then it is still 
authorized but not required.
  This is a particularly important time to send this message. This is 
an important time to send this message of continued support between our 
two countries. Israel--we see, looking at the Gaza situation today, 
during recent months uncertainty in Egypt, support from terrorist 
groups all over the world, weaponry, missiles taken into Gaza, money 
that could have been spent on concrete that could have been used to 
build houses, schools, hospitals, and places for jobs, was used to 
build tunnels so that people could come into Israel and attack Israel.
  Certainly the Government of Israel and the citizens of Israel look at 
this moment and think: No time to quit now with this job partially 
done. Some of the messages that have been sent from our country have 
not been helpful and encouraging in regard to what has to happen in the 
middle of this conflict.
  But this kind of legislation sends a message, the message we should 
send. I hope we can get to it this week. I am pleased that three-
quarters of our colleagues--I think that number is right at 80--have 
cosponsored this legislation. The legislation was just introduced this 
week. So if there is any question to our friends in Israel, and maybe 
more importantly others around the world, where the Senate, and 
hopefully by the end of the week the Congress, stands, this action 
sends that message. I cannot think of a more critical time to send that 
message. I hope we see this bill on the floor and send that message 
this week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise today to speak in 
favor of a critical issue for Coloradans; that is, fighting, 
mitigating, and recovering from wildfire. Recent history has shown my 
State that there is no greater threat to our communities, water 
supplies, and our special way of life than wildfire. Successive 
megafires over the past few years have broken records faster than they 
can be written down.
  Even today's flash floods in recently burned areas are a reminder 
that after the embers of wildfires have cooled, their destruction 
lingers for months and years. I used to joke that Coloradans were 
strong and prepared for anything, come hell or high water. But I had no 
idea that the past several years would bring both, with modern 
megafires and floods devastating thousands of households and 
businesses. We have endured these tests, and we have communities all 
over the State, such as Black Forest, that are rebuilding. But these 
recent disasters and the fires burning today in Colorado, California, 
Washington, and across the West show that the status quo is 
unacceptable. The cost of inaction for homeowners and first responders 
alike is too high to not act. That is why I have come to the floor 
today to speak in favor of a few smart, bipartisan, and fiscally 
responsible bills that are in front of our Congress right now.
  These bills, taken together, address wildfires in a comprehensive way 
by attacking the problem before, during, and after a fire. So if I 
might, I want to share some of the elements in these important pieces 
of legislation.
  First, I want to focus on what we can do before a wildfire at the 
individual and community level to reduce risk. There are many studies, 
numerous studies, that single out the most important factor in 
protecting homes. That is, if you do mitigation work. You involve 
yourself with ignition-resistant construction techniques. You reduce 
hazardous fuels around your home.
  That is one of the reasons I introduced the commonsense legislation 
that is entitled the Wildfire Prevention Act of 2013. It will help 
homeowners in communities better reduce the risk of wildfire damages 
upfront. I am very pleased that the bill is moving forward in a 
bipartisan fashion. I am working with Senator Inhofe as my Republican 
partner. In the House, two Members of our delegation from Colorado, 
Congressmen Polis and Tipton, have joined with their California 
colleagues to lead this bill through the House. That is what Coloradans 
expect from their elected representatives, collaboration for the good 
of our State and country.
  This bill is a game changer, not just in my State but across fire-
prone communities in the West and increasingly in other parts of our 
country, the upper Midwest, the Northeast, Florida. You name it, 
wildfire has continued to be a threat more broadly across our country.
  What this act will do, the Wildfire Prevention Act, is it will allow 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to provide hazard 
mitigation grants to States and localities to implement these 
mitigation projects. These mitigation projects will help put Colorado 
communities and public lands managers on the offensive. We put our 
communities and our public lands managers in front of the threat of 
megafires. We can head them off before they even start. It is an idea 
that came from Colorado. It is more than just a commonsense idea; it is 
a fiscally responsible approach to dealing with the threat of wildfire.
  Why do I say that? Well, studies show that for every dollar you put 
on hazard mitigation upfront, it saves an average of $4 down the line 
if you have to fight a fire. For that reason, and the other ones I 
mentioned, I am going to keep doing everything I possibly can to move 
this bipartisan bill to the President's desk this year.
  The second point I want to make and discuss with colleagues is that 
we must fundamentally change and modernize how the Federal Government 
funds wildfire-suppression operations. That is another way of saying 
fighting fires, wildfire-suppression operations. The rising severity of 
modern fires has caused land management agencies to divert resources 
away from the critical fire prevention efforts I just described to 
fight fires that are already burning. This is a vicious self-
perpetuating cycle that is called ``fire borrowing,'' which then only 
increases the risk of catastrophic fires later.
  It is a backwards way of budgeting. It is classic robbing Peter to 
pay Paul and leaves us all to bear much larger costs, most notably our 
communities in Colorado. That is why I joined Senators Wyden and Crapo 
on their bipartisan bill that would finally separate wildfires like 
other natural disasters and help make sure that we are not fighting 
fires that could have been prevented. This is a sensible approach for 
many reasons. It has been cosponsored by 120 Members of Congress in the 
House and the Senate. It has been endorsed by over 150 groups, ranging 
from the timber industry, to the environmental community. That speaks 
volumes about the utility of this and the broad support, obviously.
  My hometown State newspaper, the Denver Post, put it this way earlier 
this month, ``Using disaster fund money for wildfires could solve a lot 
of problems long-term, and we hope Congress sees it that way.'' I also 
hope my colleagues see it that way. If we are serious here about 
helping prevent future wildfires and reducing the threats to lives and 
property, we all join together and pass this legislation.
  Proper wildfire budgeting and the use of disaster relief funds would 
help break this vicious cycle of fire borrowing and allow our natural 
resource agencies to manage healthy forests, instead of fighting 
megafires. I have the

[[Page 13544]]

great privilege of chairing on the energy committee, which the 
Presiding Officer serves on, the National Parks Subcommittee. I know 
all too well the problems this bill could solve. If we adopted this 
measure, this new way of wildfire budgeting, we could ensure that the 
resources are available for our national forest supervisors to reduce 
hazardous fuels, provide quality recreation experiences, and provide 
the timber supply to sustain a diverse forest products industry. It 
would be there for the uses we need them to be there for.
  We could do this also while upgrading our safe, modern air tanker 
fleet in such a way that would keep our communities and firefighters 
safe. So this legislation I just described is in the emergency 
supplemental appropriations measure before the Senate here today. We 
really need to pass it. It is crucial. It is an opportunity we have to 
grab. In the supplemental appropriations act before this body, there is 
$615 million to prevent fire borrowing this year, get resources on the 
ground fighting these blazes, and help our resource agencies plan unto 
the future.
  I know House Appropriations Chairman Rogers. The Presiding Officer 
and I both know Chairman Rogers. He did say that he did not include 
wildfire funding in their supplemental because, in his words, ``there 
is no urgency for such money.'' I have to respectfully disagree with my 
friend Chairman Rogers. I know Coloradans, as well as people in 
Washington State, California, and many States across the West would not 
only disagree, they would strenuously disagree. I would invite Chairman 
Rogers to come out to the West and see firsthand how urgent the 
situation is for our communities.
  Let me finish with a couple of remarks about other elements in this 
supplemental.
  My colleague Senator Blunt from Missouri, just spoke of the Iron Dome 
system. The supplemental includes emergency funding for Israel's Iron 
Dome system. It has intercepted hundreds of Hamas rockets targeting 
civilian areas over the last several weeks. It has literally been a 
lifesaver for our Israeli allies many times over.
  I chair the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which has responsibility 
for the Iron Dome and working with Israel and the Israeli Defense 
Forces. I heard today from an Israeli who said the system is 
miraculous. As Hamas continues to rain rockets down, we need to ensure 
that this system continues to protect our friends and allies in Israel.
  Finally, this supplemental includes critical resources to help 
address the root causes that have led to the humanitarian crisis at our 
southern border. So, in summary, I am glad we have moved forward on 
debating this crucial supplemental appropriations bill. Let's move to 
an up-or-down vote as soon as we possibly can. This is a timely debate. 
Passage of this bill is too important to allow partisan gridlock to 
interfere. So let's come together, let's show the American people we 
can meet our obligations and rise above partisanship.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                             Policies Focus

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the disturbing 
leadership failure we are seeing out of the White House. Over the past 
year the President and his administration have seemed increasingly out 
of touch with the many challenges facing our country at home and 
abroad. Two weeks ago the President's spokesman told reporters, ``I 
think that there have been a number of situations in which you have 
seen this administration intervene in a meaningful way that 
substantially furthered American interests and substantially improved 
the tranquility of the global community.'' Let me repeat that. 
``Substantially improved the tranquility of the global community.''
  Well, fighting is going on right now in Israel and the Gaza Strip. 
Russia is actively involved in a war in Ukraine and recently played a 
role in bringing down a Malaysian airliner with 298 people onboard.
  Iraq is virtually in chaos. Much of the country is under the control 
of a terrorist organization considered by al Qaeda to be too extreme.
  Those are just some of the most serious trouble spots that we face 
right now. Yet the President's spokesman claims that ``there have been 
a number of situations in which you have seen this administration 
intervene in a meaningful way that have substantially improved the 
tranquility of the global community.''
  Not only can I not think of a number of situations in which the 
President's action has substantially improved tranquility, I find it 
hard to think of one. We are actually looking at more points of serious 
instability than we have seen in decades.
  Writing in the Washington Post over the weekend, the paper's 
editorial page noted that during the President's administration: ``we 
have witnessed as close to a laboratory experiment on the effects of 
U.S. disengagement as the real world is ever likely to provide.''
  Disengagement is a good description of the President's attitude 
because right now the President doesn't even seem to be paying 
attention. Obviously America can't fix all of the world problems, but 
strong American leadership can help, as we have seen many times over 
the past century.
  Strong American leadership, however, requires a President who is 
fully engaged and this President is anything but.
  Tens of thousands of children are arriving at our southern border. 
The President is playing pool. When a plane is shot down in Ukraine, 
the President keeps right on with his campaign schedule.
  Earlier this month, as thousands of unaccompanied children were 
making their dangerous trip across the southern border--because of the 
President's statement if they got here they could stay--the President 
traveled to Texas, but he didn't go to assess the situation himself. He 
was, as the Associated Press reported, ``primarily in Texas to raise 
money for Democrats.''
  Weeks later, despite taking multiple trips to fundraise for 
Democrats, the President still hasn't visited the border, despite calls 
to visit from members of his own party. Indeed, the President has 
largely stopped even discussing the crisis. This is the same President 
whose spokesman described him as having substantially improved the 
tranquility of the global community.
  Our world is facing a number of very serious crises now, and the 
President seems completely unaware of it. Unfortunately, when it comes 
to domestic issues, the President seems equally out of touch.
  The President has recently taken to telling his audience that ``by 
almost every economic measure, we're doing a whole lot better now than 
we were when I came into office.''
  Try telling that to the American families who are doing worse. 
Average household income has dropped by nearly $3,000 on the 
President's watch. Meanwhile, prices have risen. Food prices are 
higher. The price of gasoline has almost doubled. College costs 
continue to soar.
  Health care premiums which the President promised would fall by 
$2,500 have increased by almost $3,000, and they are still climbing.
  Combine high prices with declining income and we get a whole lot of 
families who were once comfortably in the middle class are now 
struggling to make ends meet. The Obama administration's economy 
provides few opportunities for these families to improve their 
situation.
  In 2009 the President's advisers predicted that the unemployment rate 
would fall below 6 percent in 2012. Two years later unemployment still 
hasn't fallen below 6 percent. The only reason the unemployment rate is 
as low as it is is because so many Americans have given up looking for 
work and dropped out of the labor force altogether. If the labor force 
participation rate were as high today as it was when the President took 
office, our unemployment rate would be about 10 percent.
  Even when jobs do become available, too often they are low-paying 
jobs, not

[[Page 13545]]

the kinds of jobs that help middle-class families achieve financial 
security or move low-income families into the middle class.
  Take the most recent jobs report. Under the President's policies, the 
economy lost 523,000 full-time jobs and gained 799,000 part-time jobs 
last month, which is the largest 1-month jump in part-time employment 
in 20 years.
  I will give the President this, he does talk. He talks about helping 
middle-class families, but he has steadily opposed measures to help 
them.
  Republicans have proposed numerous measures to create good-paying 
jobs and increase opportunity. We have urged the President to approve 
the Keystone Pipeline and the tens of thousands of jobs it would 
support. In fact, Democrats have urged the President to approve it too. 
The President said no.
  Republicans have proposed fixing the 30-hour workweek provision in 
ObamaCare, which is cutting workers' hours and wages. The President has 
said no.
  Republicans have proposed repealing the medical device tax, which has 
already eliminated thousands of jobs in the medical device industry and 
will eliminate many more if it isn't repealed. A lot of Democrats agree 
with that position. The President said no.
  The President hasn't just said no to measures that would help the 
middle class, he has implemented policies that have hit the middle 
class with tremendous financial burdens. Chief among the President's 
burdensome policies of course is ObamaCare. The President told an 
audience in Wilmington, DE, the other day that thanks to his 
administration, millions more now have the peace of mind of having 
quality, affordable health care if they need it.
  Try telling that to the Americans who lost their health care plans as 
a result of the President's law and were forced to replace them with 
plans that cost more and offered less. Try telling that to the 
Americans who obtained health care plans under the Affordable Care Act 
only to discover their plan didn't cover the doctor they wanted it to 
cover. Tell it to the families paying thousands of dollars more each 
year in premiums, deductibles, and copays thanks to the President's 
health care law. That does not even mention the drag the health care 
law is having on the economy.
  Part of the reason there are so few opportunities for American 
families to get ahead is because the President's health care law is 
making it more difficult for businesses to afford to hire new workers.
  Now the President is piling up his budget-busting health care law 
with a national energy tax that will drive up energy bills for American 
families and put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work.
  Nero may have fiddled while Rome burned, the President fundraises.
  The Washington Post reports:

       In his two presidential terms combined, Bush hosted 318 
     fundraisers. Obama has already smashed that number with 393 
     events to date.

  And he still has 2\1/2\ years to go in his administration.
  Instead of urging the President to focus on crises at home and 
abroad, Democrats have taken a leaf from the President's book and spent 
the past several months focused on elections. Rather than taking up 
legislation to provide real help for struggling middle-class families, 
Senate Democrats have spent months--months--on political show votes and 
designed-to-fail legislation they hope will win them a few votes in 
November.
  Our country is facing challenges at home and abroad. Campaigning has 
its place, but in Washington Members of Congress and the President 
should be focused on solving the problems facing our country, 
supporting middle-class families, and restoring America's economic 
vitality.
  It is time for Democrats and the President to stop focusing on 
politics and start focusing on the policies we need to create jobs, to 
grow the economy, and support freedom and opportunity at home and 
around the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                   African Growth and Opportunity Act

  Mr. CARDIN. Next week, between August 4 and August 6, the United 
States will welcome leaders from across the African Continent to 
Washington, DC.
  I first wish to acknowledge the work of our colleague Senator Coons, 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, Foreign Relations 
Committee, for the work he has done on behalf of the Senate to make 
this opportunity a real chance to strengthen the economic ties, to 
strengthen the strategic ties between the countries of Africa and the 
United States.
  We expect there will be robust discussions that will be encouraging 
economic growth, unlocking opportunities, and fostering greater ties 
between our country and Africa.
  One of the areas that I hope will get some debate and discussion 
during next week's meetings will be a key government trade initiative 
that makes these ties possible; that is, the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act, AGOA.
  AGOA provides qualifying sub-Saharan countries duty-free access to 
the U.S. market for a wide variety of products. It was first signed 
into law in 2000 by President Clinton and has been strengthened and 
extended by Congress and both President Bush and President Obama.
  AGOA enjoyed broad bipartisan support throughout the years because 
its advocates recognize the crucial role Africa plays in the global 
economy.
  The African Continent is one of the world's fastest growing regions. 
For instance, by 2035, it is estimated that Africa will have a larger 
working-age population than China. I mention that because it is 
certainly in our interest to have stable partners who develop their 
economy and can work in strategic partnership with the United States, 
but it also means we are going to have stronger markets for U.S.-
produced goods and products. As we have a growing middle class in 
Africa, it represents a market for U.S. manufacturers, producers, and 
farmers, which creates more jobs in the United States.
  AGOA allows the United States and Africa to both take advantage of 
this dynamism. Since the act was fully implemented in 2001, U.S. 
imports under AGOA have tripled. Nonoil AGOA trade has increased 
fourfold.
  Some of the sectors that AGOA has helped open are apparel, textiles, 
jewelry, handicrafts, and electronics. AGOA has created hundreds of 
thousands of jobs in those sectors, most of those in the apparel 
sector, where women comprise 75 to 90 percent of the industry.
  In sub-Saharan Africa women are at the highest risk of being poor. 
AGOA has tackled barriers to poverty reduction by eliminating tariffs 
on goods that come from many sectors in which women are employed.
  Modern trade agreements and initiatives are much more than just 
lowering tariffs. It also involves dealing with good governance 
practices.
  In an increasing global economy, we can no longer consider issues 
such as labor rights, human rights, and good governance as issues that 
are separate from trade.
  Trade with our country is a benefit with deserving nations that share 
our values. Strong commitments to the rule of law and human rights are 
an essential part of those values and level the playing field between 
the United States and our partners in the global marketplace.
  AGOA is no exception. The Act has been encouraging these commitments 
since it was first enacted. In other words, this is not only an 
opportunity by lowering barriers to our markets, it is also about 
expectations and enforcement that the African countries will improve 
their good governance and their labor rights so we have a more level 
playing field.
  To qualify for AGOA benefits, countries must establish or make 
continual progress on measures that promote good governance and a fair 
economic system. These include fundamental rights, the rule of law, a 
system that combats corruption, and policies that increase access to 
health care, education, and expand physical infrastructure. In other 
words, the African countries involved that take advantage of

[[Page 13546]]

AGOA must have continuing progress on the good governance key issues.
  For example, as part of the annual AGOA review process, the U.S. 
Department of Labor examines AGOA countries' efforts to implement and 
enforce workers' rights, including the right of association, the right 
to organize and bargain collectively, prohibitions on forced or 
compulsory labor, a minimum age for the employment of children, and 
acceptable conditions of work.
  These are the International Labour Organization standards. The ILO 
standards are very much a part of the progress we made under AGOA in 
the African countries. Improvements in these areas have been shown to 
foster the kind of inclusive economic growth and opportunities that 
raise families and nations out of poverty.
  We understand that by developing stronger economies in African 
countries, we are building more stable African countries, countries 
that are more reliable to be partners with the United States in dealing 
with global issues.
  We understand that by doing that we are going to have a stronger 
partner sharing U.S. values. This is just one of the tools we use. We 
also use our transparency initiatives. We included in the Dodd-Frank 
legislation transparency on extractive industries that operate globally 
but also in Africa so we could find and make sure the wealth of a 
country is actually going to its people. That requires good governance. 
AGOA is one of our tools to accomplish that good governance.
  So these countries that have mineral wealth, the wealth is not a 
curse but truly benefits the people of that country.
  AGOA helps, the transparency initiatives that we passed help, but 
this is the issue: The current authorization of AGOA expires on 
September 30, 2015. Once again, Madam President, as you know, as you 
worked so hard, we need predictability in our law. Short-term 
extensions don't do much good. What we need is a long-term economic 
commitment with the continent of Africa.
  A bipartisan effort in Congress to extend and improve this important 
legislation is already underway. The U.S. Trade Representative has been 
reviewing AGOA's successes as well as the areas that can be improved. 
Later today in the Senate Finance Committee we will be holding a 
hearing on AGOA, and Ambassador Froman will be one of the witnesses at 
that hearing. So we will have a chance to work together, bipartisan 
members of Congress with the administration.
  One of the areas we are looking at is strengthening the eligibility 
criteria to further incentivize improvements in human rights, and I 
will be talking about that in the Finance Committee. Another area is 
providing coordinated technical assistance and capacity building. This 
is very important. Too often trade and development policies operate on 
separate tracks. Granting trade preference means little without 
providing countries with the ability to take advantage of those 
benefits. We have development assistance that we provide to countries. 
We have trade that we do. Let's combine it and recognize that these 
trade opportunities can only be taken advantage of if the country has 
the capacity to deal with the issues we are talking about.
  Capacity building is already underway in Africa. For instance, the 
Department of Labor provides capacity-building assistance to AGOA 
countries to improve workers' rights through partnerships with a broad 
range of organizations, from NGOs, to health organizations, to social 
and economic researchers. By providing this aid in a more efficient and 
clearly measurable fashion and seeking more input from local 
cooperatives and groups, we can help foster more sustainable growth in 
Sub-Saharan Africa.
  The time to develop consensus on AGOA improvements is now. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in supporting and strengthening the AGOA Act so 
we can maintain this important tool to increase the trade relations 
between the United States and Africa and fight global poverty. I look 
forward to seeing the results of next week's meetings with the African 
leaders. It is my sincere expectation that these meetings will produce 
concrete ways we can improve the ties between Africa and the United 
States, and I certainly expect it will help us lead to the improvement 
and reauthorization of AGOA.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________