[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5143-5159]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROTECTING VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS AND EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ACT OF 2014

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 3979, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3979) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not 
     taken into account as employees under the shared 
     responsibility requirements contained in the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Reed) amendment No. 2874, of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 2875 (to amendment No. 2874), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 2876 (to amendment No. 2875), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 2877 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 2874), to change the enactment 
     date.
       Reid amendment No. 2878 (to amendment No. 2877), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, 
     with instructions, Reid amendment No. 2879, to change the 
     enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 2880 (to (the instructions) amendment 
     No. 2879), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 2881 (to amendment No. 2880), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

[[Page 5144]]


  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a whole series of 
issues--including unemployment insurance and the minimum wage--that are 
designed to help Americans attain economic mobility and get a fair shot 
to move up in the way our economy is designed to work.
  This morning the Budget Committee had a hearing entitled 
``Opportunity, Mobility, and Inequality in Today's Economy.'' We heard 
from three very strong witnesses, including Nobel laureate Joseph 
Stiglitz. We talked about important topics central to understanding the 
long-held American dream: If you work hard and play by the rules, you 
should be able to support your family, provide an opportunity for your 
kids, and have a fair retirement. But for too many--as the Presiding 
Officer knows--opportunity and mobility are especially hard to find and 
income inequality is growing.
  I am an optimist. I know the solutions are here if we work to find 
them, and I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about some of the 
solutions. First, let's try to put a human face on the problem of 
inequality in our economy.
  Income inequality in the United States is at a record level. It is 
higher in the United States than virtually any other developed country. 
President Obama has called income equality the central challenge of our 
times. The Presiding Officer and I share a Roman Catholic background. 
Last week the President was talking to Pope Francis in the Vatican, and 
they talked about how this is not just an American challenge but a 
global challenge.
  According to the CBO, the average income of a household in the 
richest 1 percent in this country was nearly 180 percent higher in 2010 
than it was in 1979 in real dollars. By comparison, the average income 
for a household in the middle 20 percent of the income distribution had 
only grown by about 25 percent--about one in seven--of what the 
households in the highest income levels had grown.
  Since 1979, the top 1 percent of our population's share of national 
income grew from 8.9 percent to 14.9 percent. So 1 percent has 15 
percent of the national income by 2010, but at the same time the bottom 
80 percent of our American population saw their share of national 
income significantly shrink.
  For me the issue is not just inequality because there will always be 
some inequality. Fate, luck, and health will produce some unequal 
outcomes. But what I think is great about this country is that while we 
can see inequality and tolerate some degree of it, what we will not 
tolerate is people being locked into unequal situations.
  We want to have a society where people may be born poor or may have 
an accident or a fate that will have them in a lower economic status 
but they can still raise their ceiling and achieve all they can. But in 
the case of social mobility, the United States is now one of the 
poorest performing of the developed countries.
  Today a child born into the bottom quintile in the American economic 
life only has a 7.5-percent chance of ever being in the top quintile. 
In a country such as Denmark in Europe--and we think of Europe as a 
more stratified society--that number is nearly double what the number 
is in the United States.
  It is not just inequality, it is mobility. We are not giving people a 
fair shot, to use the words of the great American singer Curtis 
Mayfield, ``to move on up'' to their destination and that place where 
their dreams can take them if they work hard enough.
  What we need to do is embrace strategies that let people move on up 
and have a fair shot to achieve. We don't only need to embrace 
strategies for success, we have to eliminate structures and eliminate 
barriers that lock people out of economic opportunities that they 
should be able to achieve similar to anyone else.
  One solution is the minimum wage bill that we will start to talk 
about soon. It is about working Americans who are earning minimum wage 
or just above minimum wage and how this will affect them.
  I think I can safely say the vast majority of Virginians would agree 
with this proposition: No one who works full time--8 hours a day, 40 
hours a week, 52 weeks a year--should live in poverty. But today 
someone making the minimum wage earns about $15,000 a year, which is 
$3,000 below the poverty level for a family of three. If you are a 
single mom with a couple of kids--and so many people are raising 
children on their own--and work full time at the minimum wage, you are 
below the poverty level.
  The minimum wage today is at a historic low. The minimum wage has 
lost 33 percent of its buying power since its peak in 1968. If the 
minimum wage in 1968 had just kept pace with inflation, it would be 
$10.71 per hour today and not in the $7 range.
  Workers who regularly receive tips are treated even worse. They get 
paid a subminimum wage--what is called a tipped minimum wage--of $2.13 
an hour. As long as you make $30 in tips a month, your company can pay 
you $2.13 an hour. Overwhelmingly these workers work in restaurants but 
not exclusively, and similar to other minimum wage workers they are 
predominately women.
  Twenty-eight million Americans will receive an increase in pay if we 
raise the minimum wage under the bill that is currently before the 
Senate. It has been reported out of the HELP Committee, and we will 
take it up soon. More than half of those who will receive a raise are 
women. The vast majority are adult workers. Over 14 million American 
children have a parent who will receive a raise if we increase the 
minimum wage.
  The Minimum Wage Fairness Act will boost the minimum wage to about 
$21,000, lifting families above the poverty line. In total--get this--
the bill we will hopefully debate and vote on soon is estimated to lift 
nearly 7 million Americans out of poverty and above the poverty level. 
What could we do, as we debate, that would have more effect on people's 
lives than lifting 7 million people above the poverty level, which we 
would do if we pass the bill.
  Increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour will increase GDP by 
nearly $22 billion as workers spend their raises in local businesses 
and communities. In Virginia about 744,000 of my fellow citizens will 
receive a raise. For this reason, business owners whom I talk to--not 
all but a huge number and especially small business owners--know that 
the minimum wage increase makes good business sense.
  Yesterday I visited a supermarket just across the Potomac in 
Alexandria. It is called MOM's Organic Market. They have 11 locations 
in the DC metropolitan area and Philadelphia. They are contemplating 
opening another store in New York City. I met with the owner Scott 
Nash, and I talked to his employees. I asked the employees: How long 
have you worked here? The answer I got back was 7 years, 8 years, 10 
years. They made it their practice to pay their employees a $10 minimum 
wage now, and they are going to increase it. They fully support the 
bill currently pending before the Senate to increase the minimum wage.
  Scott Nash is not alone. We are celebrating a very important 
centennial this year. It is a centennial of one of the smartest things 
an American employer ever did. I will read a quote.
  After the success of the moving assembly line, Henry Ford had another 
transformative idea. In January of 1914, he startled the world by 
announcing that the Ford Motor Company would pay $5 a day to its 
workers. The pay increase would be accompanied with a shorter workday--
from 9 to 8 hours. While this rate did not automatically apply to every 
worker, it more than doubled the average autoworker's wage. While 
Henry's primary objective was to reduce worker attrition, newspapers 
from all over the world reported the story as an extraordinary gesture 
of good will.
  Here is the important part:

       Henry Ford had reasoned that since it was now possible to 
     build inexpensive cars in volume, more of them could be sold 
     if employees could afford to buy them. The $5 day helped 
     better the lot of all American workers and contributed to the 
     emergence of the American middle class. In the process, Henry 
     Ford had changed manufacturing forever.

  This quote is not from some Democratic talking point. This quote is 
from

[[Page 5145]]

the Web site of the Ford Motor Company--a press release they issued in 
January to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Henry Ford's novel 
decision.
  There was an employer who knew the American economy was based on 
consumer demand and if workers could be paid more, they would buy more, 
it would help his company, and it would help America. The Senate can 
take action in this way, and the Senate can take action in other ways 
to give people a fair shot to move on up in American society.
  In fact, we have already acted on a couple of bills I hope the House 
will pick up. We acted on immigration reform, which strengthens border 
security, creates a pathway to legal status and citizenship for 
millions of undocumented immigrants, and helps businesses and families. 
This eliminates a barrier that keeps people from moving up, and the CBO 
estimates it will significantly improve the American economy. 
Immigration reform is about a fair shot. Immigration reform is about 
moving up.
  We also acted on ENDA, legislation to end discrimination in the 
workplace against folks based on sexual orientation. A person can't 
move on up and achieve their economic dreams if folks can fire someone 
at will if they don't like the kind of person someone is or who they 
love. So ENDA, which awaits action in the House, is also a bill about 
making sure people have a fair shot and can move on up.
  We can act this week. We are now on the bill to provide unemployment 
insurance to those who are still struggling in the economy. Soon we 
will consider paycheck fairness for women. A person can't achieve all 
they can if they are going to be paid significantly less than their 
colleagues just because of gender.
  In coming weeks we will also consider jobs skills and education 
legislation, which are real keys to economic opportunity for so many.
  What we need to do is pretty simple. What the Presiding Officer did 
and what so many others in this Chamber did when we were Governors was 
to try to give individuals the tools to create their own opportunity, 
to create their own mobility, as well as to take the steps we could 
when there were barriers or structures in the way to move those out of 
the way so people had a fair shot to succeed.
  With that, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                National Sexual Assault Awareness Month

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today marks the beginning of National 
Sexual Assault Awareness Month. It comes at a time when Congress is 
about ready to take up reauthorization of the Justice For All Act--a 
law that has improved public safety, strengthened victims' rights, and 
delivered justice all across this country. I am proud to be the lead 
Republican sponsor of this bill, and I am even prouder of what it has 
accomplished and what it will continue to accomplish.
  Thanks to the Justice For All Act and similar initiatives, law 
enforcement agencies across America now have greater resources to 
reduce the rape kit backlog. I might just explain. A rape kit is, as it 
sounds, a forensic collection of evidence collected at the scene of a 
sexual assault. Much to our chagrin, we have learned over time that 
many of these rape kits--this forensic evidence--is not forwarded to a 
lab for testing and, thus, the DNA of the assailant is not identified. 
So we realized that local jurisdictions needed more resources and more 
guidance and more expertise when it came to testing these untested rape 
kits because of the incredible evidence it provides, both to acquit 
people who have been falsely accused of crimes, as well as to identify, 
indict, and convict serial sexual assailants.
  This is sort of unique in many ways because people who commit rape 
don't just do it one time. Many times they will do it time and time 
again until they are caught. Worse yet, this is a crime of opportunity. 
Many times it involves children as well, as we know. So now we know 
that thanks to the Justice For All Act and similar initiatives which 
have allowed these rape kits to be taken off the evidence locker shelf 
and tested, that what has been a national scandal, which has allowed 
violent criminals to remain on the streets, is now being addressed more 
and more.
  I am not here to suggest that everything that can be done has been 
done, but it is important for us to make sure these rape kits are 
tested and to get these serial sexual assailants off the streets and 
brought before a court of law and justice.
  Even a relatively small reduction in the backlog can lead to major 
gains in public safety and peace of mind. In the city of Detroit, for 
example, the processing of 1,600 old sexual assault kits, including 
some from the 1980s, allowed authorities to identify 100 different 
serial rapists, ten of whom were convicted rapists already. So this is 
powerful evidence. Incredibly, police sometimes keep this forensic 
evidence for 20 or 30 years, and it is still susceptible to being 
tested, and for the rapist to be identified and to be taken out of 
circulation.
  In the city of Houston, meanwhile, a backlog that once reached 6,600 
untested rape kits is now in the process of being completely 
eliminated--thanks, in large part, to the support provided by this 
legislation.
  I wish to take a second to highlight the SAFER Act, which was 
included in the Violence Against Women Act and which passed just this 
last year, and the fact that it funded a provision of the Justice For 
All Act known as the Debbie Smith Act. I have had the pleasure of 
meeting Debbie Smith for whom this legislation was named, and she has 
become a tireless advocate for the sorts of reforms and improved 
funding that are contained in the SAFER Act and in the Justice For All 
reauthorization.
  The SAFER Act mandated that more of the money the Federal Government 
granted must be used to actually test old rape kits as well as dedicate 
a portion of that money to inventory--evidence that had been sitting on 
police evidence locker shelves or had been sent to laboratories but had 
not yet been tested. This law, passed in 2013, has already played a 
crucial role in making Federal support available for tackling the rape 
kit backlog.
  I was proud to introduce that legislation and I am proud to sponsor 
reauthorization of the Justice For All Act. As I said a moment ago, I 
am enormously gratified and proud of what these laws have helped us 
accomplish. Upholding victims' rights and keeping dangerous predators 
off the street are two of the most solemn obligations the government 
has, and we should never forget it.
  With hundreds of thousands of rape kits still untested, we have a 
long way to go; there is no question about it. It is encouraging to see 
the progress that has been made. Hopefully, this will encourage us to 
take even further steps to make sure these untested rape kits are 
tested and the people who are innocent are vindicated from any charges. 
But the people who commit serial sexual assault, both against other 
adults and minors, should be and will be brought to justice.


                              The Economy

  Shifting gears to the economy, I wish to repeat a call I made 
yesterday and once again urge the majority leader in the context of the 
legislation we are currently considering to allow Republican ideas for 
economic growth and job creation to come to the floor for a vote.
  I realize President Obama has stubbornly chosen to stick with the 
same policies that have given us the weakest economic recovery 
following a recession since World War II. It is also the highest--the 
longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression. Indeed, 
after promoting the same fiscal and economic strategy for the last 5 
years--a strategy that involves higher taxes, more Federal spending, 
and more debt--the President and his allies seem to see no reason to 
change course. His proposed budget for 2015, for example, would 
increase Federal spending by $791 billion. It would also increase taxes 
by $1.8 trillion over 10 years, and increase our national debt by $8.3 
trillion. That is on top of the $17

[[Page 5146]]

trillion already--about $56,000 for every man, woman, and child in 
America.
  For those keeping score, the President has already raised taxes by 
$1.7 trillion during his presidency and increased our national debt by 
four times that much. In other words, if more taxes and more spending 
were the path to prosperity for this great Nation, America would be 
booming, unemployment would be at zero, and our economy would be 
chugging along, creating new jobs right and left. Instead, the evidence 
is in. We are experiencing stagnation and mass unemployment. It is said 
that insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over but 
somehow expecting a different result. If that is the definition of 
insanity, then maintaining the current policies of spending, tax, and 
debt are the definition of insanity.
  There has to be a better way, and there is, if only the majority 
leader would allow the Senate to do what it is supposed to do. This 
body used to once be known as the world's greatest deliberative body, 
where we had the great debates on the issues of the time, and then we 
had a vote, and we all accepted the majority vote in those instances. 
But now, the new tactic by the majority leader seems to be to bring a 
bill to the floor without going through a committee where members of 
that legislative committee are allowed to offer amendments and to get 
votes on those amendments to help shape the committee product. We don't 
even do that anymore, and we didn't do that on this underlying 
unemployment insurance extension bill we will be voting on this week.
  So Members of the Republican Conference--the Republican Members of 
the Senate--have offered 45 amendments, all of which are designed to 
improve the underlying piece of legislation and not just kick the can 
down the road. I would think the majority leader and the President of 
the United States would welcome our efforts to try to improve the 
underlying legislation--but apparently not.
  For example, can't we do a better job, let's say, of directing 
Federal dollars for workforce training efforts in places such as West 
Virginia and Texas so that for the good jobs that do exist, we could 
match the skills of these people who have been unemployed for a long 
time to those good jobs that pay very well and do exist in abundance. 
So we have 45 different suggestions and ideas we would like to offer in 
the spirit of cooperation and trying to do our jobs as Members of the 
Senate. However, so far, the majority leader has steadfastly and, I 
might add, stubbornly, pushed for another extension of unemployment 
insurance without anything else attached that would actually improve 
workforce training and programs that would upgrade stale skills for 
people who have been unemployed for a long period of time so they can 
qualify to do the good-paying jobs that exist.
  One of the favorite parlor games here in Washington, DC, is to spin 
various narratives to explain what is happening in Washington. 
Sometimes I have heard the majority leader and others say the 
Republican Party is the party of no. Well, that is a false narrative. 
We have 45 different amendments that would improve this underlying 
legislation. We have been shut out and, more importantly, the 26 
million people I represent in the State of Texas have been shut out of 
this debate and this discussion and this effort to come forward with a 
better product. Isn't that what we are here for?
  I mentioned some of these ideas that have been proposed yesterday. 
For example, I mentioned a bill, sponsored in different forms, by the 
senior Senator from Maine and the junior Senator from South Carolina 
that would relieve the burden of ObamaCare, which has been complained 
about mightily by organized labor and others, that has compelled--or 
induced, I should say--employers to take 40-hour workweeks and shrink 
them to 30 hours or less in order to avoid ObamaCare penalties. So this 
amendment would relieve that burden on workers and businesses by 
restoring the traditional 40-hour work week. Why wouldn't that be a 
subject worthy of debate and a vote in the Senate?
  I mentioned a separate bill introduced by the junior Senator from 
South Carolina that would modernize workforce training and eliminate 
duplicative governmental programs. There are more than 40 different 
government programs that purport to train people to improve their job 
skills all across the country.
  I have had the chance to visit some of those locations in Texas, and 
they do a very good job. But rather than have 40-plus different 
programs, why don't we have 1 or 2 and use the extra money from all 
that duplication in order to put more money into these programs so they 
can train more people and get them back to work faster? That is another 
of the amendments that have been shut out of this process so far.
  I also mention legislation sponsored by the senior Senator from Utah 
and the junior Senator from Kentucky respectively that would eliminate 
ObamaCare's job-killing tax on medical innovation--something that I 
believe, if allowed to come for a vote, would receive an overwhelming 
majority vote on a bipartisan basis in the Senate.
  Also, the junior Senator from Kentucky has a piece of legislation 
that would make it easier for Congress to block major regulations that 
cannot pass a simple cost-benefit analysis.
  Meanwhile, the junior Senator from Wyoming and the senior Senator 
from North Dakota, whom I see on the floor, have a bill that would 
expedite the approval of natural gas exports to our NATO partners in 
Europe and to Ukraine and help relieve that stranglehold Vladimir Putin 
and Russia have on Europe because they control most of their energy 
supply. It would also approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, thereby 
creating thousands of well-paying American jobs and would transport 
North Dakota oil and Canadian oil all the way down to Texas, where it 
would be refined into gasoline and jet fuel and create thousands of 
jobs in the process.
  In addition, another amendment that has been offered on this 
underlying legislation that would help the economy grow and help get 
people back to work and rein in excessive Federal regulation that is 
killing jobs--the senior Senator from Oklahoma has a bill that would 
stop new EPA regulations until--until--the Agency could tell us exactly 
what the impact of those regulations would be on jobs and the economy.
  So most of the ideas I have listed have been submitted as one of 
these 45 amendments to the underlying unemployment insurance bill. Yet 
the majority leader, who is the traffic cop on the Senate floor--the 
rules of the Senate give him complete, 100-percent discretion to decide 
which amendments are going to get a vote and which will not--the 
majority leader seems determined to prevent any votes on any of these 
ideas.
  If we are truly serious about job creation and if we are truly 
serious about doing everything possible to get America back to work--
because of the dignity work provides and the means it provides people 
to provide for their own families and to pursue their dreams--why on 
Earth would we deny Members a chance to vote on these job-creating 
pieces of legislation? Well, unfortunately, I think we got a little bit 
of a peek into the majority leader's playbook last week when he and 
others had a press conference upstairs and talked about this agenda 
they had for the time from the present through the election. And they 
were pretty candid about it. This is an agenda they dreamed up in 
conjunction with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The 
majority leader said as much in his announcement. In other words, this 
is a political plan by the political arm of the Democratic Senators' 
campaign committee. So this is not about finding solutions or else the 
majority leader would welcome these suggestions we have offered.
  I would say to the majority leader, do not allow votes on these 
amendments simply to placate me and others of my political party. Do 
not do it for us. Do it for the 3.8 million people who have been 
unemployed for more than 6 months. Do it for them. Do it for the untold 
numbers of people who have simply given up looking for work. Our

[[Page 5147]]

labor participation rate--the percentage of Americans actually in the 
workforce--is at a 40-year low. So it is not only the tragedy of the 
unemployment numbers that we see reported, it is people who are not 
reflected in those unemployment numbers because those statistics do not 
count people who have given up. And that is what the low labor 
participation rate indicates. These are the people who need our help, 
and they are the ones who deserve a vote on these constructive 
suggestions to the underlying piece of legislation. I hope the majority 
leader will reconsider.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                              Gun Violence

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in January of this year, I came to the 
floor to talk about and honor one of my constituents, Javier Martinez, 
who was killed on December 28 of last year, just as 2013 was ending. He 
was shot while walking to a friend's house in New Haven. He was 18 
years old.
  In the aftermath of that tragedy, I have spoken with Javier's family 
and his friends about his life and legacy. As I said on the Senate 
floor a few months ago, Javier was a kind and intelligent young man, 
well on his way to becoming a leader in his community. He cared a lot 
about the environment. He worked with the Nature Conservancy and the 
New Haven Urban Resources Initiative to plant trees and protect 
endangered species. His classmates at the Common Ground High School in 
New Haven would like to plant a tree at the site of his death and 
dedicate a garden in his honor because of his interest in the outdoors 
and the natural resources that enhance the beauty of our world, which 
he loved so much.
  Yesterday morning I visited some of Javier's classmates at the Common 
Ground High School in New Haven. I spoke to a group of young people who 
were serious about ending gun violence because it is such a serious 
cause of heartbreak, grief, loss, and sacrifice--not just in New Haven, 
not just in Sandy Hook, but throughout our country in big and small 
towns, rural and urban neighborhoods, people from all backgrounds and 
different walks of life. I spoke to the Common Ground AP U.S. 
Government class, where the students and their teacher, Brian Kelahan, 
were kind enough to welcome me and share with me some of their views on 
gun violence and the justice system in this country. I told them what I 
firmly believe: that I have a duty to listen to them and to all people 
who live in Connecticut because they have a unique insight and a depth 
of understanding and perspective that should be shared here in 
Washington, DC, in this body and around the country.
  It is my job to bring that perspective, those insights back to 
Washington. So I want to begin by showing my colleagues a picture of 
those Common Ground students who were Javier's classmates. This 
photograph was taken at the top of East Rock. Unfortunately, it is 
somewhat indistinct as to who is pictured here. But it is overlooking a 
scene that Javier knew well with people who were his friends. They are 
dedicated to ending gun violence in this country because they know 
firsthand the toll it takes. They have been no stranger to gun violence 
in their neighborhoods. Many of them have to travel long distances to 
come to this school--the Common Ground High School in New Haven--from 
neighborhoods that are afflicted with gun violence, and they suffer the 
traumatic, emotional, sometimes physical threats that come with that 
exposure to violence.
  Connecticut also has been no stranger to gun violence over the last 
year and a half, and I have come to the floor many times with my 
colleague Senator Murphy to commemorate the courageous and strong 
people of New Town and in particular the families who suffered the loss 
of 20 beautiful children and 6 great educators.
  What the students who met with me yesterday morning wanted me to hear 
bears telling and repeating here. They were speaking truth to power. 
What they wanted all of my colleagues to hear and what I strongly 
believe is that as tragic as the mass slayings are in this country, no 
less tragic, no less horrific, no less important is the shooting of one 
innocent 18-year-old young man like Javier while walking to a friend's 
house. It may not make the national news. It rarely does anymore 
because we have come to regard gun violence, in a way, like the 
background noise of our society. It may not feature prominently in the 
headlines. Individual gun violence is a plague, still, that affects all 
of us as it affects any one of us. We cannot let these shootings 
continue in our urban communities. Many of them are committed with 
handguns. Many are the result of illegal gun trafficking and straw 
purchases. Far too many are ignored by the news media--simply 
disregarded background noise.
  Gun violence affects all of us wherever we live in Connecticut and 
the country. If anything positive is to come of these tragedies in New 
Town and New Haven--and in the 30,000 other deaths that have happened 
since New Town--as a result of gun violence, it should be the uniting 
and bringing together of all who have been touched by gun violence, 
which is all of us. That goal is one that will drive me, and I am sure 
others here, to seek an end to gun violence with commonsense, sensible 
measures, such as the ones we considered--background checks, mental 
health initiatives, school safety.
  The Presiding Officer helped to craft a very sensible and commonsense 
approach to background checks. We prohibit felons, criminals, mentally 
deranged people, and addicts from having these firearms, but we have no 
universal background check system to make sure they do not purchase 
them. How effective can enforcement be if there is no real way of 
checking who is buying these firearms?
  A young woman who is a senior at Common Ground, in fact, asked me 
what laws can be effective when people are willing to break them, buy 
firearms even though they are prohibited from doing so. That is an 
important question. The answer is that no law is perfect, none can be 
absolutely perfectly enforced, but regulations and restrictions on 
dangerous people having firearms can reduce the level of gun violence 
in our society, reduce the number of criminals buying weapons. 
Background checks especially have been shown--there is empirical 
evidence--to reduce the number of guns that get into the wrong hands.
  Students and teachers asked me about the way our country deals with 
criminal justice. Systematic disparities continue to plague our justice 
system, resulting in severely disproportionate rates of incarceration 
for young men and women of color. They spoke about the overlapping 
cultures of law enforcement and school discipline and about the need to 
reduce prison populations and bring about much needed reform in the way 
sentences are calculated, not only as a matter of fairness but also to 
reduce the cost in our society of incarceration.
  These young people are thinking about where our society should be 
going. What is our plan and our strategy for making our neighborhoods 
and communities better places and safer places to live?
  I made a commitment to those students pictured here in this picture 
that I would come back again. And I will. I made a commitment that I 
would tell their story, which is really Javier's story--a story of hope 
and promise, dreams and aspirations, cut short by gun violence because 
he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and murdered.
  That investigation may be ongoing, but we already know the answer to 
the fundamental question: Can we do something to reduce gun violence? 
The answer is yes, in his name, in the name of 30,000 people who have 
perished along with him from gun violence, needless and senseless 
deaths that are all our responsibility.
  I respect the Second Amendment, as I know the Presiding Officer does. 
I respect the right of people under the Constitution and the Second 
Amendment to own and possess firearms and use them for hunting, for 
recreation, target practice. I will continue to honor the memory of 
Javier Martinez and the lives and aspirations and homes of the

[[Page 5148]]

students at Common Ground, and work not only to build that garden but 
to make the neighborhood around it safer and the community around it a 
more nurturing and better place to live.
  I have made no secret of the fact that I believe this body has a 
responsibility to act, and its failure to do so is shameful and 
disgraceful. The students of Common Ground agree. If their aspirations 
include organizing to make more people aware of the need for this 
action, I commend them. In fact, I urge them to participate in this 
effort.
  I wish to close with the words from a card they sent me with this 
photograph. The card read:

       Senator Blumenthal, we are so grateful for your help in 
     remembering Javier Martinez, supporting our Common Ground 
     community and taking action to stop gun violence. It means so 
     much to have you by our side as we recover and make meaning 
     in this incredibly difficult time. Know that we will stay 
     with you in the struggle to build a safe and peaceful 
     community.

  I know it sounds more like rhetoric than reality. But I will tell my 
colleagues in the Senate that as long as the young people of Common 
Ground and others like them are at our side, we will prevail in 
commonsense measures to reduce gun violence, and we will prevail in the 
fight to make America a better, safer place to live.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to the 
unemployment insurance legislation we are currently considering. While 
we all want to help those who are unemployed, the real solution is to 
get them a job, is to create a growing economy and more jobs. We need 
to get this economy going. One way we can do it is by empowering our 
energy sector.
  That does not mean spending more government money. What it means is 
taking the shackles off billions in private investment that is ready to 
go into energy development in this country. In 2011, the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce commissioned a study. The study took a look at the energy 
projects that are stalled in this country due to government bureaucracy 
and redtape.
  That study found there are more than 350 energy projects, projects 
that will both produce renewable energy as well as projects that will 
produce traditional energy that are stalled at a cost of $1.1 trillion 
to the American economy, at a cost of almost 2 million jobs for the 
American people.
  I want to take a minute to read from that report:

       In aggregate, planning and construction of the subject 
     projects would generate $577 billion in direct investments, 
     calculated in current dollars. The indirect and induced 
     effect, where we apply the multiplier, would generate an 
     approximate $1.1 trillion increase in U.S. Gross Domestic 
     Product, GDP, including $352 billion in employment earnings 
     based on present discounted value over an average 
     construction period of 7 years.
       Furthermore, we estimate that as many as 1.9 million jobs 
     would be required during each year of construction.

  Two million jobs. Many of these projects are still blocked by 
government redtape and the permitting process. That is why I have 
introduced a States First All-of-the Above Energy Plan for our country 
to get these projects going. If you think about it, it just makes 
sense. The States, after all, are the laboratories of democracy. Let's 
make them the laboratories of energy for our country.
  The right energy plan is about much more than just energy. It means 
economic growth, it means national security, and it means jobs--jobs 
for those who are currently unemployed and jobs at a good wage. Today I 
am offering amendments to the unemployment insurance legislation that 
will do all of those things.
  The first one I wish to talk about for a minute is the Energy 
Security Act. I am pleased to join with the senior Senator from Wyoming 
Mr. Barrasso and also our ranking member on the Energy Committee, 
Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, as well as other cosponsors on the 
legislation, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, obviously a big energy-
producing State, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and Senator David 
Vitter of Louisiana.
  What the Energy Security Act does, quite simply, is first it approves 
the Keystone XL project. This is a more than $5 billion pipeline that 
has been in the permitting process now for more than 5 years. We are 
now in the sixth year of the permitting process trying to get a permit 
from the administration. We have thousands of pipelines all across this 
country, millions of miles of pipeline, and here is a project that for 
6 years the administration has held in limbo.
  The latest greatest technology moves Canadian oil, our closest ally, 
Canada, moves oil from Canada as well as oil from my State, North 
Dakota, and Montana to refineries across the United States. We import 
50 percent of our oil. Do Americans want to get that from the Middle 
East or do they want to produce it here in our country and get it from 
our closest friend and ally, Canada? That is an obvious answer. That is 
why in poll after poll, 3 to 1, Americans want this project approved. 
But it remains in limbo, now in its sixth year of the permitting 
process on the part of the administration.
  So when I talk about those 350 projects, when I talk about $1.1 
trillion in GDP, when we talk about almost 2 million American jobs that 
study performed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce identified, you can see 
what they are talking about when you talk about this project that has 
been held up now into the sixth year.
  The legislation, the Energy Security Act, would approve that project, 
but it would also approve the 24 pending applications that would allow 
us to export LNG, liquefied natural gas, to our allies who need that 
help. Right now in this country we produce 30 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas a year. We consume about 26 trillion cubic feet of natural 
gas. That is growing rapidly. Believe me, I know. We are flaring off 
natural gas in our State that we want to get to market. We need a 
market for that product. But right now we are not allowed to export 
liquefied natural gas to countries such as the NATO countries.
  Look what is going on in Eastern Europe, such as what Russia is doing 
in Ukraine. What is next? One of the reasons Russia is able to take 
that kind of action and the European Union is reluctant to put 
sanctions in place as a response is because Europe, Ukraine, are 
dependent on Russia for natural gas for energy. Over one-third of the 
supply of the EU's energy comes from Russia.
  So we have an opportunity here. We can create economic activity. We 
can create jobs. We can use that natural gas we produce beyond what we 
need here at home to help our allies and at the same time stand up to 
Russian aggression. That is why I say this is about jobs. This is about 
getting our economy growing. But this is also very much about national 
security, our national security here at home, energy security for our 
country, but also security working with our allies to stand up against 
the kind of aggression we see from Russia and from President Putin 
right now.
  In terms of jobs, the Obama administration's State Department, their 
own State Department, has estimated the Keystone XL Pipeline during the 
construction phase will create more than 40,000 jobs. That is just that 
one project, more than 40,000 jobs. If you look at some of the studies, 
very conservative studies on job creation that will occur by approving 
these LNG applications, the National Economic Research Associates 
identifies more than 45,000 jobs that would be created by expediting 
approval of those permits.
  Let me give you two examples so you understand the magnitude of what 
we are dealing with here. Cheniere Energy wants to invest $11 billion 
in an export facility at Corpus Cristi, TX. That is not one penny of 
government spending--not one penny. We have a huge deficit and we have 
a huge debt. We have got to get on top of it. That means controlling 
our spending, but that means we have to have economic growth.
  So here are companies willing to invest and create jobs and create 
economic growth and create tax revenues--not raising taxes, creating 
tax revenue. Why in the world do we hold

[[Page 5149]]

them up? How does that make sense? How is that common sense? Here we 
are on an unemployment insurance bill where we are going to spend more 
government money to pay people who remain unemployed when we could 
approve these projects and put them back to work at good-paying jobs. 
Instead of growing the deficit, we could actually create tax revenues 
from a growing economy--again, not higher taxes, from a growing economy 
that helps reduce our deficit and debt.
  So the Cheniere Energy project, $1 billion investment facility in 
Corpus Christi, creates a market for some of the natural gas that is 
now being flared off, according to the Perryman Group, 3,000 direct 
construction jobs, far more indirect jobs during the construction 
phase. Here is another project. Exxon wants to build the Golden Pass 
LNG facility at Sabine, TX, which is on the border between Texas and 
Louisiana. That is a $10 billion investment. Perryman Group estimates 
that between both the direct construction jobs and indirect jobs, on 
the order of 45,000 jobs for that project during construction, almost 
4,000 permanent jobs.
  So you can see when we talk about NERA, the National Economic 
Research Associates, saying, hey, there are going to be 45,000 jobs for 
these projects, that is a very conservative estimate. It creates so 
much more--not just good-paying jobs but also a growing economy, cash 
revenues to help with the deficit and national security, and security 
working with our allies at a critical time, a critical time in Eastern 
Europe.
  In addition, I have offered other legislation I filed, that I am now 
offering as an amendment to this unemployment insurance bill--again, 
legislation that will create jobs and help people get back to work.
  The second one I want to mention is the Empower States Act. The 
Empower States Act gives primary regulatory responsibility to the 
States when it comes to regulating hydraulic fracturing. The reality 
is, a Federal one-size-fits-all approach does not work for hydraulic 
fracturing, because the way hydraulic fracturing is done across this 
country is different in different States. The way they hydraulically 
fracture in States, for example, in West Virginia, where they are going 
after natural gas is very different than the way they do it in North 
Dakota where we are going after oil. We drill down 2 miles, 2 miles 
vertical drill bore to reach the oil, and then we drill out for miles 
at that level.
  We produce primarily oil and natural gas--huge amounts of natural gas 
and gas liquids as a byproduct--but we are miles away from any potable 
water, which is much closer to the surface, so it is very safe. The 
water that is produced--both the frack water as well as the water that 
comes up with that oil and natural gas--we put back downhole through 
saltwater disposal wells, in essence recycling the water. Anything that 
can't be reused goes back downhole and that creates a recycling 
process.
  That is different than the way it is done in the Marcellus shale in 
places such as New York, Pennsylvania, and it is different than the way 
it is done in West Virginia and different than the way it is done in 
the Utica shale in Ohio. There are some similarities with the way it is 
done in Texas in the Eagle Ford, where they also drill for oil.
  But the point is, the way this is done, the technologies that are 
used, even the product we are going after--and certainly the formations 
are different across the country.
  When we put a Federal one-size-fits-all approach in place, it doesn't 
work. Not only does it not do the job in terms of making sure we have 
the right kind of regulation, it holds up projects. It prevents job 
creation. It doesn't allow our economy to grow. It doesn't empower us 
to produce the energy that could be produced across this country with 
the right approach, with the right energy plan.
  As far as job creation, our State is now the fastest growing State. 
We have the lowest unemployment, and we have the fastest growing 
economy, 7.6 percent in the most recent statistic versus a 2.6-percent 
average for the other States. Again, this is about creating a growing 
economy. It is about creating jobs.
  Also, I am offering the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act legislation I 
filed as an amendment to this bill. DEJA is a series of bills that has 
already passed the House. This is all legislation that has already 
passed the House. So we know if we can get a vote in the Senate, the 
legislation we can pass in the Senate has already gone through the 
House. We are already a huge distance on the journey to getting this 
done.
  What does the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act do? It does exactly what 
the title says. It reduces the regulatory burden, it sets goals, it 
helps us produce more energy and create jobs.
  For example, we establish an American energy development plan for 
Federal lands. We have all of these Federal lands--millions and 
millions of acres of Federal land both onshore and offshore. The 
Department of Interior should have a plan to develop energy on those 
public lands, and they should set goals to do so. This legislation 
would require them to do just that.
  We freeze and study the impact of EPA rules on gasoline regulations. 
That benefits all Americans at the pump, not only small businesses that 
are looking to hire people but families, all consumers.
  We provide onshore oil and gas leasing certainty, meaning that the 
Department of Interior has to approve the permits within a stipulated, 
reasonable period of time. It advances offshore wind production. This 
is about producing renewable energy as well as traditional energy. It 
streamlines the permitting process. It provides access to the National 
Petroleum Reserve for development in Alaska. It requires the BLM to 
hold live Internet auctions. Let's use this new technology to encourage 
investment in job creation and energy development in new and creative 
ways.
  It establishes rules on surface mining that make sense, commonsense 
rules. It increases States' revenue sharing for Outer Continental Shelf 
drilling, offshore drilling, and it also offers lease sales off the 
Virginia coast.
  Clearly, developing these new areas creates revenue for the States, 
creates revenues for the Federal Government, creates more energy for 
our country, and creates more jobs--not spending Federal money, 
investing hundreds of billions of private dollars that are currently 
sidelined in these new and exciting projects.
  Finally, I am offering the stream buffer rule legislation that I 
filed as a stand-alone bill. I am offering that as an amendment as well 
to this UI bill. The Department of Interior wants to implement a 
Federal one-size-fits-all rule for stream buffer zones, meaning mining 
proximity to rivers and streams. Again, a one-size-fits-all, one-size 
Federal approach for every situation does not work. Allow the States to 
take the primary role in regulating the stream buffer zones and let 
them do what makes sense.
  With all of this legislation, we can empower hundreds of billions in 
private investment. We can put that investment in good old-fashioned 
American ingenuity into getting our country going, getting our economy 
growing, and getting our people back to work.
  We can do it. The way we can get started is simply by voting. That is 
what we do in the Senate. That is what we do in this Senate forum. Let 
us put forward our ideas and let's have a vote. If it passes, we can do 
these things. But why in the world wouldn't we get a vote? That is what 
this body is all about. Let's have the debate. Come to the floor and 
let's have a debate. Let's debate each one of these and a lot more. 
That is what we do. Then let's vote. That is how we will decide. That 
is what the American people expect us to do. They sent us to the Senate 
to do just that.
  The question I have is why aren't we voting on these amendments and a 
lot more if we are serious about getting people back to work? If 
somebody wants to come down and refute this, come on down, do it, and 
then let's vote.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

[[Page 5150]]


  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I commend my colleague, the Senator from North Dakota, 
not only for his leadership on so many energy initiatives, but for the 
proposal he has put forth this afternoon.
  I am pleased to be able to join him in support of those various 
measures--measures that, as he has outlined, will not only as a nation 
allow us to move forward and take that leadership role, which we so 
rightly have and should use as something to benefit not only ourselves 
and our economy, jobs within the Nation, but to benefit other nations. 
The proposal he has advanced--again, that I am pleased to join him on--
is one that allows for incredible jobs and opportunities with the 
construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, provisions that will allow 
for expedited processing of our LNG exports.
  It recognizes, again, that when we produce more in this country--when 
we produce more of a resource that not only allows us to be more energy 
secure, but that also helps our friends and allies around the world, it 
also helps to truly effectively reduce the cost of that energy to 
American consumers.
  How can this possibly be a negative? How can this possibly be bad 
when it adds to jobs, when it strengthens our economy, and when it 
makes us more secure as a nation.
  There are many win/wins that we see in these energy proposals we have 
in front of us that Senator Hoeven has offered. But, again, if we only 
have an opportunity to kind of talk aloud about them but never actually 
have the chance to move them forward through a legislative process so 
they can actually become law so we can actually see those benefits play 
out, it doesn't do us much good.
  I appreciate what my colleague has outlined this afternoon through 
his proposals. I know we will have an opportunity to speak further to 
them tomorrow, and I look forward to doing that as well.


                               King Cove

  I want to take 5 minutes in this late afternoon to continue to 
educate not only my colleagues but folks within this administration and 
around the country about an injustice that continues to unfold in a 
small corner of my State, a very remote part of my State in 
southwestern Alaska for the small community of King Cove. There are 
about 950 people who live in King Cove.
  I have been fighting since I came to the Senate, and before I came my 
father took up this fight, in an effort to get a small connector road, 
a small 10-mile, one-lane gravel, noncommercial-use road that will 
allow the people of King Cove access to an all-weather airport so they 
can get out in the event of medical emergencies.
  We had another one last night. I had an email saying the weather had 
completely taken over in the gulf in King Cove, and there was an 
emergency call that went out. It was for a 58-year-old fisherman who 
had been injured. He had been out on a Seattle-based processor called 
the M/V Golden Alaska.
  This fisherman happened to live in Seattle, and he was onboard this 
boat. They were out near Unimak Island, which is out toward the chain 
in the North Pacific, when this fisherman was accidentally sprayed with 
a high-pressure hose and it severely injured his eye. It was 1 a.m. 
when this incident happened.
  We have this big vessel, a big processing vessel of 305 feet, heading 
from Dutch Harbor to Seattle when the accident happened. I don't have a 
map with me, but if we can envision, there is a lot of big, wide-open 
ocean, and medical care is a long way away. This fisherman couldn't 
wait for that medical care. The closest deepwater port was King Cove.
  King Cove got the word that they had an injured fisherman onboard and 
they said: Look, our clinic can't handle somebody who has critical 
needs. See if you can take the boat over to Cold Bay so that not 
necessarily he can get medical care, he could get on an aircraft out of 
Cold Bay that could fly him the 600 miles or thereabouts to Anchorage 
for the medical care he needed. But the problem they faced was they had 
wind gusts of up to 60 miles per hour. They had rough seas, very rough 
seas.
  The ship's captain said: I am not going into Cold Bay. I am not going 
to try to hoist a man who has been severely injured in his eye--I am 
not going to try to hoist him up a 20-foot ladder at the Cold Bay dock. 
We are not going to do that.
  So they went into King Cove, a safer, more protected cove, and they 
were able to get the gentleman there at 11:30 a.m. The physician's 
assistant--we don't have a doctor in King Cove, we have a PA, somebody 
who basically does a good job in stabilizing folks. She contacted the 
emergency room in Anchorage.
  The ER folks said: Look, you have to get this guy to an 
ophthalmologist as soon as you possibly can in order to preserve as 
much of his eyesight as possible.
  As I mentioned, not only does King Cove not have a doctor, they don't 
have any kind of a eye specialist. The nearest ophthalmologist is in 
Anchorage, more than 600 miles away.
  The PA, Katie Eby, did what health professionals at the clinic always 
do in an emergency like this. She calls for help to our Coast Guard. 
She begs the Coast Guard to come. The Coast Guard says they will come, 
but they can't come now. They can't chance the weather to get in there. 
They are not going to risk a pilot and his crew to get into this 
situation where we unnecessarily put even more lives at risk. They 
said: Look, we are going to have to wait until the conditions improve 
and the winds die down. So the physician's assistant tries to stabilize 
the fisherman, manage his pain as best she can and basically she waits, 
holding the hand of a man and telling him the Coast Guard will come.
  The Coast Guard did finally make it in around 3 in the afternoon the 
next day. So this injured fisherman waited 13 hours for the winds to 
settle.
  The problem with this story, of course, is there were other 
alternatives for this fisherman who had been injured, who had to wait 
in pain wondering if he was going to go blind, if he was going to 
completely lose his eyesight while he was waiting for the Coast Guard 
helicopter to come in, to pluck him out, to fly him over to Cold Bay, 
and have a flight take him to Anchorage. The other alternative--the 
safe, reliable, affordable way out is a 10-mile, one-lane, gravel, 
noncommercial-use road. If that fisherman could have been put in an 
ambulance and taken across that road, a dozen hours could have been 
spared.
  Yesterday's medevac marks the fifth medevac by the Coast Guard in 
this current year. In 2014, we have had five Coast Guard medevacs. Keep 
in mind, each one of these medevacs costs around $210,000 per flight. 
So for those who are saying we can't have a road in King Cove because 
it is going to cost the taxpayers money, it is costing the taxpayers 
money because we are footing the bill for the Coast Guard.
  Thank goodness the Coast Guard is there. But we are also putting the 
lives of these men and women--our fine coasties--at risk when we are 
doing this. If we had a road, who is building the road? It is the State 
of Alaska. Who is maintaining the road? It is the Aleutians East 
Borough. This is not the U.S. taxpayer who is paying for this, again, 
10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use road.
  There are options here. But the Secretary of the Interior has 
determined she wants to look at other options. She wants to find other 
alternatives. The fact of the matter is we have been looking at 
alternatives for a long time now, and those alternatives have been 
tried and failed or studied and reviewed and discarded.
  But the one thing we are pretty sure of is that this fisherman from 
Seattle who was injured and had to wait 13 hours to get out--we are 
pretty sure we could have put him on an ambulance across that road--if 
one existed--and he would not have had to wait for 12 hours.
  We are pretty sure that the 63-year-old woman who suffered heart 
issues on Valentine's Day and had to wait hours and hours for the Coast 
Guard to pluck her out of King Cove before she was able to safely make 
it to the hospital in Anchorage, we are pretty sure she

[[Page 5151]]

could have been spared some of that agony.
  We are pretty sure that a couple of weeks ago when a father who had 
been crushed by a 600-pound crab pot--his pelvis crushed and his legs 
broken--that for hours and hours and hours he waited in the King Cove 
clinic to get medevaced out, and of the fact that his infant son, a 1-
month old baby named Wyatt who was there in respiratory distress also 
had to be medevaced out on the same day, only that baby had to make it 
through the night in the arms of the physician's assistant, and the PA 
knowing and feeling the infant was in distress and actually feeling him 
stop breathing.
  If we had a road in place, with the agony of not only the individuals 
who have been injured but the loved ones who care about them, there are 
better alternatives, and, it is very clear to me, alternatives that 
work for the people who live there and the people who are in the area--
the fishermen.
  Maybe I am taking this a little too personally because my oldest son 
crabbed in the Bering Sea this winter. He was out in those waters. He 
was out in that foul weather. He was working in a very dangerous 
industry. Anybody who has ever watched ``Deadliest Catch'' knows what I 
am talking about. Both my sons fish in these areas. They go through the 
Gulf of Alaska. They go through Nunivak Pass every year as fishermen. 
If something should happen to them or to somebody else on their crew, 
and the closest deepwater port for them happened to be King Cove but 
the weather was to the ground, I want a road for them.
  I want a road for the people in King Cove. I want a road for the 
Seattle fisherman who is transiting back. It is a lifeline. It is a way 
to get to help. Right now, the one thing keeping these people from 
getting help is the Secretary of the Interior because she has concluded 
that we cannot build a 10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use 
road without disturbing the waterfowl, the black brant, and the geese 
that go through the Izembek.
  We have all heard my story on this many times before. We know we can 
build this small road and have it coexist peacefully with the birds 
that go through there. We know the people who live there will continue 
to care for the waterfowl and the wildlife just as they have for 
thousands of years.
  I don't want to keep coming to the floor and ranting about why we 
need this road. I don't want to make it appear we are sensationalizing 
the injuries of men, women, and children for the purpose of winning 
this fight. But I am not going to have somebody die out there when we 
could have found a safer and saner path forward.
  So I am going to keep coming to the floor. I hope the Secretary of 
the Interior is listening, that folks in the administration are 
listening, and that they understand we in Alaska can be responsible for 
the lands where we live, and we can provide for the health and safety 
of those who are out there and those who are transiting through. But we 
need this Secretary to do the right thing for the people of the State 
of Alaska and provide for a life-saving road.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for a few minutes, 
if I could, as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.


                          Iran U.N. Ambassador

  Mr. GRAHAM. There is an issue facing this country that needs to be 
addressed firmly and decisively. I am encouraged there is a bipartisan 
effort to deal with this issue, and the issue is very simple. The 
person who has been nominated to be the U.N. Ambassador for Iran is a 
gentleman who participated in the takeover of our Embassy in Tehran, 
holding hostage 52 U.S. personnel for 444 days.
  This is a slap in the face by the Iranian Government to the American 
people, to the hostages, and it should not be allowed to stand. Senator 
Cruz, I believe, will be offering a unanimous consent request 
potentially dealing with this issue, but I just wanted to rise for a 
few minutes and speak in support of what he is trying to accomplish in 
the Senate. I am somewhat encouraged that there is a bipartisan effort 
forming among our intel folks to deal with this affront to the American 
people, to all those held hostage, and basically to human dignity. The 
idea that the Iranians would be appointing someone connected in such an 
apparently direct way with the Embassy takeover back in 1979 to 
represent their nation in the U.N. tells us all we need to know about 
Iran.
  This hardline-moderate divide doesn't exist. This is all a game. 
President Rouhani, when he was the nuclear negotiator for Iran, bragged 
about how much progress they made when the heat was off. If he were 
truly moderate he wouldn't have been on the ballot and wouldn't be 
serving today at the pleasure of the Ayatollah. Nobody serves in a high 
position in Iran without the blessing of the Supreme Leader.
  So the idea of making this gentleman--I don't want to butcher his 
name--the Ambassador to the United Nations from Iran when he has 
actively participated in violating every diplomatic principle involved, 
the idea of invading a consulate or embassy and taking hostages runs 
afoul of every principle of international law and diplomatic behavior.
  It would be different if in the last 30 or so years the Iranian 
regime had changed. We have relationships with people today who are 
some of our strongest allies who used to be our enemies. There is 
nothing changing in Iran since the Embassy takeover that would place 
Iran in the column of a friend of America. This regime has been 
actively involved in worldwide terrorism plots. They have provided 
equipment to those who were fighting in Iraq to kill our soldiers. They 
support Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist organizations. They have been 
designated by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. 
They are trying to build a nuclear weapon, not a powerplant. So they 
have actually been no good for a very long time. I hope this body will 
send a signal to the Iranians that we will not accept on U.S. soil the 
person who has been designated, because this person was actively 
engaged in holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, in contravention 
of every law on the books and human decency. If Iran wants a new 
relationship with the United States, this is not a good way to start 
it.
  I think there will be a lot of bipartisan objection to allowing this 
person to come to New York. We have provisions in our laws that give us 
the right as the host nation to exclude people who have been involved 
in acts of terrorism against the United States or their neighbors and 
any security threat. Again, the idea of doing business with former 
enemies is the way of life. The idea of accepting that the Ambassador 
to the United Nations from Iran as one of the people intricately 
involved in the takeover of our Embassy and holding Americans hostage 
for 444 days is an affront to us as a people and to the United Nations 
as a whole. He has served in other posts in Europe. That is not the 
issue. It is our Embassy that was taken over; it was our people who 
were held hostage, and the surviving hostages are very upset, as they 
should be. We don't want to reward people for doing bad things. This 
would be the ultimate reward for somebody who did a very bad thing.
  It would be a mistake to engage Iran in this way and not push back. 
If there is to be a better relationship with Iran, it is worth fighting 
for. We are going to have to stand up to these people because they will 
take advantage of us if we allow it.
  I look forward to supporting Senator Cruz and others who want to join 
in the effort to stop this appointment because it is wrong.
  With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 5152]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cruz pertaining to the introduction of S. 2195 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            DEA'S Final Rule

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today to urge the Drug 
Enforcement Administration to issue the final rule necessary to 
implement the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010. I note 
that year--2010--because that is the year this bipartisan bill was 
passed.
  What it does is it provides consumers with safe and responsible ways 
to dispose of unused prescription medications and controlled 
substances.
  I thank Senator Cornyn, who was the lead cosponsor on the Republican 
side of this legislation, as well as Senator Grassley and Senator 
Brown, for working with me on the legislation.
  The important law expands safe disposal options for individuals and 
for long-item care facilities, and it promotes the development and 
expansion of prescription drug take-back programs.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, this simply means that when you get 
prescription drugs and you do not use all of them--or your doctor 
prescribes something else--you do not just leave them in your medicine 
cabinet, where someone else might be taking them. Instead, you find a 
safe place to dispose of them, so someone else does not start taking 
them and potentially get hooked on the drug.
  Why did I mention 2010? Well, 2010 was the year President Obama 
signed this bill into law. It has now been 4 years--4 years--as we have 
awaited the rules. I will describe why, but I think it is time to put 
this law into action.
  The DEA issued a proposed rule in December 2012. Unfortunately, that 
took 2 years. There were some comments then about making sure the rules 
worked for our long-term care facilities--you can imagine, there are a 
lot of prescription drugs at long-term facilities--and the Departments 
of Defense and Veterans Affairs. But these issues should be addressed 
in the final rule. It is time now to get this rule done so we have more 
options to easily and safely dispose of our prescription drugs.
  I know the final rule is now at the Office of Management and Budget 
for their approval. I have spoken to them about this rule. I am also 
aware they have only had the rule for 35 days. So they are not really 
the ones who have been holding this up. They have 90 days to get this 
out, and they have pledged that they hope to get that done.
  We need to get the rule done, and let me tell you why. As a former 
prosecutor, I have seen firsthand the devastating impact that drug 
addiction has on families and communities. During my 8 years as chief 
prosecutor in Hennepin County--the largest county in our State--drug 
cases made up about one-third of the caseload.
  Most Americans know that we have a problem with serious drugs. But 
what most Americans may not know is that one of our most serious drug 
problems is, in fact, drugs that are in the medicine cabinet--drugs 
that are prescribed legally.
  Within those cabinets are some of the most addictive prescription 
drugs out there--like pain killers and beta blockers. Prescription 
drugs such as these are some of the most commonly abused drugs--and 
people are surprised by this, but they are ahead of cocaine, heroin, 
and methamphetamines in many States.
  Teenagers now abuse prescription drugs more than almost any other 
drug, and the majority of teens who abuse these drugs get them for 
free. They get them in that medicine cabinet or, more likely, a friend 
of theirs gets them from their mom's or dad's medicine cabinet--often 
without the knowledge of the person who has it.
  I think we all know that many leftover drugs are lying around. You go 
to see the dentist for surgery, and they prescribe you something for 
pain. You feel OK. You only take 1 or 2, and then you have 10 left, and 
they are just sitting in the medicine cabinet.
  We used to tell people to flush these drugs down the toilet. This is 
not a good idea for our water supply, and I think most people know 
that. Some people will tell you that the proper way to dispose of your 
drugs is to crush up your extra pills, then mix them with--and this is 
what they say--kitty litter or coffee grounds.
  We need to do all we can to keep these dangerous drugs out of the 
hands of teens, but I am just not sure--especially if someone does not 
have a cat--that kitty litter is a realistic solution. Not everyone 
these days makes their own coffee nor has coffee grounds. We are 
dealing here with a very serious problem, and all we are hearing about 
is kitty litter and coffee grounds. That is why we passed this bill.
  One option parents have is to dispose of leftover drugs at a National 
Take-Back Day. Listen to this. Over 3 million pounds of prescription 
medications have been removed from circulation through seven National 
Take-Back Days that have been held since 2010. I participated in one of 
those days in Brooklyn Park, MN, last fall.
  While these events have been incredibly successful, one-day events 
that are held a few times each year do not fully address the problem of 
how we are going to dispose of our drugs safely.
  For instance, let's say you heard about a Take-Back Day right after 
you had your dental surgery. Great, you can bring over those pills and 
safely dispose of them, but then you remember your kid has a soccer 
tournament, and you cannot make it that day to dispose of the drugs. It 
looks like those pills are going to stay sitting right where they are 
in the medicine cabinet. I doubt many people have the time right then 
and there to call and ask when the next Tack-Back Day might be and put 
it on their calendar in a red pen.
  We have to be realistic. These Take-Back Days are great. In my State, 
especially in the metropolitan area, under the leadership of our 
sheriff Rich Stanek we actually have some permanent facilities in 
places where they can be brought permanently--the drugs--in the 
libraries and places like that, but we really have gone the extra step. 
The reason our law enforcement is such a big fan of this law is they 
know we could take so many more drugs in if, for instance, long-term 
care facilities were able to simply bring the drugs to one location 
each and every day.
  If, for instance--and some of our drug stores have been open to this, 
some of these national chains--imagine how good this would be if they 
would just be willing to take these back and then they bring them 
somewhere. But to do that they need certain legal protections. They 
need protections about how they transport them. That is why we have 
been awaiting these rules.
  Given the Food and Drug Administration's recent approval of some very 
powerful drugs, I think it is even more important that we make sure 
when these drugs are out there that they are able to be disposed of.
  Offering more ways for people to dispose of their unneeded 
prescription drugs is also a crucial component of stopping the recent 
rise we have seen in heroin. Now, that might seem counterintuitive. You 
might say: Why would that help with heroin? That is not a prescription 
drug. How could that reduce the amount of heroin out there when we know 
we have seen huge increases in the amount of heroin. We have seen it in 
our State.

[[Page 5153]]

  The heroin epidemic in Minnesota and all across the country is 
deadly. In the first half of 2013, 91 people died of opiate-related 
overdoses in the Twin Cities--in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties--compared 
to 129 for all of 2012--just to give you a sense of 6 months compared 
to a year. Hospital emergency department visits for heroin nearly 
tripled from 2004 to 2011.
  In the 7,000-person community of St. Francis, MN, three young people 
have died of opiate overdoses since May. Another three young people 
have been hospitalized for heroin overdoses. One was only 15 years old.
  Experts blame this rise in heroin use to, first of all, some pure 
heroin coming from Mexico, but, secondly, an increased use of 
prescription drugs like OxyContin and Vicodin. That is because, 
according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, as many as 4 
out of 5 heroin users got their start by abusing prescription drugs. 
That is a pretty phenomenal number.
  I think people think of heroin like from the 1970s and people 
shooting up. Well, it is not like that anymore. They can take it by 
pills. They can take it different ways. What happens is, when they 
start with these prescription drugs, and they have access to them, they 
get hooked, they get addicted; and then, when they cannot get the 
prescription drugs--which does happen--then they turn to heroin, and 
heroin right now is much easier to obtain.
  So the answer here--because those drugs are similar in how they make 
them feel--the answer is to stop them from getting addicted in the 
first place. I think often times, when people just see a drug in the 
medicine cabinet or know that it is OK to take one of these types of 
drugs--OxyContin and other things for pain--they actually do not intend 
to get addicted. These are many of the people I just had a roundtable 
with at Hazelden, one of the Nation's premier drug treatment centers, 
talking about this. A lot of times the people who end up dying from a 
heroin overdose actually may even be casual heroin users. They are not 
doing it every single day. But that is because the heroin was a 
replacement for the prescription drugs they started getting addicted to 
when they got them out of a medicine cabinet or maybe they were 
prescribed them.
  We know this is not going to fix everything. But certainly making it 
easier and empowering people to dispose of these drugs will, No. 1, 
clearly cut down on the use of these prescription drugs, and then, we 
believe, lead to less heroin use in the long term.
  Americans all across the country--in cities, suburbs, and small 
towns--need options to get rid of leftover pills before they fuel 
addictions and claim the lives of their loved ones.
  The Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act provides these options. 
But we cannot take these crucial steps in the fight against drug abuse 
until the DEA issues its final rule.
  After 4 years, it is time to make these rules official--4 years that 
families and long-term facilities have lost out on safe and easy 
options to get rid of unused prescription drugs; 4 years that those 
plastic amber bottles have piled up in medicine cabinets across 
America; 4 years that dangerous pills have been left vulnerable to 
misuse, potentially falling into the hands of our loved ones fighting 
addiction or criminals or being accidentally consumed by an innocent 
child.
  We need the final rules. We must get them done right. But with so 
much at stake, we must get them done now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, it is April Fools' Day, but it sure feels 
more like ``Groundhog Day'' because we are once again here considering 
an extension of unemployment benefits for the millions of Americans who 
have been out of work for months, and some of them even for years.
  While assistance to those without work serves an important purpose in 
helping Americans transition, we are failing to address the underlying 
and more important issue: How do we grow the economy and create jobs 
for all of our citizens?
  A growing economy creates new opportunities for Americans to find 
meaningful work, and with meaningful work comes an opportunity for 
Americans to improve their economic security and advance up that 
economic ladder.
  It is one of the reasons Senator Wyden and I started the Economic 
Mobility Caucus. We wanted to study the facts and explore policy 
improvements that can make a difference to increase the likelihood that 
all Americans can do just that--improve their standard of living and 
move up that economic ladder to a better life.
  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, their monthly report 
indicates that 10.5 million Americans are unemployed; 7.2 million 
Americans are working part time because they cannot find full-time 
work; 2.4 million Americans want to work but have stopped searching. 
What a sad circumstance that is for those folks.
  Our labor participation rate is hovering around its 35-year low at 63 
percent. While those statistics and the lives these numbers represent 
are pretty discouraging, I want to talk about a piece of good news. We 
know we can create jobs and we can create a growing economy, and we 
know from the facts, from the studies, that entrepreneurship, starting 
a business, giving Americans a chance to pursue the American dream, is 
the key.
  The Kauffman Foundation in Kansas City has studied entrepreneurship. 
They make clear that most new jobs come from young companies created by 
entrepreneurs. In fact, since 1980, nearly all of the net new jobs that 
have been created in our country have been created by companies less 
than 5 years old. It kind of makes sense. Big businesses often are 
looking for ways to cut costs, reduce their workforce. New businesses 
wanting to succeed increase their workforce. In fact, these new 
businesses create, on average, 3 million jobs each year.
  Unfortunately, the number of new business startups, those business 
formed each year, are around their lowest total since the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics began keeping track over 40 years ago. So while we 
know that startup companies have a great opportunity to create jobs, we 
are creating the fewest number of startup businesses in nearly 40 
years.
  A couple of authors, John Dearie and Courtney Geduldig--they are 
authors of a book called ``Where the Jobs Are''--point out in that book 
that ``the vital signs of America's job-creating entrepreneurial 
economy are flashing red alert.'' John and Courtney spent an entire 
summer traveling the United States. They met with more than 200 
entrepreneurs in dozens of cities to learn about the challenges those 
entrepreneurs are facing.
  What they found is no surprise to anybody in this Chamber. They are 
the same issues I hear when I am back in Kansas. Those who start a 
business struggle with access to money, the capital to start that 
business; a lack of skilled talent; a complex Tax Code; a regulatory 
burden; and, boy, a lot of uncertainty, most of it, much of it, 
resulting from the action or lack of action here in Washington, DC.
  A few years back I set out with a bipartisan group of Senators to 
address the challenges entrepreneurs face. Together we developed 
legislation that is now called Startup Act 3.0 to help create a better 
environment for those whose dream it is to start a new business. The 
Senate majority leader is frequently talking about allowing votes on 
legislation that has bipartisan support. This bill, Startup 3.0, is 
such a bill.
  I spent time working with Senator Warner and Senator Coons, Senator 
King and Senator Klobuchar, as well as Senator Blunt and Senator Rubio. 
We introduced what I would say is a very commonsense approach to 
addressing factors that influence an entrepreneur's chance of success: 
taxes, regulations, access to capital, access to talent.
  This legislation has been introduced as an amendment to the 
unemployment insurance extension bill the Senate is now considering. 
Unfortunately, at least so far, we have been denied having a vote on 
what is clearly a job-creating measure. I have offered this as

[[Page 5154]]

an amendment to other bills on the Senate floor, but if the past is any 
example of what will happen on this bill, the chances of us being able 
to offer the amendment, have it considered and voted on, do not look 
very probable.
  Startup 3.0 makes changes to the Tax Code to encourage investment in 
startups and provides more capital for those who are ready to grow and 
hire. To address burdensome government regulations, this legislation, 
now this amendment, requires Federal agencies to determine whether the 
cost of new regulations outweighs the benefits, and it encourages 
Federal agencies to give special consideration of the impact proposed 
regulations would have on a startup business.
  As any entrepreneur knows, a good idea is essential to starting a 
successful business. So Startup 3.0, an amendment now to this bill, 
improves the process by which information that is funded by Federal 
research, information that is garnered by Federal research, is more 
readily available to those who want to start a business, so that tax-
funded innovations can be turned into companies that spur economic 
growth.
  Finally, Startup 3.0 provides new opportunities for highly educated 
entrepreneurial immigrants to stay in the United States where their 
talent and new ideas can fuel economic growth and create jobs in 
America.
  For more than 2 years, Startup Act 3.0 has earned praise from 
business owners, from chambers of commerce, from economic development 
officials, from entrepreneurs, from economists, and elected officials. 
Recently, the California State Senate passed a resolution calling on 
Congress to pass Startup Act 3.0. The President's Council on Jobs and 
Competitiveness, when it was in existence, had voiced strong support 
for several of the bill's provisions.
  Unfortunately, none of that support from across the country has 
progressed in the Halls of Congress to see this legislation seriously 
considered. I can tell you that the reason Congress has not been able 
to address our economic challenges is not for lack of good ideas. In my 
view, it is a lack of leadership in the Senate and within the 
administration, within Washington, DC, to address the challenges 
Americans face.
  There are plenty of good ideas that can provide immediate relief to 
Americans, many ideas in addition to Startup 3.0. Some of those 
examples are a 40-hour workweek. The House is poised to pass 
legislation. Some of my colleagues are proposing amendments here in the 
Senate to change full-time employment from 30 hours, as outlined in the 
Affordable Care Act, back to 40 hours.
  Small businesses, restaurants, school districts, and community 
colleges across Kansas and around the country are already cutting hours 
to comply with the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act. By 
fixing this provision, we can make certain that hard-working Americans 
have the opportunity to work more hours, earn a bigger paycheck, or 
find full-time employment.
  Many of us believe--in fact, a large majority of the Senate in a 
bipartisan way believes--that approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline will 
help us in two ways: reduce energy costs in the United States, a very 
important factor in new jobs and expanding the economy, as well as 
increasing employment during the construction of that pipeline.
  A recent poll by Washington Post and ABC News shows that Americans 
support this 3 to 1. Again 80-some Senators voted in moving forward 
with the Keystone Pipeline. Yet it has not happened. The President has 
not made a decision in regard to Keystone Pipeline, has stalled this 
issue. Nothing in the Senate would suggest the leadership of the Senate 
is ready to move this ball forward.
  The President talks about trade promotion authority, spoke about it 
in one of his State of the Union Addresses. Yet that is another issue 
that has not been considered by the Senate. The President apparently 
has backed off of this issue out of deference to politics. Yet we 
know--we certainly know this in Kansas--that the airplanes we make in 
south central Kansas, the wheat we grow in western Kansas, the cattle 
we grow in our State, that we raise in our State, clearly much of the 
economic activity that comes from those activities occurs because we 
are able to sell those agricultural commodities, those manufactured 
goods around the globe.
  Millions of Americans can be better off if there is greater 
opportunity for what we manufacture, the agricultural products we grow, 
if they have a wider market. The President and this Congress, 
particularly the Senate--not this Congress, the Democratic majority 
here--have focused much of their attention on, for example, the bill we 
are on, extending the unemployment insurance timeframe, apparently in 
the near future increasing minimum wage.
  Consider these facts. There are 3.6 million Americans at or below the 
minimum wage level. Minimum wage workers make up 2.5 percent of all 
workers, and 55 percent are 25 years old or younger. So it is a 
relatively small portion of the workforce and a young portion of the 
workforce. I am certainly willing, happy to have a debate about the 
need to increase the minimum wage, to extend unemployment benefits, in 
part because I want the Senate to operate.
  One of my greatest complaints since my arrival in the Senate is the 
Senate no longer functions as it has historically, in which issues of 
importance to the country, whether they are Republican issues, 
Democratic issues, American issues, middle of the road--this place 
takes up those issues very rarely. I am willing to have a debate about 
what is proposed here.
  But what I am thinking we are doing is we are missing the real issues 
if we only deal with those. The minimum wage and extension of 
unemployment benefits is a symptom of a larger problem. It is that 
Americans want and need jobs. In my view, this Senate and this 
President have done nothing to increase the chances that Americans have 
a better shot at finding a better job.
  We have to grow the economy. By growing the economy--I think that 
sounds like something that is far removed from the everyday lives of 
Americans. But growing the economy simply means we are creating greater 
opportunities for American men and women, for husbands and wives, for 
sons and daughters, for families to have the opportunity to pursue a 
career they feel comfortable in, that is satisfactory to their economic 
needs, and gives them the hope they can improve their lives 
financially.
  So growing the economy is about creating a greater opportunity for 
every American to pursue what we all have grown up calling the American 
dream. Unfortunately, the facts, if you believe the Congressional 
Budget Office, indicate that raising the minimum wage will increase 
unemployment. In fact, the numbers I saw--this was not the CBO score, 
but a Texas university study indicated that raising the minimum wage to 
$10 an hour or more would reduce jobs in my home State by 27,300 jobs.
  I doubt that voters care much about CBO reports or about a Texas 
university study, but they are acutely aware--they see it every day in 
their own lives--of the lack of opportunity, the dearth of jobs, the 
reduction in hours, the reduction in opportunity. These reports make 
clear they are happening because of failed policies and the refusal of 
the Senate and the President to address the broader issue of what can 
we do to create jobs for Americans.
  I thought the message of the 2010 election, the election where I was 
brought to the Senate on behalf of Kansans--I thought the message that 
we all would have, should have received, the message of the election, 
was the desire for every American to have the chance to improve their 
lives through a job, through a better job, and through a secure job. In 
my view, it is time for us to focus on growing the opportunities for 
all workers everywhere.
  With a willing Congress, including leaders who understand these 
challenges and are willing to address them, I am certain we can create 
greater opportunities for millions of Americans,

[[Page 5155]]

including those who no longer or who currently have no meaningful work. 
The lack of a job is terrible. I think there is a certain moral 
component, a sense of well-being, a sense of who we are as human beings 
when we have a job that not only fulfills us financially but gives us a 
sense of purpose in our daily lives.
  As the Senate considers a short-term extension of unemployment 
insurance, we must not lose sight of that longer term goal of creating 
an environment for job creation. Again, I would offer Startup Act 3.0, 
a bipartisan amendment, a bipartisan piece of legislation offered as an 
amendment, as an opportunity to do that, as part of the consideration 
of the extension of unemployment benefits. There is no better way to 
create jobs than to support entrepreneurs and to foster the development 
of new businesses.
  Small business is, as we always say, the backbone of American jobs. 
So let's stop having this ``groundhog day'' moment every few months and 
let's start tackling the challenges that entrepreneurs across the 
country are telling us about, that Americans are telling us about, that 
we learned in the 2010 election mean so much to every American.
  Unfortunately, this President and this Senate have done nothing to 
improve the chances that every American has a better job and a brighter 
future. Please, this is so important. There is so much we can do. Too 
many times we focus on what we are unable to agree upon. But there is 
so much we can agree upon, so many things we can do. The American dream 
depends upon us doing so and doing so now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am on the floor for the 63rd 
consecutive week we have been in session to ask my colleagues to 
finally wake up to the threat of climate change. The evidence mounts of 
unprecedented and dangerous changes, from the latest Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change report to the recent warning from the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science.
  The American people demand action in ever-greater numbers. Yet 
Congress continues to sleepwalk, lulled by special interest influence 
and polluter propaganda. The influence and propaganda are spread 
through an apparatus of denial. This apparatus is big and artfully 
constructed--phony-baloney organizations designed to look and sound as 
if they are real, messages honed by public relations experts to sound 
as if they are truthful, payroll scientists whom polluters can trot out 
when they need them. The whole thing is big and complicated enough that 
when we see its parts, we could be fooled into thinking it is not all 
connected. But it is just like the mythological Hydra: many heads, same 
beast. And this denial beast pollutes our democracy just as surely as 
its sponsors pollute our atmosphere and oceans. Some editorial pages 
spread the polluter party line so consistently that it appears they 
have gone over and actually joined the apparatus.
  The climate denial network controls the political arm of the 
multinational corporations, the so-called U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  Polluter-funded super PACs target officials who don't fall in line--
interestingly, often Republicans, in an effort to purify the party in a 
coal-fired crucible.
  The whole deniers' castle can look pretty daunting, but it is based 
on rejecting science and ignoring empirical evidence. That is a weak 
foundation. It won't stand. The castle is built on sand and its fall is 
inevitable. Remember from Apocrypha: ``But above all things Truth 
beareth away the victory.'' And it will.
  There are cracks in the foundation already. Some leading news sources 
have begun to put climate denial into their policy against printing 
misinformation and discredited theories. They just won't print that 
nonsense. Many executives recognize the significance of climate change 
and are distancing their companies from the policies and politics of 
climate denial. They don't want any part of that nonsense. Many local 
officials are doing all they can to protect their communities from the 
effects of climate change. They know climate denial is nonsense.
  It has been wrong that the climate change denial campaign has been so 
ignored by major media outlets. Media Matters found that all the major 
network Sunday TV talk shows in all of 2013 discussed climate change 
for a grand total, all combined, of 27 minutes. NBC News's ``Meet the 
Press'' mentioned climate change once. When several of the Sunday shows 
discussed climate change on February 16 of this year for a grand total 
of 46 minutes combined, it was more climate coverage than in the past 3 
years.
  It has been wrong that polluters so often got their way on the 
editorial page. Whether through a desire to appear fair and balanced or 
a willful effort to help polluters, newspapers still publish editorials 
or letters to the editor that dispute consensus science, disparage 
scientists or journalists who report the truth about climate change, 
and exaggerate the costs of taking action to stop it. Often, their 
authors have direct ties to coal and oil interests, and rarely is the 
connection disclosed.
  As we can see from this chart, some papers do it more than others. 
The denier champ is the Wall Street Journal editorial page, with eight 
denier letters in the first 10 months of 2013. That is one every 5 
weeks. I think they have actually joined the denier apparatus and are 
now a part of the scheme, but they are on the wrong side of history.
  On the right side is the Los Angeles Times, whose editorial page last 
year released a note from editor Paul Thornton announcing they would no 
longer print climate denial letters.
  Thornton's note read:

       I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; 
     when one does run, a correction is published. Saying 
     ``there's no sign humans have caused climate change'' is not 
     stating an opinion; it's asserting a factual inaccuracy.

  Reddit is one of the Internet's most popular social and news Web 
sites, ``the front page of the Internet.'' According to the Pew 
Research Center, 1 in every 17 American adults uses Reddit. Reddit 
science has 4 million subscribers. That is about twice the circulation 
of the New York Times. Reddit Science has banned posts on climate 
denial because, as its moderator, Dr. Nathan Allen, explained, ``We 
require submissions to [Reddit Science] to be related to recent 
publications in reputable peer-reviewed journals, which effectively 
excludes any climate denial.''
  The L.A. Times and Reddit Science are not alone in seeing that the 
climate denier castle is built on lies. More and more American 
corporations are responding to the facts, understanding that they are 
ultimately responsible to their shareholders and customers. Major 
utilities--for example, PG&E, the Public Service Company of New Mexico, 
and Exelon--all quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce after a chamber 
official called for putting climate science on trial like the Scopes 
Monkey Trial of 1925. The chamber may have been infiltrated and 
captured by the polluters, but major corporations get it: Coke and 
Pepsi, UPS and FedEx, GM and Ford, Google and Apple, Walmart--we can go 
on and on. The denier castle is crumbling.
  Many of the businesses getting serious about reducing carbon 
pollution are actually based in States that are represented in Congress 
by Members who won't take the problem seriously at all. Coca-Cola, 
headquartered in Georgia, says:

       We recognize climate change is a critical challenge facing 
     our planet, with potential impacts on biodiversity, water 
     resources, public health and agriculture. . . . Beyond the 
     effects on the communities we serve, we view climate change 
     as a potential business risk, understanding that it could 
     likely have direct and indirect effects on our business.

  Texas- and Maryland-based Lockheed Martin states:

       From 2007 through 2011, Lockheed Martin reduced its 
     absolute carbon emissions by 30 percent, and continues to 
     focus on carbon emission reductions by championing energy 
     conservation and efficiency measures in our facilities.

  Sprint, the mobile carrier headquartered in Kansas, gets it.


[[Page 5156]]

       We understand that climate change is a critical issue and 
     that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an important goal. 
     Because Sprint is a large corporation with thousands of 
     locations, millions of customers and billions of dollars in 
     operating costs, we have many opportunities to reduce global 
     greenhouse gas emissions.

  The denier castle is crumbling at the local level too. Scores of 
locally elected officials are fighting to slow climate change and 
protect their residents, even if in Congress their Congressman won't 
listen. One of those local leaders is Mayor Frank Cownie of Des Moines, 
whom I met on my recent trip to Iowa. Iowans are taking climate change 
seriously, and Mayor Cownie is one of over 1,000 mayors represented on 
this map all across the country who have signed the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Their pledge is to meet or beat 
the Kyoto Protocol emission reduction targets in their own cities and 
press their State governments and the Federal Government to enact 
meaningful greenhouse gas reduction policies.
  Seventy-eight current and former mayors from Florida have signed on. 
With over 1,000 miles of coastline, Florida is at serious risk from 
sea-level rise. According to the World Resources Institute, of all the 
people and all the housing in America threatened by sea-level rise, 40 
percent is in Florida.
  Thirty-one former and current mayors from Texas have also signed on 
to the climate agreement. Texans are waking up to the threat of climate 
change. A recent poll showed that roughly 55 percent of Texans say the 
United States should reduce greenhouse gas emissions regardless of 
whether other countries do the same.
  Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, our former Republican colleague from 
this Chamber, understands the benefits of cleaner energy. He fought to 
keep in Kansas his State's renewable portfolio standard, which 
encourages utilities to ramp up generation of renewable electricity. 
The standard has already helped create thousands of Kansas jobs.
  Governor Steve Beshear of Kentucky, a coal-producing State, has taken 
a commonsense stance on climate change that defends the well-being of 
his State. He said:

       [W]e have to acknowledge our commitment to address 
     greenhouse gas emissions, while stressing the need for a 
     rational, flexible regulatory approach.

  I have to say I agree with him. I stand ready and many of us stand 
ready on this side to work with coal-State colleagues to ease their 
transition away from a polluting fossil fuel economy.
  When we think of what the costs are going to be to all of us of 
failing to address this problem, the cost of easing the transition for 
those who will suffer from it is easily worth undertaking. But to do 
any of that, we first have to break through the barricade of lies built 
around Congress in Washington. We can't keep pretending this isn't 
real. That is why once a week for over 60 weeks I have come to the 
floor to press this point. It is real. It is happening. It is not going 
to go away if we ignore it.
  There is one thing and one thing only that prevents our action, and 
that one thing is the politics of the Republican Party. There is one 
thing and one thing only that makes this the politics of the Republican 
Party, and that one thing is the special influence of the polluters. 
But against the relentless facts and science, against Mother Nature's 
relentless truth, that castle is built on sand and will fall. But above 
all things, truth beareth away victory.
  For the sake of our democracy, for the sake of our future, for the 
sake of our honor, it is time for us to wake up.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we are in the midst of a debate about 
extending unemployment insurance for millions of Americans who are 
unemployed, some of whom have been out of work for some time. It is a 
problem for the country.
  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of Americans 
who want to work but who have stopped looking for a job is 3.1 million. 
Over 91 million Americans are outside the labor force entirely. 
According to a recent report in CNN Money:

       Only about 63 percent of Americans over the age of 16 
     participate in the job market, meaning they either have a job 
     or are just looking for one. That is nearly the lowest level 
     since 1978, driven partly by baby boomers retiring but also 
     by workers who had simply given up hope after long and 
     fruitless job searches.

  As a matter of fact, we saw at our budget hearing this morning a 
chart which showed the decline in workers by age group, and it was 
interesting. The younger workers had the biggest decline in percentage 
working, and the older, 62 and above, are working at a greater rate 
than they were in previous years. So that is an interesting statistic. 
But we do have a problem, particularly among a lot of our younger 
people finding work.
  At the same time we are having these difficulties, this 
administration has engaged in a systematic dismantling of the 
protections our immigration laws provide for American workers, 
producing for them--our workers--lower wages and higher unemployment. 
That is just a fact. Why are wages down? And wages are down, as we 
heard from all witnesses, Republican and Democratic, in the Budget 
Committee this morning. Wages have declined significantly in the last 5 
years. They have been declining, just at a lesser rate, since 1999.
  In fact, our review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
published statistics for 2013 reveals that under the guise of setting 
priorities for enforcement of our laws, this administration has 
determined that almost anyone in the world who can enter the United 
States then becomes free to illegally live, work, and claim benefits 
here as long as they are not caught committing some felony or serious 
crime.
  Based on what the President has said, and what the Vice President has 
said, it would appear an individual could come to America on a work 
visa, and 1 day after the visa has expired just continue to stay in 
America and be able to work and could be confident that they will not 
be deported because the policy of this government is not to deport 
people unless they catch them at the border entering illegally or they 
have committed a serious crime.
  A recent report this week shows that even the serious crime issue is 
cloudy. An independent report earlier this week said one-third of 
those--68,000--who had been involved in criminal activity in some way 
are not being deported. So this applies not only to those who 
unlawfully enter our borders but also those who enter on a legal visa 
and don't leave when that visa expires.
  The President and Members of Congress are arguing, it appears, based 
on the bill that cleared the Senate, for a historic surge in the amount 
of legal immigration into our country at a time of high unemployment. 
The White House has preposterously claimed, amazingly, that an influx 
of new, mostly lower skilled workers will raise wages. This is a 
conclusion not supported by any credible academic evidence or even the 
Congressional Budget Office's own report analyzing the massive Senate 
immigration bill. The CBO concluded the bill would add 46 million 
mostly lesser skilled legal immigrants by 2033 and that average wages 
would fall for one dozen years if it were to become law and 
unemployment would increase and per capita GDP--growth in America--
would decline, I think for 20 years.
  And, apparently the House of Representatives is considering proposals 
to bring in hundreds of thousands of guest workers at a time when we 
are talking about extending unemployment for Americans who can't get 
jobs.
  Dr. George Borjas at Harvard has found that high immigration levels 
from 1980 to 2000 resulted in an 8-percent drop in wages for American 
workers without a high school degree. Let me repeat that. This is 
Professor Borjas at Harvard, raised in Cuba and

[[Page 5157]]

immigrated to America. He is perhaps the most authoritative academic in 
the world on immigration and its effect on wages and the labor force. 
He found that high immigration levels from 1980 to 2000--and he studied 
that carefully, using census and other data--resulted in an 8-percent 
drop in wages for American workers without a high school degree. Eight 
percent is a lot. It is several hundred dollars a month for a person 
who didn't graduate from high school. Actually, it is about $250 a 
month. So there is a reason workers who are earning $30,000 and less 
support a reduction in net immigration levels by a 3-to-1 margin. 
Working people know what is happening out there. They know their wages 
are going down. They know particularly lower skilled people, some young 
people who didn't get to graduate from high school or who got in 
trouble, are not having much success at all.
  Average household income has fallen steadily since 1999, and only 59 
percent of U.S. adults are now working. African-American youth looking 
for work cannot find jobs. We don't have a shortage of workers in this 
country--we do not have a shortage of workers in this country. We have 
a shortage of jobs. That is a fact.
  Some might ask: How can you be so sure of that, Senator? I believe in 
the free market, and I tell the chamber of commerce and the big hotel 
magnates, if we have a shortage of workers, why aren't wages going up? 
Wages are going down. We don't have a tight labor market. We have a 
loose labor market, and it is impacting adversely American workers.
  The idea that we ought to double the number of guest workers who come 
into the country legally when the President of the United States is not 
going to enforce immigration laws and we will not use comprehensively 
the E-Verify system indicates we are going to see a decline in wages 
for average Americans out looking for jobs.
  The President's own economic adviser, Gene Sperling, former Director 
of the National Economic Council, recognized this, saying recently that 
``our economy still has three people looking for every job,'' three 
people for every job. Majority Leader Reid has cited that statistic on 
the Senate floor as well.
  So this Senate passes a comprehensive immigration bill that doubles 
the number of guest workers. Don't think these are workers who are 
going to work seasonal jobs in agriculture. They will be able to move 
throughout this country and take jobs from wherever, providing 
businesses with a ready source, a new source of additional labor that 
helps keep the labor market loose.
  My amendment, the Accountability through Electronic Verification Act, 
is a proven way to help out-of-work Americans. This legislation was 
introduced in this Congress by Senator Grassley and cosponsored by 
myself and Senators Boozman, Corker, Enzi, Fischer, Hatch, Johanns, 
Lee, Vitter, and Wicker. So we have offered legislation to deal with 
this, and I have offered it as an amendment to this unemployment 
insurance legislation, but I have been told it will be blocked. We will 
not get a vote. The leader has filled the tree.
  What this proposal would do is it would create some jobs for 
Americans who are out of work. It absolutely would. It would work, and 
it would immediately help create jobs. That is why the establishment 
doesn't want to see it happen, if you want to know the truth.
  The legislation would permanently authorize and expand the E-Verify 
Program. That is a simple Web-based tool that allows employers to 
maintain a legal workforce by verifying the work eligibility of 
employees. E-Verify works by checking data against records maintained 
by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security 
Administration. It is quick and easy. An employer simply puts in a 
Social Security number, it runs against the Social Security database, 
and an employer receives an answer as to whether this person is a 
lawful applicant for a job.
  Although in 1986 Congress made it unlawful--in 1986--for an employer 
to knowingly hire or employ illegal aliens, these laws have never been 
effectively enforced. They just have not. They have gotten comfortable 
with this, not having it enforced. Under current law, if the documents 
provided by an applicant for a job to an employer reasonably appeared 
to be genuine, then the employer has met its obligation.
  Incidentally, shortly after the 1986 amnesty law was passed, when it 
was promised amnesty would not be granted again, the now-assistant to 
President Obama and the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, 
Cecilia Munoz, who was then a senior policy analyst of La Raza, led the 
charge to undo these enforcement provisions. So the person chosen by 
President Obama to be the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and 
who has been given the responsibility to deal with immigration, use to 
work for La Raza where she sought to undo enforcement.
  Ms. Munoz authored a report for La Raza entitled ``Unfinished 
Business: The Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986.'' In that 
report she argued that Congress had a moral obligation to ``repeal 
employer sanctions'' and that workplace enforcement is ``inherently 
discriminatory.''
  Now think about that. The person the President has chosen, who is 
supposed to be helping us create a lawful system of immigration in the 
United States, has as her prior effort written a paper that says 
basically it is a moral requirement of America to repeal any employer 
sanctions. This is the mentality running our government today; that it 
is morally wrong to say to employers they should only hire people 
lawfully in our country. She went on to say that any kind of workplace 
enforcement--apparently in which our employers would be disciplined or 
punished if they violate the law--is inherently discriminatory.
  Because identity theft and counterfeit documents became a thriving 
industry after the 1986 amnesty, Congress created an E-Verify program 
in 1996.
  In 1996, after realizing this was turning into a joke--nobody was 
following the intent of Congress and anybody could produce false 
documents--Congress passed a law which said we would end this game and 
create a system that would work. Employers required to use E-Verify 
today include the Federal government, certain Federal contractors and 
employers of certain immigrant students. The program for other 
employers is voluntary and free for them to use, and it has been very 
successful throughout the country by any who use it.
  According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in fiscal 
year 2012, 98 percent of queries resulted in a confirmation of work 
eligibility immediately or within 24 hours. So most of them 
overwhelmingly immediately access the computer system, put in a Social 
Security number and other data they require, hit the computer button, 
and it quickly comes back. On a few occasions there is a question and 
it may take up to 24 hours.
  It is not slowing down employment, it is not a big burden on 
employers, and it protects them from being accused of deliberately 
hiring illegal aliens if the report comes back that the Social Security 
number matches. According to a January 2013 USCIS customer satisfaction 
survey, E-Verify received an 86 out of 100 in the American customer 
satisfaction index scale--19 points higher than the customer 
satisfaction rating for the overall Federal Government.
  There is no objection to this. The only objection to it is by certain 
business lobbyist groups and certain activist immigration groups who 
don't want it to work, and they want to keep other businesses from 
using it because it does in fact identify people in the country who are 
not allowed to take jobs and it would keep them from receiving these 
jobs.
  This legislation would make the program mandatory for all employers 
within 1 year of enactment of the law. This legislation would also 
increase penalties for employers who do not use the system when it is 
mandated or continue to illegally hire undocumented workers.

[[Page 5158]]

  Employers would be required to check the status of current 
employees--but within 3 years--and would be permitted to run a check 
prior to offering someone a job. In other words, they can run a check 
before they actually offered a job and determine whether the person was 
lawfully able to take the job. This could help them a lot.
  Employers would also be required to recheck those workers whose 
authorization is about to expire, such as those who come to the United 
States on temporary work visas.
  This legislation would require employers to terminate the employment 
of those found unauthorized to work due to a check through E-Verify, 
and would reduce employers' potential liability for wrongful 
terminations if they participated in E-Verify.
  The legislation would establish a demonstration project in a rural 
area or an area without substantial Internet capabilities--although 
there are not many left--to assist small businesses in complying.
  The legislation also addresses identify theft concerns by ensuring 
that the Social Security Administration catches multiple uses of Social 
Security numbers--different people using the same social number to get 
jobs with a fake document and a false Social Security number.
  And for victims of identity theft, this legislation would amend the 
Federal criminal code to clarify that identity fraud is punishable 
regardless of whether the defendant had knowledge of the victim. So 
this provision addresses a 2009 Supreme Court decision holding that 
identity theft requires proof that the individual knew the number being 
used belonged to an actual person.
  E-Verify has been proven to deter employers from hiring illegal 
workers and will help put Americans back on the payrolls.
  Since I have seen legislation move through Congress--comprehensive 
reform legislation that is going to fix our immigration policies--one 
of the things I have observed is that whatever works is what gets 
objected to. If someone offers a bill which appears to work but doesn't 
work, that will pass. E-Verify has been proven and will work to deter 
employers from hiring illegal workers, and will help put Americans back 
to work. That is why we apparently don't have any ability to get it up 
for a vote. A number of States have enacted E-Verify laws, and it is 
working in those States with great results.
  According to a 2013 Bloomberg government study entitled ``Early 
Evidence Suggests E-Verify Laws Deter Hiring of Unauthorized Workers'':

       Soon after E-Verify laws were signed in Arizona, 
     Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina, unauthorized 
     workers in specific industries appeared to drop off employer 
     payrolls. This prompted employers in many cases to fill 
     positions with authorized workers, American workers who are 
     here lawfully, maybe a young 22-year-old African American who 
     needs a job, would like to get married, maybe raise a family.

  With respect to my State of Alabama, the Bloomberg study says:

       Employment trended lower immediately after the law was 
     enacted. Employers then added more crop production workers in 
     the months before [the law] took effect, when compared with 
     the same period the year before. That growth in production 
     jobs was among the largest in the nation. This study 
     hypothesizes that authorized hires probably filled the jobs 
     of unauthorized workers who had left the state.

  Isn't that what we would like to see? Wouldn't we ask people to come 
to the country lawfully? We admit 1 million people a year for permanent 
residence on a guaranteed path to citizenship absent serious criminal 
activity. We are generous about immigration. Make no mistake about it. 
But we do need to make sure that people who don't follow the law, don't 
wait their turn, don't meet the requirements of American immigration 
law--they shouldn't be able to come unlawfully and take jobs when 
Americans are out of work in record numbers.
  Regarding South Carolina's law, the study found this:

       The number of crop production workers fell. . . . And then 
     hiring surged as the law took effect in 2012. Farmers say 
     they added workers because their normal labor supply 
     vanished.

  The study also found that:

       [t]he state's commercial bakery industry had been losing 
     workers, then gained them as E-Verify took effect.

  So people who were unlawfully there couldn't get past E-Verify. It 
exposed them as being unlawful, and the businesses lost workers. But 
then they hired people back, and the people they hired back were lawful 
workers--either here as immigrants lawfully or native born.
  The study, which is based on research from the Pew Hispanic Center, 
goes on to say this:

       [t]he abrupt shifts in employment across multiple 
     industries convey a similar narrative: soon after E-Verify 
     laws are adopted, workers drop off employer payrolls and, in 
     a number of industries, new hires fill those vacant 
     positions. The robustness of this effect reinforces the 
     likelihood that this phenomenon is due to something other 
     than chance.

  Our goal must be to help struggling Americans move from dependency to 
independence, to help them find steady jobs with rising pay, not 
falling pay. Making E-Verify permanent and requiring all employers to 
use it is one simple thing we can do to work towards that goal.
  Let me just say, the E-Verify system is already established. The 
system is in place. It can accommodate the increase in inquiries. It is 
all a computer system. It is all done virtually instantly. It is not as 
if we have to create a new system or add tens of thousands of people to 
make it work. The system is already working and it can handle larger 
numbers.
  Our policy cannot be to simply relegate more and more of our citizens 
to dependence on the government for assistance while importing a steady 
stream of foreign workers to fill available jobs. That is not in the 
interest of this country or our people.
  I would just like to add that Senators Grassley, Lee, Vitter, Enzi, 
Boozman, and Hatch are cosponsors of this amendment. We know what is 
being said out there. We are being told that Americans won't work, they 
are not looking for jobs, and that businesses can't hire. The Bloomberg 
study on how the E-Verify system has been implemented indicates quite 
different.
  According to a report on Syracuse.com on January 8, 2014:

       In Syracuse [New York], thousands showed up for the Destiny 
     USA job fair on June 14, 2012. More than 50 employers 
     interviewed candidates for roughly 1,600 jobs.

  On January 29, 2013, a Fox affiliate in Atlanta reported:

       Northside Hospital held a job fair Wednesday, but had to 
     call it off early due to the overwhelming number of people 
     that showed up looking for work. The hospital was hoping to 
     fill 500 jobs.

  On May 17, 2013, news outlets in Philadelphia reported:

       More than 3,700 job seekers overwhelmed the Municipal 
     Services Building in Center City for a job fair Friday 
     morning intended for ex-offenders. . . . The city anticipated 
     a big crowd and therefore doubled the staff to handle the 
     responses, but the crowd was still too big to handle, forcing 
     the event to be cancelled and leaving hundreds on the plaza 
     outside.

  We need to help ex-offenders find jobs. I am aware of a major 
corporation in Alabama, in talking to a Federal judge recently, which 
said they will start taking a chance on former offenders. Properly 
examined and picking the right ones, they found out they are doing 
fine. We shouldn't be denying young people--particularly young men--who 
may have gotten in trouble at a younger age ever being able to have a 
job. One of the goals this country has to have is to help our ex-
offenders in employment.
  On May 20, 2013, the New York Times reported in an article entitled, 
``Camping out for five days, in hopes of a union job,'' the following:

       The men began arriving last Wednesday, first a trickle, 
     then dozens. By Friday there were hundreds of them, along 
     with a few women. They set up their tents and mattresses on 
     the sidewalk in Long Island City, Queens . . . and settled in 
     to wait as long as five days and nights for a slender chance 
     at a union job as an elevator mechanic. . . . There were more 
     than 800 by sun-up Monday. . . . The union accepts 750 
     applications for the 150 to 200 spots in its four-year 
     apprenticeship program.

  There are more examples, and I could go on. But I do believe this 
idea that

[[Page 5159]]

Americans won't work is not correct. If we take a person who has been 
unemployed for a while and place them in a position where the labor is 
physical, it takes a while to get in shape. If you are going to play 
ball, it takes a while to get in physical condition. People going into 
the Army are not expected to meet the physical fitness test the first 
week. They build up to it.
  Businesses have to participate in this effort, too. Businesses need 
to understand they are not entitled and cannot expect--for the 
government of the United States to produce perfectly fit, well-trained 
people for every single job they would like to fill. Sometimes they 
have to hire people, train them on the job, let them work into it and 
learn the skills on the job. It is some new idea, apparently, that 
businesses have to have so much training. We certainly need to use the 
job-training programs in this country to more effectively train workers 
for real jobs out there. It is a valid criticism of our trade schools 
and some of our community colleges that they are not focusing on 
reality. But my State has done a great job--a far better job than in 
most States--and I saw a report recently about how Mississippi is doing 
an excellent job. I believe our program is at least as effective, if 
not better. So we are doing better. But businesses have always had to 
bring people into their workplaces and train them to handle the 
physical challenges that some jobs require.
  Madam President, I thank the Chair for an opportunity to share these 
remarks. I am disappointed that when we are talking about unemployment 
in America, we have a Congress and a Senate refusing to even allow this 
amendment to come up for a vote. Without a doubt it would work, be 
fair, and would simply make it more difficult for people who are not 
here lawfully, who shouldn't be able to get jobs in America--would make 
it more difficult for them to get that job, freeing that position up 
for unemployed Americans who need to get in the workforce and off the 
welfare rolls. That is the goal.
  We have a huge number of welfare programs. We spend $750 billion a 
year on means-tested programs to help people who are lower income, and 
that is 50 percent more than the defense budget, more than Social 
Security, and more than Medicare. Those programs are not working well. 
They need to come together in a coherent whole with a unified vision. 
The vision should be to help people who are in stressful circumstances; 
help them aggressively, in a practical, realistic way; put them in a 
job-training program that would allow them to take a job. We could 
easily do that with the money we are spending now. We would have more 
Americans working and off the welfare rolls. We would save billions of 
dollars at the same time. They would make more money, be more 
fulfilled, have more self-respect, and reduce the budget deficit at the 
same time.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________