[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6710-6724]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 ENERGY SAVINGS AND INDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume legislative session.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina as in morning business.

[[Page 6711]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Benghazi

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, 19 months ago a terrible thing happened in 
Benghazi, Libya. Four brave Americans were murdered, and the issue has 
not only not been resolved but as each of the last 19 months has 
ensued, the issue of how and under what circumstances this heinous 
crime was committed continues. The Senator from South Carolina and I, 
the Senator from New Hampshire, and some others, have vowed we will 
never give up on this issue until the truth is known and the people who 
perpetrated it are brought to justice.
  We have seen another page turn in this chapter of coverup and 
obfuscation by this administration by the belated--19 months later--
release of the following emails. The first one we will not pay much 
attention to. This is from Benjamin Rhodes, who is supposed to be the 
public affairs officer for the National Security Council. In fact, he 
is obviously the propaganda organ. The goals, as he states them, are to 
underscore these protests are rooted in an Internet video and not a 
broader failure of policy.
  I tell my colleagues that was not a fact. That was not a fact. There 
was no evidence these protests were rooted in an Internet video. In 
fact, the station chief before these talking points were made up sent a 
message that this is not--not--a spontaneous demonstration.
  To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who bring harm to 
Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests; to 
reinforce the President's strength and steadiness--that is all about 
the Presidential campaign. It is not about trying to find out who 
perpetrated this heinous crime. It is not about trying to respond to 
the people who committed these acts.
  In fact, because of the coverup and the obfuscation and now 19-month 
delay, not a single person who was responsible for the murder of these 
four brave Americans has been brought to justice, as the President 
promised they would be.
  Yesterday Mr. Carney said the release of this information had nothing 
to do with the attack on Benghazi. My friends, I have heard a lot of 
strange things in my time, but that has to be the most bizarre 
statement I have ever heard. This is all about a Presidential campaign. 
This is all about an effort to convince the American people the 
President of the United States had everything under control.
  The next day, on the Sunday talk shows, Susan Rice said Al Qaeda had 
been decimated. False; that the embassy was safe and stable and secure. 
False. And of course the whole issue of blaming an Internet video 
lasted on and on for a couple of weeks when it was clear the evidence 
did not indicate that.
  I yield to my friend from South Carolina on this issue, and then I 
will return.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank my colleague.
  To remind the body of what we are talking about, this email was 
released as a result of a lawsuit, and not voluntarily by the White 
House. In August of last year, the House of Representatives and the 
committees of jurisdiction subpoenaed all documents related to Benghazi 
and basically were stiff-armed.
  Senators McCain, Ayotte, and I have written enough letters to destroy 
a small forest to the White House with virtually nothing to show for 
it. A private organization called Judicial Watch sued under the Freedom 
of Information Act, and an independent judiciary--thank God for that--
ordered this White House to disclose this email just days ago. Knowing 
the email was going to come out, the White House provided it to the 
Congress a few days ago.
  What does that tell us? That tells us they did not want anyone to 
know about this email. They talk about 25,000 documents they have 
provided. It doesn't matter the number of documents they provided to 
the Congress. They could have provided us with the Benghazi phone book. 
It is the relevance of the documents and the significance of the 
documents. The reason they did not want anyone--me and anyone else--to 
know about this email is because it is the smoking gun that shows that 
people at the White House level--these are people who work at the White 
House for the administration--were very intent on shaping the story 
about Benghazi away from what they knew to be the truth.
  Here is the problem for the White House. This was 7 weeks before an 
election. President Obama had said repeatedly: Bin Laden is dead, Al 
Qaeda is on the run, the war is receding, my foreign policy is working. 
Many of us were critical of President Obama's foreign policy, 
particularly in Libya, because after Qadhafi fell, we really did 
nothing to secure the country.
  Senator McCain, myself, and a couple of other Senators--Rubio--went 
in 2011 to Libya. We said in an op-ed piece if we don't get rid of 
these militias, Libya is going to become a safe haven for terrorists.
  You have to understand this about the Benghazi consulate. It had been 
previously attacked in April of 2012.
  The British Ambassador had been attacked in June of 2012. The British 
closed their consulate. The Red Cross closed their office because they 
had been attacked. And we have email traffic coming from Libya to 
Washington at the State Department level saying on August 16: We cannot 
secure the Benghazi consulate from a coordinated terrorist attack, and 
Al Qaeda flags are flying all over Benghazi.
  What they did not want you to know is that the consulate in Benghazi 
was very unsecure, that everyone else had left the town, and that the 
numerous requests for security enhancements going back for months had 
been denied. They didn't want you to know because it would make the 
American people mad that the facility was so unsecure in such a 
dangerous area and people in Washington constantly ignored requests for 
additional security.
  Here is what they wanted you to know:

       . . . to convey that the United States is doing everything 
     we can to protect our people and facilities abroad . . .

  That, to me, is the worst of the whole email because they are trying 
to convey to the American people and the families of the fallen that: 
These things happened, but we did all we could to protect your family 
and those who served this Nation.
  Nothing could be more untruthful about Benghazi than this statement 
that they did everything they could to secure the facility.
  The question as to whether this email relates to Benghazi was the 
most offensive thing coming out of the White House in quite a while. No 
one else died. There was an attack on our Embassy in Cairo with 
property damage.
  What did we think Susan Rice was going to be asked about on Sunday, 
16 September? Everybody in the Nation wanted to know how our Ambassador 
and three other brave Americans died. To suggest they weren't trying to 
prepare her to talk about the deaths of 4 Americans is insulting to our 
intelligence, but the document itself tells us it was directed toward 
explaining Benghazi.

       To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who 
     harm Americans to justice . . .

  That was part of what they wanted her to convey. No one else was hurt 
other than in Benghazi. So within the document itself, they are talking 
about reinforcing the view that we will go after those who harmed 
Americans. The only people who were harmed--the four people killed--
were in Benghazi. So that is just a bald-faced lie. That is insulting 
our intelligence, and it really is disrespectful to those who died in 
the line of duty to suggest this email--which they would not give us 
without a court order--had nothing to do with the death of four 
Americans.
  Mr. McCAIN. I might add that all of the emails were supposed to be 
given to the Congress in return for the confirmation of Mr. Brennan as 
head of the CIA. They didn't do that.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The bottom line is the goals set out in this email are to 
try to

[[Page 6712]]

convince the American people 7 weeks before an election: We had done 
everything possible to protect our people and facilities; ``to 
underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not 
a broader failure of policy.''
  I am here to tell you--and I dare anybody to show where I am wrong--
there is no evidence of a protest outside the compound that led to an 
eventual attack.
  I have talked to the man in charge of security at Benghazi--the only 
survivor I have been able to talk to. He told me that when the 
Ambassador went to bed shortly after 9, there was nobody outside the 
compound. They would not have let him go to bed if there had been 
protesters, and they would have reported a protest up the chain of 
command.
  Mr. McCAIN. And the next day the station chief sent a message that 
there was ``not-slash-not spontaneous demonstration.''
  Mr. GRAHAM. That was the 15th. So this is in real-time that people 
are reporting a coordinated terrorist attack. There was no protest. The 
video had nothing to do with this because there was no protest. And why 
would they suggest that? They would be far less culpable in the eyes of 
the American people and myself if, in fact, this was caused by a video 
we had nothing to do with, a protest we could not see coming. The truth 
is that this was a coordinated terrorist attack that you could see 
coming for months, and it was the result of a broader failure of 
policy. Why didn't they want to admit that? They were 7 weeks out. It 
undercuts everything they were trying to tell the American people about 
their foreign policy.
  This is the smoking gun that shows they were consciously trying to 
manipulate the evidence to steer the story away from a coordinated 
terrorist attack of an unsecured facility and toward the land of an 
Internet video causing a protest. That, to me, is unacceptable and is 
clear as the sun rises in the east, for those who care.
  I will end with this and turn it back over to Senator McCain.
  After this attack, President Obama said the following:

       But everything that--every piece of information we get, as 
     we got it, we laid it out for the American people.

  I am here to tell you that statement has not borne scrutiny. The 
administration did not live up to this statement.
  Here is another statement from Jay Carney:

       I can tell you that the President believes that Ambassador 
     Rice has done an excellent job as the United States 
     Ambassador to the United Nations, and I believe that--and I 
     know that he believes that everyone here working for him has 
     been transparent in the way that we've tried to answer 
     questions about what happened in Benghazi . . .

  If they were trying to be transparent about what was happening in 
Benghazi, why would they fail to provide the relevant information?

       The information that we provided was based on the available 
     assessment at the time.

  I am here to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, they have not provided 
the relevant information. Why? Because the relevant information 
crumbles the story Susan Rice told on 16 September, crumbles the story 
of the President himself when weeks later he talked about a protest 
caused by a video that never happened. The reason they haven't shared 
this with us is because it exposes the lie of Benghazi.
  I will end with this thought. We would not know today about an email 
on 14 September setting goals for Susan Rice to meet on 16 September to 
change the whole narrative if it were not for an independent judiciary 
and a private organization.
  This White House has stiffed the Congress. Mostly, the media has been 
AWOL. But the reason we haven't stopped is because we met the families.
  To any Member of the Congress who thinks Benghazi is a Republican 
conspiracy designed to help Lindsey Graham or anyone else get elected, 
why don't you go to the family members and explain to them what 
happened. Why don't you tell the family members that the government was 
up front and honest and see if they believe you.
  This email that came from a court requiring the White House to 
disclose is devastating. It is devastating because it shows that 3 days 
after the attack, their goal was not to inform the American people of 
what happened but to shape the story to help the President get 
reelected. I hope and pray that matters to the American people, and I 
believe it does. And I hope and pray our friends on the Democratic side 
will start taking a little bit of interest.
  I can tell you this about Senator McCain and myself: When President 
Bush's policies in Iraq were crumbling, we did not have enough troops, 
and John McCain, to his credit, said that publicly and asked for the 
resignation of President Bush's Secretary of Defense because of failed 
policy.
  When we discovered the abuses at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib when 
it came to detainee policies, both of us said: The system failed. Don't 
believe it when they tell you this was a few bad apples.
  Why did we do that? I have been a military lawyer for 31 years. It 
means a lot to me to adhere to the conventions we have signed up to.
  Senator McCain--if there were ever an American hero in the Senate, it 
is he. He has lived through a country that practices torture, and he 
did not want us to go down that road.
  When we did those things, we were ``great Americans holding the 
system accountable and doing the country a service.'' Now, all of a 
sudden, we are ``just party hacks.''
  I am here to say that what drove us then drives us now. When we ask 
people to serve in faraway places with strange-sounding names and to go 
out on the tip of the spear, we owe it to them to help them, to give 
them the best ability to survive. And if something bad happens, we owe 
their families the truth.
  Just as in Iraq, they tried to shape the story in a fashion that did 
not bear scrutiny. It wasn't a few dead-enders; it was system failure 
that led to the collapse of Iraq. And thank God we changed tactics and 
we overcame our problems.
  This Benghazi story is about a foreign policy choice called the light 
footprint that caught up with this administration. It is about an 
administration that said no to additional security requests because 
they didn't want to be like Bush. It is a story about an administration 
that is too stubborn to react to facts on the ground, that kept a 
consulate open when everybody else closed theirs, unsecured, believing 
that ignoring the problem would solve the problem.
  We have now found evidence of their willingness and desire to change 
the narrative from a coordinated terrorist attack of an unsecured 
facility--something they really couldn't control, and they did the best 
they could 7 weeks before an election.
  All I can say is if the shoe were on the other foot and this had been 
the Bush administration, it would be front-page news everywhere and our 
colleagues on the other side would be screaming. It is sad that it 
hasn't been news everywhere. It is sad that my Democratic colleagues in 
the House in particular have disdain for trying to find out what 
happened in Benghazi.
  Mr. McCAIN. And the fact is, I would say to my friend, the time has 
now come for a select committee. The time has now come because these 
talking points raise more questions than answers. It is time for a 
bipartisan, bicameral select committee to investigate the entire 
Benghazi fiasco and tragedy, and it needs to be done soon. The American 
people and the families of those brave ones who sacrificed their lives 
deserve nothing less.
  My friend Senator Graham mentioned the media. I would like to say 
thanks.
  I would like to say thanks to FOX News. I would like to say thanks to 
some at CBS. I would like to say thanks to Charles Krauthammer and the 
handful of people who kept this alive when the ``mainstream media'' not 
only wanted to bury it but subjected, of course, as Senator Graham just 
mentioned, him and me to ridicule.

[[Page 6713]]

  I wish to go back for a second to this email. In response to 
questions yesterday by Mr. Carney, the White House Press spokesperson, 
if we look at this email and then look at what Mr. Carney said, it is 
an absolute falsehood. It is a total departure from reality. How does 
the President's spokesperson tell the American people something that is 
patently false?
  The President's spokesperson, in regard to this email that says to 
show ``these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a 
broader failure of policy''--what was he talking about? He says Rhodes' 
email ``was explicitly not about Benghazi.'' Well, then what was it 
about?
  Then he goes on to say:

       The fact of the matter is, there were protests in the 
     region.
       The talking points cited protests at that facility.

  They didn't. The talking points did not cite protests at that 
facility--i.e, Benghazi.

       The connection between protests and video--and the video 
     turned out not to be the case--

  It turned out not to be the case because it was never the case and no 
one ever believed it--

     but it was based on the best information that we had.

  He had no information that there was a spontaneous demonstration 
sparked by a video. That was manufactured somewhere. The American 
people and we need to know where those talking points came from that 
Susan Rice gave.
  He goes on to say:

       If you look at that document, that document that we're 
     talking about today was about the overall environment in the 
     Muslim world.

  How could he say that and look at this email here? Talking about 
events in the Muslim world?
  And of course he goes on to say, talking about Susan Rice:

       She relied on her--for her answers on Benghazi, on the 
     document prepared by the CIA, as did members of Congress.

  Mr. Morell, the deputy head of the CIA at that time, said he was 
astonished to hear that there was reference made on all five Sunday 
morning shows that there was a hateful video involved.
  So Mr. Carney is saying things that are absolutely false. The 
American people deserve better than that from the President's 
spokesperson whom they rely on for accurate information. When the 
bodies came home, and it was a moving event--I was there--the then-
Secretary of State told members of the family and told me: We will get 
these people who were responsible for the hateful video.
  That was a number of days later when it was absolutely proven to 
anyone's satisfaction there was no hateful video, and of course we 
still don't know what the final version of the talking points was that 
Susan Rice used on all the morning talk shows, who was the final 
arbiter of it. We know now that Mr. Rhodes played a very key role in 
that, and we need to know who gave her those talking points because 
they are patently false. If someone gave her those talking points, then 
why in the world did that person manufacture out of whole cloth 
information that was told to the American people?
  There are a lot of points here, and we can get into some of the 
details, but the fact is that this is a coverup of a situation which 
was politically motivated in order to further the Presidential 
ambitions of the President of the United States. That is what this is 
all about. That is why comments and instructions were given in this 
email, because the narrative was: The tide of war is receding, Osama 
bin Laden is dead.
  Secretary Susan Rice said at the time: Al Qaeda is decimated and the 
Embassy is safe and secure. None of those facts were true. Most 
importantly, we have five Americans who were killed. It is very clear 
that should not have happened, would not have happened if proper 
actions had been taken.
  Most important now or just as important now is the fact that for the 
last 19 months this White House has been engaged in a coverup. It calls 
for a select committee to examine all of the facts, and as always 
happens in these kinds of scandals, the coverup is equally or sometimes 
worse than the actual action itself. The American people deserve to 
know the truth.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 
20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here, as regular viewers of the 
C-SPAN network know, for the 65th time, every week that the Senate is 
in session, to ask my colleagues in the Senate to wake up to the 
realities of climate change that surround us.
  Here is what we know: We know the oceans and atmosphere are warming. 
By the way, that is measurement, not theory. We know sea level is 
rising. Again, that is measurement, not theory. We know oceans are 
becoming more acidic--again, a simple measurement. The potential that 
these changes have to disrupt economic growth and to disrupt global 
commerce is the subject of my remarks today, and it is those changes 
that make investors and corporate executives take climate change 
seriously.
  We may not take climate change seriously, but corporate executives 
do. A world of shifting seasons and extreme heat hurts their bottom 
line. The world of drought-stricken farms and flooded cities, of raging 
wildfires and migrating diseases is not good for business. A recent 
article from the World Bank conveys the corporate outlook this way:

       In corporate boardrooms and the offices of CEOs, climate 
     change is a real and present danger. It threatens to disrupt 
     the water supplies and supply chains of companies as diverse 
     as Coca-Cola and ExxonMobil. Rising sea levels and more 
     intense storms put their infrastructure at risk and the costs 
     will only get worse.

  Earlier this month executives from major American companies came to 
Washington for a roundtable discussion at the Bicameral Task Force on 
Climate Change, which I lead with Congressman Waxman. Each of the 
companies present had signed the climate declaration of the Business 
for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy or BICEP. They see a low-
carbon economy as a smart way to create new jobs and stimulate economic 
growth. More than 750 companies, nameplate American corporations such 
as eBay, Gap, Levi's, Nike, Starbucks, and many others have signed 
BICEP's climate declaration.
  Kevin Rabinovitch is global sustainability director at Virginia-based 
candy company Mars, Incorporated, makers of the famous M&Ms, among 
other things. At the roundtable he told us Mars has a goal of 
eliminating fossil fuel energy use and greenhouse gas emissions 
companywide by 2040. In fact, just yesterday Mars announced it will 
build a 200-megawatt wind farm in Texas that will generate enough 
energy to power all Mars operations in the United States. I applaud 
this exciting step for Mars and the bold vision it represents.
  But Mr. Rabinovitch told the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change:

       . . . if other companies and governments don't adopt 
     similar science based targets, our efforts will have limited 
     effect on climate change. We cannot do it alone. This is why 
     the business community needs Congress to get off the 
     sidelines, to quit denying rudimentary science and abundant 
     evidence. Improving energy efficiency reduces climate-
     altering carbon emissions, but it also--these businesses 
     find--reduces operating costs.

  Colin Dyer, the president and CEO of Jones Lang LaSalle, 
Incorporated, the second largest publicly traded commercial real estate 
brokerage firm in the world said:

       Cost savings alone represent a compelling benefit of 
     sustainable design, construction, and management. Jones Lang 
     LaSalle put smart building management technology to work for 
     the consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble.

  According to Dyer:

       P&G earned back its initial investment in the technology in 
     three months and saw average energy cost savings of 10 
     percent annually. The program, which is being expanded,

[[Page 6714]]

     also improved building systems reliability, supported the 
     company's broader sustainability programs, and actually 
     increased employee productivity.

  Smart executives also understand how much their customers care about 
this. Rob Olson, vice president and chief financial officer of IKEA, 
said this:

       From talking to our customers, we know that Americans are 
     increasingly concerned about climate change as they 
     experience events like Hurricane Sandy and the drought in 
     California. They want to reduce the amount of energy they use 
     in their home and they care about reducing waste and using 
     less water.

  This is not a new message from America's corporate sector. Last year 
the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change wrote to over 300 businesses 
and organizations about carbon pollution and climate change. The 
response was encouraging. Coca-Cola, headquartered in Georgia, wrote:

       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.

  Walmart, founded and headquartered in Arkansas, wrote this: ``We're 
committed to reducing our carbon footprint and we're working with our 
suppliers to do the same.''
  Here is what Walmart said in its 2009 sustainability report:

       Climate change may not cause hurricanes, but warmer ocean 
     water can make them more powerful. Climate change may not 
     cause rainfall, but it can increase the frequency and 
     severity of heavy flooding. Climate change may not cause 
     droughts, but it can make droughts longer. Every company has 
     a responsibility to reduce greenhouse gases as quickly as it 
     can. Currently, we are investing in renewable energy, 
     increasing efficiency in our buildings and trucks, working 
     with suppliers to take carbon out of products and supporting 
     legislation in the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

  Serious business leaders are looking for serious answers to the 
looming economic crisis of climate change. An article last month in the 
Harvard Business Review entitled ``How to Survive Climate Change and 
Still Run a Thriving Business'' outlines recommendations for companies 
looking to strengthen their supply chains and better understand their 
consumers.
  Serious business leaders are also fed up with the denial apparatus 
that is run by the big carbon polluters. Major utilities 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 similar to the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. Large tech 
companies such as Apple and Yahoo also left the chamber.
  One of the companies that came in to the Bicameral Task Force was 
North Carolina-based VF Corporation. You may not have heard of VF 
Corporation, but you have sure heard of their major brands. They make 
Lee, Wrangler, Nautica, North Face, and many other name brands. Letitia 
Webster is their director of global corporate sustainability, and they 
have a global perspective on climate change. Their customers around the 
world are concerned about climate change, particularly their younger 
customers, and VF wants to meet those customers' expectations for good 
citizenship. VF also needs cotton for all their clothing and they are 
worried about climate disruption to the cotton supply chain. ``Research 
tells us that continued climate change will make it more and more 
difficult for farmers to manage cotton crops and for companies to 
manage their supply chains.''
  VF also provides very high performance clothing and equipment to 
high-performance outdoor athletes who train and compete in places where 
climate changes are already evident. Those athletes see the same 
changes as the 100 winter Olympic competitors from 10 countries who 
signed a letter of warning about climate change. Letitia Webster 
mentioned in particular the Khumbu Icefall which has closed Mount 
Everest to climbers for the first time. She is not the only one.
  John All, a climber, scientist, and professor of geography at Western 
Kentucky University told the Atlantic magazine:

       I am at Everest Base Camp right now and things are dire 
     because of climate change. . . . The ice is melting at 
     unprecedented rates and [that] greatly increases the risk to 
     climbers. You could say [that] climate change closed Mt. 
     Everest this year.

  Tim Rippel is a climbing guide, and he blogged from Everest's base 
camp:

       As a professional member of the Canadian Avalanche 
     Association, I have my educated concerns. The mountain has 
     been deteriorating rapidly the past three years due [to] 
     global warming and the breakdown in the Khumbu Icefall is 
     dramatic.

  Ms. Webster warned of the costs of inaction, saying, ``It's too 
expensive not to take action.'' This is a North Carolina company, and I 
hope its message gets through to elected officials who represent North 
Carolina.
  Senator Hagan has already spoken passionately about the need to act 
on climate change. She gets it, but her colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle remain silent.
  I visited North Carolina over the recess as part of a tour of the 
effects of climate change along the southeast coast. I flew out to 
where sea level rise is gnawing away at North Carolina's Outer Banks.
  I visited the marine science facility at Pivers Island, where 
scientists from Duke University, the University of North Carolina, 
North Carolina State, East Carolina University, and of course NOAA, are 
studying aspects of sea level rise in North Carolina and the effects of 
ocean acidification on microbes that form the basis of the food web.
  These are some of the world's leading scientists. They all know that 
these changes are driven by carbon pollution. There is no doubt. Unless 
North Carolina's elected officials think that their own universities 
are part of the big hoax some of our colleagues talk about, they had 
better pay attention to what is happening on the North Carolina coast.
  I met with the North Carolina Coastal Federation at their coastal 
education center in Wilmington, NC. It was a bipartisan group joined 
together in concern over the exposure of their coastal communities to 
the rising seas. The ``North Carolina Sea-Level Rise Assessment 
Report'' prepared in 2010 by the North Carolina Coastal Resources 
Commission's Science Panel on Coastal Hazards says:

       The most likely scenario for 2100 AD is a rise of 0.4 
     meters to 1.4 meters (15 inches to 55 inches) above present.

  By the way, that is what they call bathtub measures. That doesn't 
take into account what 55 inches of extra sea will do when it is heaped 
against the shore by a storm surge from a big tropical storm or 
hurricane.
  I hope their congressional delegation in Congress is listening.
  The biggest power producer in North Carolina is Charlotte-based Duke 
Energy. Duke worked through the U.S. Climate Action Partnership for 
climate change legislation. Duke actually pulled out of the National 
Association of Manufacturers because of that organization's denial of 
climate change. Duke's then-chief executive officer Jim Rogers said:

       We are not renewing our membership in the NAM because in 
     tough times, we want to invest in associations that are 
     pulling in the same direction we are.

  He said that NAM, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Republicans 
``ought to roll up their sleeves and get to work on a climate bill. . . 
. '' Duke Energy might want to also consider whether North Carolina 
politicians are pulling in the same direction.
  This is not complicated. Load up carbon dioxide concentrations in the 
atmosphere and you load up heat in the atmosphere. We have known that 
since Abraham Lincoln was President. This is not a new discovery. Load 
up the heat, and the oceans warm up. That is not some theory either. 
You can measure it--with thermometers. When liquid warms, it expands, 
unless my colleagues want to repeal the law of thermal expansion. As 
the ocean expands and ice melts, up goes the sea level. It is up 6 
inches at the tide gauge in Wilmington, NC, since 1954.
  If my colleagues want to deny the 6-inch increase in the tide gauge 
in Wilmington, NC, let me explain to them what the North Carolina 
assessment

[[Page 6715]]

says about how you measure sea level rise:

       [Sea-level rise] can be directly measured in a 
     straightforward way. The longest record of direct measurement 
     of sea level comes from tide gauges. A tide gauge is a device 
     built to measure water level variations due to tides and 
     weather, and to eliminate effects due to waves. A tide gauge 
     can be as simple as a long ruler nailed to a post on a dock. 
     More sophisticated instruments, like those used by NOAA, are 
     usually placed in a stilling well, or a pipe, that protects a 
     float connected to a recording device from waves. As tides 
     rise and fall, the float's motion is recorded.

  It is not complicated. Good luck denying that. When you fly over the 
North Carolina coast, you see lots of investment along the seashore. 
There are lots of houses, lots of hotels, condominiums, restaurants--an 
entire seafront economy that the larger North Carolina economy very 
much depends on.
  What are my colleagues from North Carolina going to tell them about 
climate change: Don't worry. It is not real? Good luck with that. They 
are already measuring the sea level rise.
  Those small businesses in North Carolina want to protect their 
storefronts from sea level rise just as VF Corporation wants to protect 
its cotton supply from drought. These North Carolina companies get the 
economic threat that climate change presents.
  The frustrating thing here is that we can strengthen our economies 
and businesses by tackling the problem of climate change and sea level 
rise head-on, and we can leave things better, not worse, for the 
generations that will follow us--perhaps the simplest obligation that 
we hold, and one, by the way, at which we are presently failing. But if 
we are going to stop failing at that obligation and tackle this problem 
head-on, we have to wake up to reality. We have to put aside, once and 
for all, the toxic polluter-paid politics that infect Washington.
  The denial campaign that is run by these polluters is as poisonous to 
our democracy as carbon pollution is to our atmosphere and oceans. 
America is suffering as a result of Congress being tangled in a web of 
lies and surrounded by a barricade of special interests. We have to 
break through that. It is a matter of truth, it is a matter of honor, 
and it is a matter of being effective at these real problems.
  I yield the floor and thank the Presiding Officer, and 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.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2265

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, it is often said that foreign aid from 
America is to project American power and what America believes in. 
Unfortunately, over decades, the only thing consistent about foreign 
aid is that the money continues to flow regardless of the behavior of 
the recipients. This is extraordinary, and we have seen this decade 
after decade.
  Studies will often show that 75 percent of foreign aid throughout 
many continents is simply stolen, taken in graft. The Mubarak family in 
Egypt is an example.
  The point I would like to make today is if we are going to project 
what America stands for, if we want our money to go to people who are 
supporting activities that America is for, we should write that into 
the law. We have made attempts at this in the past.
  Several years ago Senator Leahy attached an amendment to foreign aid 
that says that countries need to be evolving towards democracy or 
showing an ability to go forward towards democracy. The problem is that 
every time we have restrictions on foreign aid, they are evaded. We 
always give an out. The President always has an out.
  This week in Egypt, 683 people were condemned to death in one trial. 
Yet your money still flows to Egypt without interruption.
  We have another contingency that says: If a country has a military 
takeover--if you have an election and then you have a military junta or 
a military takeover of the government--our aid should end. It didn't 
happen in Egypt when there was a military takeover.
  The only consistency about foreign aid is that it flows to all 
countries regardless of behavior. It is the opposite of what many of 
the proponents say. Many of the proponents say that we do this so we 
can modulate behavior and try to improve and make things better around 
the world. Yet they steadfastly oppose restrictions on foreign aid.
  I have a bill that I am going to ask--in a few minutes--for the 
Senate to unanimously approve. This is a bill that should be an easy 
lift for most Senators. This is a bill to support our ally Israel and 
to say to the Palestinian Authority that if you wish to continue to 
take American money--and many people don't realize this, but the 
American taxpayer gives hundreds of millions of dollars every year to 
the Palestinian Authority, and we supposedly have restrictions, but 
there is always an out. Guess what. They always get their money 
regardless of behavior.
  What have I have been saying is, let's have some restrictions. If we 
are going to give money to the Palestinian Authority, shouldn't they 
agree to recognize the State of Israel? Shouldn't that be part of what 
goes on with this?
  We now have a problem--and the reason this has become a more 
pertinent issue and something that has come to the forefront--because 
Hamas, a terrorist group in Gaza, is now aligning them with Fatah, the 
people who run the Palestinian Authority.
  My question is: Are we now going to send money to a unity government? 
Part of the charter of Hamas is not only not to recognize Israel, but 
they are actually for the destruction of Israel.
  This is what I would ask Americans and those who will object to the 
bill--because there will be an objection to my bill: How can you object 
to something that calls for the recognition of Israel as a state? How 
can you object to this and how can you continue to allow the flow of 
money to a group that calls for the destruction of Israel? They will 
say: Well, we have contingencies for that or we will stop it if they 
become part of or control the West Bank.
  When I was in Israel a year ago, I asked everybody that question. I 
met with the Prime Minister of Israel, the President of Israel, the 
King of Jordan, and with the leader of the West Bank, Abbas. I met with 
all of these people and asked them: Can there be a separate peace? Can 
there be peace with the West Bank and peace with Gaza--a separate 
peace?
  They all said: No, it has to be one peace.
  I said to the Israeli side: If they are unified, will you negotiate 
with Hamas?
  They said: No. They lob missiles at us. They are at war with us. They 
don't recognize our right to exist as a state. Not only that, they 
openly advocate for the destruction of Israel.
  Realize that in the objection you will hear today, you will hear an 
objection that despite arguments to the contrary we will allow money to 
go to a unity government that will include Hamas.
  I am simply asking that if we are going to send good money after 
bad--frankly, it is money we don't have. We have $1 trillion in debt. 
We have bridges falling down in our own country, and your government is 
sending hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority--
which is now going to be unified with Hamas, without restrictions or 
with restrictions that have a hole so big you can drive a truck through 
them. This always happens.
  Every contingency and every limitation on foreign aid that you think 
would be practical and reasonable always has an exception for the 
President to overcome. The President always does it so the only thing 
consistent about foreign aid is that money continues to flow.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we pass my bill, S. 2265, 
Stand With Israel. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. 2265 
and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask 
that the bill

[[Page 6716]]

be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object to Senator Paul's request 
to discharge S. 2265 in the committee, this legislation Senator Paul 
has been referring to has not been considered by the committee. It was 
just introduced in the last day or so, I think.
  As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and on behalf 
of the Republican ranking member, Senator Corker, who had to depart to 
return to Tennessee but otherwise would have joined me in making 
remarks, I come to the floor to express our opposition to an effort to 
circumvent the normal legislative process and deprive the members of 
our committee of the opportunity to decide whether to take up this 
legislation. The authorization to provide or cut U.S. assistance to the 
Palestinian Authority is clearly within the purview of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, and it should have its members decide if 
it is appropriate, and it should be fully and openly considered by the 
committee.
  This bill is a blunt-force instrument that would risk the collapse of 
the Palestinian economy in the West Bank. That is not in Israel's 
interests and it is not in our interests either. The bill would shift 
the burden of dealing with a failed state on its borders to Israel. 
That is certainly not my goal, and I hope it is not the goal of Senator 
Paul either. Our goal should be to get back to a process and a 
negotiation toward a two-state solution that will allow Israel to live 
in peace and security.
  We need to allow the parties--and particularly Mr. Abbas--the time to 
steer back toward a productive path to peace. To be clear, his time is 
limited. I am in agreement with Senator Paul that President Abbas must 
ultimately choose between a future that envisions two States living 
side by side in peace and security or a destructive unity pact with a 
terrorist organization whose stated objective is to make sure there is 
no two-State solution.
  A unity government--not a unity announcement but a unity government--
between Fatah and Hamas has consequences that are clear under existing 
U.S. law. If Mr. Abbas definitely opens the door to Hamas exercising 
influence in the Palestinian Authority, I will encourage my colleagues 
to stand with me in exercising the existing legal authority to halt 
assistance to a government that includes parties that reject Israel's 
right to exist as a Jewish state and continues to support terrorism.
  For those reasons, I must object to the Senator's request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Vermont.


                         Differences of Opinion

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, there has been a lot of criticism waged 
at the majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, for his discussion 
about the Koch brothers. That criticism of Senator Reid is unfortunate. 
I think what Senator Reid is trying to do is educate the American 
people about the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision and 
what it has done by allowing billionaire families, such as the Koch 
brothers and Sheldon Adelson and others, to pump hundreds and hundreds 
of millions of dollars into the political process in order to elect 
candidates in the House, in the Senate, and in the White House, who are 
working overtime against the best interests of the middle class and 
working families of this country and, at the same time, are working to 
provide even more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and large 
profitable corporations.
  I think it is important, when we talk about the Koch brothers, not to 
make this discussion personal. It is not a personal discussion. It is a 
discussion about what the most powerful political family in this 
country believes. If they are spending hundreds of millions of 
dollars--and this is a family worth $80 billion, and they may end up 
spending, in fact, billions of dollars on campaigns--what is it they 
want? What do they believe? What do folks such as Sheldon Adelson 
believe, when they invite potential Republican candidates for President 
to come to Las Vegas for what has been called the Adelson primary, 
where he will listen to them and decide who he might support and spend 
hundreds of millions of dollars on in a Presidential campaign?
  So I think it is important we know what the Koch brothers believe. 
Here is the best information I have. In 1980, as it turns out, David 
Koch, one of the two brothers, ran for Vice President of the United 
States on the Libertarian Party platform. What is interesting to me is 
to what degree the platform he ran on--which in 1980 got him 1 percent 
of the vote on the Libertarian ticket--to what degree that extremist 
set of positions has now become mainstream Republican today.
  I want to take a few minutes to quote exactly what was in that 1980 
platform so the American people can recognize to what degree ideas that 
at one point were considered extremist are now mainstream Republican. 
This is what was in the 1980 Libertarian Party platform upon which 
David Koch ran for Vice President:

       We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and 
     the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election 
     Commission.

  What that means is the Koch brothers, and increasingly the Republican 
Party, now believe there should be no campaign finance laws, that 
Citizens United did not go far enough, and that the Koch brothers 
should be able to spend millions of dollars by giving that money 
directly to individual candidates. That is what the Koch brothers said 
in 1980. That is what many Republicans believe today.
  Let me state an exact quote from the platform:

       We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, 
     and increasingly oppressive Social Security system.

  There are many Republicans today who not only want to see cuts in 
Social Security but who ultimately want to privatize Social Security 
who believe it is unconstitutional for the U.S. Government to be 
involved in retirement benefits for seniors.
  Libertarian Party platform, 1980:

       We oppose--

  Listen to this one. This is really quite incredible:

       We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, 
     including capital gains taxes. We support the eventual repeal 
     of all taxation.

  Repeal of all taxation? That is the government. Basically, what they 
are saying, very boldly, straightforwardly--we have to respect their 
honesty--is they don't believe in government.
  I have not heard any of my Republican colleagues say they want to 
abolish all taxation. That is not what they say and that is not what 
they believe. But on the other hand, it is important to note that the 
Ryan budget, just passed in mid-April in the House, provides a $5 
trillion tax break over a 10-year period, mainly by cutting the top 
individual and corporate income tax rates significantly. In other 
words, at a time when the wealthiest people are doing phenomenally well 
at the same time as the middle class disappears and more and more 
people live in poverty, what my Republican colleagues believe is we 
should give more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.
  The Koch brothers' position in 1980 was that they support--
Libertarian Party platform:

       We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of 
     any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.

  What does that mean?
  Yesterday, we had a vote on the floor of the Senate which said that a 
$7.25 an hour minimum wage is a poverty wage; that people who are 
working 40 hours a week and are making $7.25 an hour are living in 
poverty; that they cannot bring up and raise families on those wages; 
and that if we raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, we could 
increase the salaries of approximately 28 million Americans. On that 
vote to overcome a Republican filibuster, one Republican voted with 
members of the Democratic caucus, and we lost that vote.
  What is interesting, it is not simply that almost every Republican 
voted against raising the minimum wage; what is more significant is 
that many

[[Page 6717]]

Republicans believe we should abolish the concept of the minimum wage.
  Many of us know Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to be an honest and 
straightforward guy. He tells it the way he sees it. This morning on 
the ``Morning Joe'' television show, this is what Senator Coburn said, 
and I quote from the transcript:

       I don't believe you ought to interfere in the market. If 
     there's to be a minimum wage--my theory is I don't believe 
     there ought to be a national minimum wage. That's my 
     position.

  In other words, what Senator Coburn is saying today and, in fact, 
what many Republicans agree with him about, is we should abolish the 
concept of the minimum wage--something the Koch brothers were talking 
about 34 years ago.
  What are the implications of that if we do as Senator Coburn 
suggested and just let the market work and don't have government 
interfere by establishing a minimum wage American workers should 
receive? What it means, quite simply, when we let the free market work, 
is that if people are in a high unemployment area and there are many 
workers competing for few jobs, an employer will say to a potential 
employee: I am prepared to hire you, good news, and I am going to pay 
$4.
  The worker says: I can't live on $4 an hour. That is a starvation 
wage.
  The employer says: That is OK, because I have 20 other workers who 
are prepared to accept that wage.
  That is what happens when we abolish the concept of the minimum wage.
  Many of us--and I think the vast majority of the American people--
have a very different vision of where our country should go. We don't 
believe we should be abolishing the minimum wage. We don't believe we 
should be cutting or privatizing Social Security or transforming 
Medicare into a voucher program or making horrendous cuts to Medicaid.
  What, in fact, the American people want is the Federal Government to 
start standing up for working families rather than millionaires and 
billionaires. In poll after poll, what the American people have said is 
they want us to invest in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and 
create millions of decent-paying jobs. That is what the American people 
want. They do not want tax breaks for billionaires but the creation of 
millions of jobs for rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.
  The American people, despite what Senator Coburn and others may 
believe, want us to raise the minimum wage. Poll after poll suggests 
the American people want us to raise the minimum wage to at least 
$10.10 an hour.
  The American people do not want us to cut Social Security. In fact, 
more and more Americans want us to expand Social Security, to make sure 
when elderly people reach retirement age, they can live and retire with 
dignity.
  I think there has perhaps never been a time in the modern history of 
this country where the political lines have been drawn as clearly as 
they are right now. If you listen to the Koch brothers, if you read the 
Republican Ryan budget in the House, their positions are quite clear: 
Tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires and significant cuts in 
the programs that are life and death for the middle-class and working 
families of this country.
  That is not what the American people want, and it is time we began to 
listen to the American people. It is time we took on those people, 
those billionaires who are spending huge amounts of money electing 
candidates who represent their interests. And it is time we listen to 
the working families of this country, who are struggling to survive.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my friend from Vermont, 
who I know is in a hurry to leave the premises, as most Senators have 
already done. Perhaps he could relax and go out and have a Coke. Bad 
pun.
  (The remarks of Mr. Roberts pertaining to the introduction of S. 2282 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                           Immigration Reform

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to point out to my 
colleagues that more than 300 days have passed since we in the Senate 
passed bipartisan legislation that would secure our borders, hold 
employers accountable for hiring illegal workers, grow our economy, and 
provide a chance for people currently here illegally to get right with 
the law and earn legal status. But the House has failed to do anything 
to fix our broken immigration system--more than 300 days after we in 
the Senate passed bipartisan legislation.
  To be clear, the problem is not that there is a difference of opinion 
between a House bill and a Senate bill on immigration that cannot be 
reconciled. The problem is that House Republicans have completely 
abdicated their responsibility to address important issues, such as 
fixing our broken immigration system.
  Again, the problem is not that the House has passed laws that the 
Senate disagrees with. The problem is that the House will not put any 
immigration bills up for a vote, no matter what is in those bills. Now, 
why is that?
  It is not because our immigration system is not broken. There is no 
Member of Congress who will stand and say: Our immigration system is 
great. Leave it alone. What is all the fuss about?
  No one is happy with the present system. Finding a Member of Congress 
anywhere who will say we do not need to reform our broken immigration 
system is impossible.
  The reason the House has done nothing on immigration is because House 
Republicans have handed the gavel of leadership on immigration to far-
right extremists such as Congressman Steve King.
  Congressman King is not a mainstream Republican on this issue. You 
cannot even call him a conservative on this issue. He is an extreme 
outlier on the issue of immigration reform.
  Every time any Republican has raised the possibility of action on 
immigration reform in the House, Steve King is there, in his own words, 
``manning the watchtowers 24/7'' to make sure nothing can be passed to 
fix our broken immigration system.
  When Republicans such as Eric Cantor, hardly a flaming liberal, 
talked early in 2013 about introducing a bill called the KIDS Act which 
would allow minors brought here through no fault of their own to earn 
legal status if they served in the military or obtained a college 
degree, King said, ``For every child who's a valedictorian, there's 
another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds and they've got calves the 
size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana 
across the desert.''
  The rhetoric of Steve King is beyond the pale. I am certain that the 
majority of Republicans in the House have their stomachs churn when 
they see Steven King spew that kind of rhetoric. But rather than stand 
up to him, they give him the keys to the kingdom of immigration reform. 
Just look at what happened after King protested. There was no KIDS Act 
introduced. Go look for the text of the KIDS Act on line. It does not 
exist. There is no bill. Not only was the KIDS Act never introduced, 
but House Republicans actually voted, nearly unanimously, to resume 
deporting minor children who had committed no crimes.
  Another Republican, Jeff Denham, a Republican from California, who is 
also an Air Force reservist, recently proposed to let young people who 
came here illegally earn status by enlisting in the military. They love 
America so they would enlist in the military and risk their lives for 
this country. Here is what Denham said--paraphrasing him. He said: I 
know many of us do not want to vote on immigration. But we can at least 
tweak the Defense authorization bill to allow young people who were 
brought here illegally as minors through no fault of their own to serve 
in the military when they love this country and this is the only 
country they know.

[[Page 6718]]

  To be clear, this measure is far short of comprehensive legislation 
that is needed to fix our broken system. This slight tweak is not even 
a drop of water in the Grand Canyon. Even for the small microscopic 
measure known as the ENLIST Act, Steve King responded, saying, ``Don't 
do it.'' And the Republicans did not.
  Here is what King said:

       As soon as they raise their hand and say I'm unlawfully 
     present in the U.S., we are not going to take your oath into 
     the military, but we're going to take your deposition and we 
     have a bus for you to Tijuana.

  What happened when King said this? He won. The ENLIST Act was 
stricken from the Defense authorization bill. So not only are 
Republicans catering to the views of King and others on the far, far, 
extreme right on immigration by refusing to vote on any immigration 
reform, they actively promote anti-immigrant viewpoints by having 
passed a bill called the ENFORCE Act. You see, Steve King and his 
little group of far-right Members of Congress on immigration want to 
sue the Federal Government to require them to deport minor children, 
parents of U.S. citizens, and agricultural workers, rather than use all 
of its resources to focus on immigrants who are criminals, terrorists, 
and recent border crossers.
  But Members of Congress, as most everyone knows, do not have standing 
to sue the Federal Government, because under our Constitution, 
Congressmen are not allowed to sue every time they disagree with a 
decision of the executive branch. Instead of thinking it was probably a 
good idea to focus our immigration enforcement resources on criminals, 
terrorists, and border crossers, once again Steve King said: Jump. And 
the Republican mainstream in the House said: How high? Republicans 
overwhelmingly voted to give King and others the ability to sue the 
Federal Government every single time a decision on immigration 
enforcement is made with which they disagree.
  There are Republican colleagues in the House who do not have the 
views of Steve King. We know that. They can offer other excuses they 
want for failing to do anything on immigration. For instance, they 
tried to blame the President. They say the President is to blame 
because he will not enforce the law. The record shows that he does 
enforce the law. In fact, many of the more liberal people, many of the 
immigration groups, are angry with him because they think he is 
enforcing the law too much.
  But let's say you believe he is not enforcing the law. So we have 
said to them: Good. Pass a bill now and say it does not take effect, 
all of the enforcement and any of the rest of it, until 2017. We will 
have a new President. If Republicans cannot agree to pass a bill that 
goes into effect after the President's term, then we know that mistrust 
of the President is nothing but a straw man.
  They say they really want to pass immigration legislation in their 
heart, but they are only one Member and it is not up to them. They can 
even have their leadership blame other Republicans for not holding a 
vote. But Bill Parcells, who used to coach for both the New York Giants 
and New York Jets, was famous for saying, ``You are what your record 
shows you are.''
  What does the record show? The record on Republican immigration 
reform is clear. Steve King, a far-right, way-out-of-the-mainstream 
outlier, does not just spew hatred, he calls the shots. They listen to 
him. The Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore 
Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan and George Bush, all 
of whom had much different views on immigration than Steve King, is 
following Steve King on immigration.
  Let me say, they are following Steve King over the cliff. Because not 
only are they hurting America, but because they are so afraid to buck 
this extremist--and he is extreme on immigration--they are going to 
make it certain that they will lose the 2016 Presidential election, 
that they will make sure that the Senate remains Democratic in 2016 and 
that the House turns Democratic.
  It is amazing. The Republican record on immigration reform is clear. 
Steve King has three wins. The rest of the Republican Party and the 
rest of America is winless. Good for him. Terrible for us. Since House 
Republicans will not stand up to Steve King, King is in the driver's 
seat on immigration reform. As long as he sits there, things will 
continue to be stuck in a rut.
  America is growing weary of Republicans talking a good game on 
immigration while high-tech businesses cannot get the labor they need 
to grow and create American jobs. We are growing weary of all the talk 
while crops go unpicked because farmers cannot find labor. We are 
growing weary while Republicans talk and immigrants continue to come 
into our country illegally.
  Steve King is calling the shots of the entire House Republicans on 
immigration. That is a shame. That is a disgrace. That is a singular 
lack of courage that we see in our dear colleagues across the way on 
the Republican side of the aisle. King is not satisfied. He is warning 
that his colleagues have to man the watchtowers 24/7 to make sure 
nothing happens to fix our broken immigration system.
  Where are the people in the Republican Party in the House of 
Representatives with the courage to stand up to Steve King and the far 
right? They know he is wrong. We know they know he is wrong. Where are 
the people in the Republican Party to stand up to Steve King and say: 
Enough is enough. We will not let our party or our country be hijacked 
by extremists whose xenophobia causes them to prefer maintaining our 
broken immigration system over achieving a tough, fair, and practical 
long-term solution.
  If Republicans continue to kowtow to Steve King and the hard right on 
immigration, they will consign themselves to being the minority party 
for more than a decade or they can show some courage and say the Steve 
Kings in the world can say whatever they want, but they have no place 
in the modern Republican Party. They can move their party into the 
light by passing a bill that secures borders, holds employers 
accountable, grows our economy, reduces our debt, and heals broken 
families. The choice is theirs.
  Speaker Boehner has occasionally said he wants to pass reform. Where 
are the rank-and-file Republicans who know Steve King is wrong to 
encourage Speaker Boehner? Where are they? I hope that for our sakes, 
the majority of Republicans in the House Republican caucus make the 
right choice.
  But I will tell them this: For the country, no matter what choice 
they make, the ultimate outcome is undeniable. Immigration reform will 
pass this year with bipartisan support and a bipartisan imprint or it 
will pass in future years with only Democratic support and Democratic 
imprints, because Democrats will control the Congress and the White 
House. The right thing will ultimately be done. But hopefully Winston 
Churchill will not be right in saying that it will only be done after 
everything else is tried.
  Republicans in the House, stand up to Steve King. You know he is 
wrong. You know you cringe when he says what he says. Do not let him 
dictate policy.
  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. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. The Republican-led filibuster of the minimum wage bill--
which would raise the Federal minimum wage from $7.75 per hour to 
$10.10 per hour--means that an estimated 27.8 million Americans, 
including 91,000 Rhode Islanders, will not get a raise. It also means, 
according to estimates from the Economic Policy Institute, that our 
economy will miss out on a GDP boost of $22 billion by 2016, which 
would have supported over 84,000 additional full-time jobs.
  Those 27.8 million workers who would have received a raise would have 
spent

[[Page 6719]]

it at local businesses, helping their local communities and spurring 
economic growth. Typically, minimum wage workers are those who, when 
they receive an increase in their paychecks, go out and buy things that 
are necessary. They are the ones who really provide the kind of local 
stimulus we need to grow the economy.
  The Federal minimum wage has not been increased since 2009. Today an 
individual who works 40 hours per week 52 weeks a year at the Federal 
minimum wage earns $15,080 per year, and that is nearly $5,000 below 
the Federal poverty level for a family of three and almost $9,000 below 
the poverty level for a family of four. That means we have hard-working 
Americans putting in full-time work every week for the entire year and 
yet still living in poverty. That is not fair to these families who are 
just looking for a fair shot.
  People who work hard for a living shouldn't have to live in poverty. 
That was not the case in the sixties when the minimum wage was such 
that it would lift you out of poverty, and that is what we have to do 
today.
  When Congress last passed legislation to raise the minimum wage in 
2007, it was a bipartisan undertaking, and 44 Republican Senators 
joined Democrats to send President Bush a bill that raised the minimum 
wage to its current level. That bipartisan effort should be emulated 
today in this Senate. In fact, one could argue that the needs are more 
pressing; that American workers have fallen further behind; and that 
the same logic that compelled President Bush to sign this bill and a 
bipartisan Congress to send it to him is even more compelling today.
  Our constituents sent us here to work together to grow the economy 
and create jobs. It is disappointing that this bill to provide millions 
of hard-working Americans a raise--a raise they deserve through their 
own efforts--has been filibustered.
  I hope my colleagues on the other side would find a way to work with 
us on this issue and come together to strengthen our economic recovery. 
I was particularly gratified, working with my colleagues on emergency 
unemployment insurance, that we did get bipartisan support to pass 
sensible and fiscally responsible legislation. Unfortunately, now it is 
in the House and it is not moving there. I hope it does.
  But we have to do more of that, focus on what will actually help 
Americans individually and collectively move and grow our economy. We 
have worked together on emergency unemployment insurance and other 
issues, such as immigration reform. We can work together on this issue, 
and we must.
  Again, I am at this point very disappointed that same bipartisan 
effort has not been translated into action by the House of 
Representatives when it comes to restoring emergency unemployment 
insurance. Speaker Boehner could call up our bill, which is fully paid 
for and which will affect, at this point, about 2.6 million Americans--
and their families, so it is many more Americans who will benefit--and 
under the rules of the House could quickly have a vote within probably 
24 hours. I am convinced and so is my colleague Senator Heller of 
Nevada, who is my chief cosponsor, that bill would pass in the House 
today on a bipartisan basis. We have had Republican Representatives who 
have written to the Speaker and said: Bring it up for a vote. That 
would help. It would help not only 2.6 million Americans--and that 
grows each day--but it would also help our economy.
  So, again, in a similar vein, we need bipartisan action on raising 
the minimum wage in the Senate, emulating the bipartisan action we took 
with respect to emergency unemployment insurance, and then we need that 
same bipartisanship in the House of Representatives to move these 
measures to the President for his signature.
  Raising the minimum wage and restoring jobless benefits are the right 
things to do for the American people and for the American economy. I 
hope these policies, which traditionally have enjoyed strong bipartisan 
support, will eventually prevail in both the Senate and the House and 
be signed into law by the President of the United States.
  Once again, I think it is important to emphasize that the last time 
we raised the minimum wage, it was a bipartisan effort signed by a 
Republican President. This is not an issue or should not be an issue of 
political ideology or political posturing. This should be an issue of 
what helps the American worker make his or her way through a very 
difficult economy. Viewed in that logic, it is clear to me that we 
should pass this legislation, not filibuster it, and that the House 
should pass quickly the emergency unemployment insurance compensation 
bill.
  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. HOEVEN. 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 North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hoeven pertaining to the introduction of S. 2280 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. HOEVEN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Connecticut.


                              Health Care

  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I wish to tell the story of a 57-year-
old man from Boyertown, PA. His name is Dean Angstadt.
  Dean is a self-employed, self-sufficient logger. He is the kind of 
guy, similar to a lot of Americans out there, who has sort of grown up 
to believe he could do everything for himself; that he didn't need a 
lot of help from people around him in order to make a living, in order 
to provide for his family, in order to keep himself healthy.
  He has been uninsured since 2009, and he had some particular thoughts 
about the Affordable Care Act. He knew he didn't want anything to do 
with ObamaCare.
  In 2011 Dean had a pacemaker and a defibrillator implanted to help 
his ailing heart pump more efficiently. Not long after he got these two 
implants, the 6-foot, 285-pound guy was back out in the woods, but last 
summer his health worsened again. It was taking him about 10 minutes 
just to catch his breath after he felled a tree, and by the fall he was 
winded just traveling the 50 feet between his house and his truck. He 
said:

       I knew that I was really sick. I figured the doctors were 
     going to have to operate, so I tried to work as long as I 
     could to save money for the surgery. But it got to the point 
     where I couldn't work.

  So he called his friend Bob who is a 55-year-old retired firefighter 
and nurse, and talked about the fact that he was having trouble. Bob 
said: Why don't you check out the Affordable Care Act? But every time 
he made that suggestion, Dean refused. Dean said:

       We argued about it for months. I didn't trust this 
     ObamaCare. One of the big reasons is it sounded too good to 
     be true.

  January came, and Dean's health continued to get worse. His doctor 
made it clear he urgently needed valve replacement surgery, and he was 
facing a choice: He either had to find a way to get health care or he 
was going to die. That was his choice, find a way to pay for health 
care or perish.
  Luckily, his friend Bob finally convinced Dean to come over and at 
least take a look at the Affordable Care plans available to Dean. So he 
came over to his house, and in less than an hour the two of them had 
finished the application. One day later Dean signed up for the Highmark 
Blue Cross Silver PPO plan and paid his first monthly premium of 
$26.11.

       All of a sudden, I'm getting notification from Highmark, 
     and I got my card, and it was actually all legitimate. I 
     could have done backflips if I were in better shape.

  His plan kicked in on March 1, just in time to get the surgery he 
couldn't have afforded otherwise, that he couldn't have put off any 
longer. On March 31, after his surgery, he said without that surgery:

       I probably would have ended up falling over dead. Not only 
     did it save my life, it's going to give me a better quality 
     of life.

[[Page 6720]]

       For me, this isn't about politics. I'm trying to help other 
     people who are like me, stubborn and bullheaded, who refused 
     to even look. From my own experience, the ACA is everything 
     it's supposed to be and, in fact, better than it's made out 
     to be.

  Dean's story is one of 8 million stories that can be told all across 
the country. Eight million people have enrolled in private health care 
plans under the Affordable Care Act. Why? Because there is a simple 
premise embedded at the foundation of the Affordable Care Act; that is, 
that you shouldn't get sick--in Dean's case, you shouldn't face death--
simply because you don't have the money to afford surgery.
  Dean was working. Dean was a logger, a salt-of-the-Earth kind of guy 
who was playing by the rules, obeying the law, had a job, but he just 
didn't have the money to afford that expensive surgery. He gets to live 
and he gets access to health care because of the Affordable Care Act--
not because of a government handout but because of our collective 
decision to give Dean a discount on private health care, 1 of 8 million 
people all across the country.
  That is just the number of people who have been insured on these 
private exchanges. Three million young people under the age of 26 have 
been able to stay on their parents' plans because the Affordable Care 
Act allows for that to occur. New numbers this week suggest more than 
4.8 million people have enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP plans between 
October 2013 and March of 2014. Another approximately 1 million 
individuals gained coverage through an early expansion of Medicaid that 
happened in States before January 1, 2014.
  Put that all together: Eight million people on exchanges, 3 million 
young people covered through their parents' plan, 5.8 million people on 
Medicaid. That is 16 million, 17 million people in this country who 
have health care who didn't have it before.
  In my State the numbers are even more remarkable. We had a goal of 
signing up about 100,000 people, and we went out there and did 
everything we could to get the word out about the Affordable Care Act. 
We didn't sign up 100,000 people; we signed up 200,000 people. To be 
exact, we signed up 208,301 people in Connecticut. On the last day 
alone, on March 31, 5,900 people signed up in Connecticut. Connecticut 
is a small State. We only have a handful of 1 million people who live 
in our entire State, and we increased those who have insurance by 
200,000 in a State of only a few million. That is probably why--the 
fact that in States such as Connecticut 200,000 people now have 
insurance, 15 million-plus across the country have insurance--the 
polling is starting to fundamentally change. A Washington Post poll 
from a few weeks ago showed that for the first time a majority of 
Americans support the Affordable Care Act. A new poll in battleground 
congressional districts shows that 52 percent of respondents want to 
implement and fix the Affordable Care Act, which is about 10 percent 
more than those people who want to repeal and replace the bill. That 52 
percent number has increased beyond what the poll showed last December. 
The 42 percent number of those who want to repeal and replace is much 
less than the number from last December. People are starting to figure 
out that all the Republican spin and rhetoric about the Affordable Care 
Act is just that, spin and rhetoric, and the reality is that 15 million 
people have access to health care. The stories such as Dean's can be 
multiplied all over the country in every corner of this great Nation.
  But here is the even better news: We are not only enrolling more 
people but we are saving money. We are enrolling people and saving 
money. Medicare spending growth is down. Medicare per capita spending 
is growing at historically low rates. In April, for the fifth straight 
year, CBO reduced its projections for Medicare spending over the next 
10 years. This time they reduced it by another $106 billion.
  This is what we always said was the problem with the American health 
care system. We always said we don't insure enough people. We still 
leave 30 million people without access to health care and we spend 
twice as much money as our other competitor first-world nations--less 
people insured, much greater cost. We all came down to the floor, the 
Senate and the House, and said the Affordable Care Act will tackle both 
problems, and now a few months into the full implementation of the law 
that is exactly what is happening.
  It is actually costing less than we thought. The projections are that 
the Affordable Care Act is going to reduce the deficit by $1.7 trillion 
over the next two decades. Let me say that again. The Affordable Care 
Act will reduce the deficit by $1.7 trillion, meaning if you repeal the 
Affordable Care Act, as so many still want to do--as the House has 
tried to do 50 different times--you would increase the deficit by $1.7 
trillion and the overall cost of the program is 15 percent less than 
what the initial projections were.
  Insurers are starting to weigh in as well. The second biggest U.S. 
health insurer, WellPoint, increased its profit forecast after the ACA 
enrollment numbers boosted their quarterly results. Their chief 
executive officer said:

       The risk pool and the product selection seem to be coming 
     in the manner that we hoped it would. It's very encouraging 
     right now.

  UnitedHealthcare, which had a pretty small footprint in these 
exchanges, has now changed its bias to increase the participation in 
exchanges in 2015 because it said it saw a positive response from 
consumers who enrolled in the plans they did offer in limited States in 
greater than expected numbers. Fifteen million people, including eight 
million people on private insurance plans, enrolled, saving money for 
taxpayers and for insurance companies. That is the real story of the 
Affordable Care Act.
  Let me finish by sharing with you a couple more stories from 
Connecticut, and I am going to share them through the eyes of the 
enrollers because enrollers and assisters are the heroes of these last 
several months.
  There was an embarrassing rollout of the Affordable Care Act in the 
fall of last year, a Web site that should have been working on day one 
that wasn't. But the fact is that thousands of people all across this 
country working in community health centers and emergency rooms, at 
nonprofits, decided to make this thing work in red States and in blue 
States and went out and enrolled in record numbers, shattering 
expectations for people on affordable health care. I had a few of these 
assisters together in Connecticut. They started telling me stories and 
I will finish with two of them.
  Michael, who is an assister in Danielson, CT, tells this story, and 
he said: I recall a husband and wife who came into our health center 
and didn't have health insurance mainly because they indicated their 
employer's insurance plan was way too expensive. As I went along asking 
questions during the application the husband mostly complained about 
ObamaCare. He kept saying our government is making it so no one can 
afford insurance and that he and his wife heard that insurance plans 
were still too high, even after going through the exchange. After 
completing the application and showing them the plans that were 
offered, they were totally surprised by the minimal cost of the 
premiums as well as the deductible rates. I also helped them understand 
how certain plans were structured and what services the deductible 
applied to. They left that day choosing a plan that was right for them. 
Needless to say, they went home from our meeting feeling more confident 
about their choice, more educated about health insurance and less 
resentful of the Affordable Care Act.
  Sean, who is an assister from Norwich, tells this story: I met one 
middle-aged man. He hadn't had insurance for over 5 years because all 
the plans were so high and unaffordable and he was over the income for 
the State Medicaid insurance program. He had a few prescriptions and 
had to pay out-of-pocket around $150 to $200 every month. We 
successfully completed an ACA application and selected an Anthem Blue 
Cross and Blue Shield plan with tax credits. The plan's monthly premium 
was only a fraction of what he would have paid every month for 
prescriptions and medical care, and the prescription drug copay was 
only about

[[Page 6721]]

$10. This man was ecstatic, and he said he would have to go home to 
figure out a way to spend all of the money that he would save every 
month with his new plan.
  There are stories similar to his and Dean's all over the country, 8 
million of them just when it comes to the people who have signed up for 
private health care, but for the rest of us who have health care, the 
news is good as well: $1.7 trillion off of the deficit, a program that 
is costing 15 percent less than we had expected, an overall Medicare 
inflation rate for taxpayers that is coming down, and for many of us 
the ability to sleep a little bit better at night because we know that 
the most affluent, most powerful country in the world has committed 
itself to the idea that somebody like Dean--a logger, going out and 
working the land--doesn't have to die simply because he doesn't have 
the money to pay for surgery. In so many ways the Affordable Care Act 
is working.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                           Campaign Spending

  Mr. KING. Madam President, there is an ominous tide rising in this 
country. It is not water. It is not oil. It is not any kind of 
substance. It is dollars. It is cash. It is a tide of dark money that 
is flowing in and threatens to dominate our political system.
  Yesterday we had a very interesting hearing in the Rules Committee on 
the subject of disclosure and the rise of outside money in campaigns. 
We have developed a kind of parallel universe of campaign financing, 
where the candidates, you and I and other Members of this body, work 
hard to raise money from supporters so we can fund our campaigns. By 
the way, all of that money that is raised has to be under certain 
limits. There are limitations. There are disclosure requirements. If 
you get a contribution, it has to be disclosed who paid it and what do 
they do for a living and what is their address. All of that is public.
  Yet on the other side is this parallel universe, as I mentioned, 
where a multimillionaire can come into your State or my State or 
anybody's State and put in an enormous amount of money, essentially 
unregulated and often totally anonymous. I think this is a danger to 
our country. I started the hearing off yesterday by saying I fear for 
my country. I fear for our democracy.
  There are several basic points I wish to make. This isn't an 
evolutionary change. This isn't, OK, we are spending a few more dollars 
this year than we did last year and it is a little more of the same and 
it is no big deal. This is what is happening: This is nonparty outside 
spending starting back in the early nineties, and we see what happened 
in 2012. Now we don't have the numbers in 2012. Of course, 2012 was a 
Presidential year. What we see is it started to go up, the Presidential 
year in 2004, and then down. It goes up in 2008 in the Presidential 
year, down--but not so much--and then way up in 2012, and this gives 
the context of what is happening. This isn't evolutionary change; this 
is revolutionary change. This is a fundamental change.
  I asked one of our witnesses yesterday at the hearing: Is this a very 
significant, great change that is going on? He said: Senator, it is an 
explosion.
  It is an explosion. Here is what it looks like. This is nonparty 
spending, cycle to date, and the day was the day before yesterday. In 
other words, it is the outside party spending, the so-called 
independent expenditures comparing apples to apples as of April 29 of 
each year.
  So here again, 2004 Presidential year, then it drops way down in 2006 
midterms, again jumps up in 2008, down in 2010, big jump for 2012. But 
look where we are as of this date in 2014. Look at the comparison 
between this and the last midterm year. It is almost 10 times as much. 
This is a threat that is growing and it is going to overwhelm us.
  Some of my colleagues have said we are bound for a scandal. Indeed, 
that is what has driven campaign finance reform throughout our history. 
The first major campaign finance reform was in 1907. It resulted from 
the Presidential campaigns in the late 1890s and the turn of the 
century, where Mark Hanna, a political operative, called the major 
corporations of America and said: You will give us this--and that is 
how the money was raised for those campaigns. We then passed the first 
campaign finance law under the leadership of Teddy Roosevelt in 1907 
because he saw a scandal coming.
  So this is nonparty outside spending. This is both disclosed and 
undisclosed, but look at this. This is spending by nondisclosure 
groups, cycle to date. Look where we are. This is the money that nobody 
knows where it comes from. If we start back in here, 2012, this is a 
Presidential year to date and here we are in 2014. It is an explosion, 
and nobody knows where that money is coming from. It is secret money.
  What we have is the development of organizations and institutions 
engaged in what I call identity laundering. I am not going to attempt 
to explain this chart, but this is a chart that traces in 2012 one set 
of funds. It is about $400 million from three large organizations that 
go through all of these different entities and the whole purpose is to 
keep the names of the donors secret. So the public doesn't know who is 
trying to influence their vote. This isn't insignificant money. Fifty 
million dollars this line represents to something called the American 
Future Fund. They create these entities--and there is also the 
wonderful nomenclature here--there are even entities entitled 
``undesignated'' or ``disregarded''--and the whole purpose of this is 
to hide the identity of the people who are supporting it.
  I don't think that is consistent with the First Amendment. It is not 
consistent with our political traditions. It is not consistent with the 
whole idea of conveying information. If somebody wants to come and buy 
ads in Pennsylvania or North Dakota or New York or California, that is 
fine. They have a right to do that, at least under the current Supreme 
Court rulings, but they also ought to tell us who they are. That is 
part of the information the voters should have in assessing the 
validity of the message that is being delivered to them.
  In Maine you cannot go to a town meeting with a bag over your head. 
If you are going to make a speech, if you are going to take your 
position on an issue, you tell who you are, and people can assess the 
validity of your views based upon in part who they know you are, what 
your interest is, what your stake is in this process, and we are 
denying the people of America the opportunity to know that.
  It is important to realize in this whole area of campaign finance, 
which is unbelievably complicated, that the Supreme Court has 
significantly narrowed our ability in Congress or in the States to 
regulate campaign finance. They have essentially said that money is 
speech and that it can't be limited--at least in the aggregate, that is 
the McCutcheon decision. Under the Citizens United decision, the 
corporations are also people and have a right to free speech and can 
spend as much money as they want.
  When you go back and read those key opinions--Citizens United and 
McCutcheon, which was just decided about a month ago--the Supreme Court 
said: We are going to strike down these limitations because they are 
limitations on free speech, but the basic reason we feel comfortable 
doing so is because the public still has disclosure and they will know 
who is talking, and that is our bulwark against abuse and corrosion of 
our system.
  The problem with that reasoning is the bulwark doesn't exist, and 
clever campaign operatives have created this elaborate system which is 
designed to disguise who the contributors are, and that is the problem 
with our system.
  The problem right now is that one party may think they are advantaged 
by the current system, but 2 years from now that advantage could 
disappear. Indeed, data we received just before our hearing indicates 
that 2 years ago 88 percent of the outside money was conservative. 
Indeed, this year--so far in 2012--it is closer to being balanced. It 
is 60-40 conservative over more liberal messages. I submit that once it 
gets to be 50-50, everybody on both sides of the

[[Page 6722]]

aisle will say that maybe we need to do something about it. I am 
suggesting we do something about it sooner rather than later.
  The Supreme Court has invited us to do something about disclosure. I 
think it is the tool we know we have. There is discussion about a 
constitutional amendment, which is fine, and I am a supporter. That is 
a long-term solution. That could take 4, 5, 6 years, assuming the 
support could be achieved in the Congress and in the States. In the 
meantime, disclosure is something we could do next week, and it is 
something we should do. We owe it to the American people to allow them 
to know who it is that is trying to influence their vote.
  Occasionally, there is an argument that people who make these kinds 
of contributions will be subjected to some kind of intimidation--crank 
phone calls, threats, and those kinds of things. Well, Justice Scalia--
the Supreme Court Justice whom I used to know in law school--recently 
said: ``Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts 
fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.''
  If people are willing to spend millions of dollars attacking someone 
else's character, integrity, and career, they ought to at least be 
willing to stand up and say: Here am I. I am making these statements.
  They should not be allowed to hide behind something created by an 
army of accountants and lawyers to disguise their identity. I think 
this is something--and based upon the hearing we had yesterday and the 
work we did in preparing for it--we really need to attend to.
  When I first got into this subject last year, I thought it was bad. 
Well, what I have learned over the last several months is that it is a 
lot worse than I thought. It is happening fast. It is a tidal wave, and 
it is going to engulf our system. Why do we care? Because it is 
corrosive and it undermines the confidence citizens have in us as their 
political leaders.
  In the 1970s and 1980s, people had a perception that money was 
corrupting around here, even if it wasn't. But, boy, when we start to 
have unidentified, outside dark money and nobody knows where it is 
coming from, what could be more calculating to undermine public 
confidence in their leadership than a system like that? It is 
corrosive. It undermines the trust of our people. It is wrong, and I 
think it is something we should attend to. It is something we can do. 
We know we can do it constitutionally. We had an 8-to-1 majority vote. 
McCutcheon and Citizens United invited us to do this. I think we should 
be able to find a bipartisan solution to this subject because it will 
benefit this whole country, and I think it will be a great benefit to 
the institution of democracy itself. This is not what the Framers 
envisioned, and we have it within our power to do something about it so 
we can improve this situation and the flow of information--including 
the source of that information--to the people of America.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                                UKRAINE

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I take this time on the floor as the 
Chair of the U.S. Helsinki Commission. The Helsinki Commission is the 
operating arm of the U.S. participation in the Organization for 
Security and Cooperation in Europe, the OSCE. It has been in the press 
recently because of the circumstances in Ukraine, which is what I am 
going to talk about.
  First, I will remind my colleagues that the United States, along with 
all the countries of Europe and Canada, formed the commission on 
security and cooperation in Europe in 1975. It was founded on the 
principle that in order to have a stable country, you need to deal not 
just with the direct security needs--the military needs--of a country 
and not just with its economic and environmental agenda, but you also 
need to deal with its human rights and its good governance, and all 
three of these are related.
  Commitments were made by all the signatories to the OSCE about 
respecting the jurisdictions of the member states and dealing with the 
rights of your neighbors and dealing with the rights of your own 
citizens. The Soviet Union was a member of the OSCE, and now all of the 
countries of the former Soviet Union are members, including Russia and 
the countries of central Asia.
  I am increasingly alarmed at the deterioration of the situation in 
Eastern UKraine, particularly in the Donetsk region, where Moscow-
controlled pro-Russian separatists have seized 19 buildings and 14 
cities and towns.
  Late last week seven members of the German-led OSCE Vienna Document 
inspection team, charged with observing unusual military activities, 
along with five of their Ukrainian escorts, were kidnapped by pro-
Russian militants. One observer has been freed, and the rest continue 
to be held hostage. Russia, an OSCE member, has not lifted a finger to 
secure their release. There is no doubt in my mind that if Mr. Putin 
gave the word, this hostage situation would cease to exist.
  This hostage-taking of unarmed international monitors must continue 
to be condemned in the strongest possible terms, and everything 
possible must be done to secure their release.
  In addition to the OSCE observers, 40 people--journalists, activists, 
police officers, and politicians--are reportedly being held captive in 
makeshift jails in Slovyansk.
  Meanwhile, the violence in Eastern Ukraine continues. On Monday, 
several thousand peaceful protesters marching in favor of Ukraine's 
unity were attacked by pro-Russian thugs wielding clubs and whips, 
resulting in 15 seriously injured. That same day, Gennady Kernes, the 
mayor of Ukraine's second largest city, Kharkiv, was shot, underwent 
emergency surgery, and remains in serious condition. He is now in 
Israel for further medical treatment.
  Furthermore, I am deeply dismayed at other flagrant violations of 
human rights by pro-Russian militants in Eastern Ukraine and in 
Russia's annexed Crimea. These include attacks and threats against 
minority groups, particularly Jews and Roma as well as Crimean Tatars 
and ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea. Supporters of a united Ukraine have 
been targeted as well, including a local politician and university 
student whose tortured bodies were found dumped in a river near 
Slovyansk.
  The joint statement on Ukraine signed in Geneva on April 17 by the 
EU, the United States, Russia, and Ukraine calls on all sides to lay 
down their arms, vacate buildings, and begin the process of dialogue 
and de-escalation. That was signed just 2 weeks ago. That agreement 
provided a basis for de-escalation. Yet, over the course of the last 
days and weeks, we have not seen the Russians follow through on urging 
separatists to stand down in Eastern Ukraine. What have we seen? Kyiv, 
on the one hand, is taking concrete steps and making good-faith efforts 
to live up to the Geneva agreement, including vacating buildings and 
offering dialogue. Russia has done nothing. Instead of working to de-
escalate the conflict, it is doing the opposite--fueling escalation. 
Russia continues to violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity 
of Ukraine and flagrantly flaunts its commitments under the Geneva 
agreement.
  The Geneva agreement also calls upon the parties to refrain from any 
violence, intimidation, or provocative actions and condemns and rejects 
all expressions of extremism, racism, religious intolerance, including 
anti-Semitism. Clearly, both the spirit and the letter of this 
agreement have been breached by Russia.
  In recent days we have seen troubling manifestations against ethnic 
and religious minority communities. The distribution of flyers in 
Donetsk calling for Jews to register their religion and property is a 
chilling reminder of an especially dark period in European history. 
While the perpetrators of this onerous action have not been determined, 
one thing is clear: Moscow, which controls the pro-Russian separatists 
in Eastern Ukraine, is using anti-Semitism as an ingredient in its 
anti-Ukrainian campaign. Perhaps even worse, among the Russian special 
forces and agitators operating in

[[Page 6723]]

Ukraine are members of the neo-Nazi and other anti-Semitic groups.
  Jewish communities in parts of Eastern Ukraine are not the only ones 
that have reason to be worried. In Slovyansk, armed separatists have 
invaded Romani homes and beaten and robbed men, women, and children. 
Ukrainian speakers--including Ukrainian-speaking journalists--have 
reportedly experienced intimidation in the largely Russian-speaking 
Donetsk area.
  At the same time in Crimea, which Russia forcibly annexed, Crimean 
Tatars continue to be threatened with deportation and attacked for 
speaking their own language in their ancestral homeland. Moreover, the 
longtime leader of the Crimean Tatar community and former Soviet 
political prisoner Mustafa Dzhemilev has been banned from returning to 
Crimea.
  It is important to underscore that Crimea is the ancestral home of 
the Crimean Tatars, who in 1944 were forcibly and brutally evicted by 
Stalin to central Asia and only allowed to return to their home in the 
early 1990s.
  Additionally, the separatist Crimean authorities have gone after the 
Ukrainian community, announcing that Ukrainian literature and history 
will no longer be offered in Crimean schools.
  These attacks and threats underscore the importance of the OSCE 
Special Monitoring Mission and other OSCE institutions in Ukraine in 
assessing the situation on the ground and helping to de-escalate 
tensions. They need to be permitted to operate unhindered--and most 
certainly not held hostage--in Eastern Ukraine and to be allowed access 
into Crimea, which Russia continues to block.
  The actions against pro-Ukrainian activists and minorities are the 
direct result of Russia's unfounded and illegal aggression against 
Ukraine--first in Crimea and then in Eastern Ukraine. There is no doubt 
as to who pulls the strings. The Kremlin has been relentlessly 
flaunting their Geneva promises and has done nothing to rein in the 
militants they control. Mr. Putin needs to get Russian soldiers and 
other assorted military and intelligence operatives out of Ukraine.
  We must not forget Crimea. We must never recognize Russia's forcible, 
illegal annexation of the Ukrainian territory, which violates every 
single one of the 10 core OSCE Helsinki principles. We must build on 
the punitive measures already undertaken against the Russian and 
Ukrainian individuals who so blatantly violated the international 
agreements in the Ukrainian and Crimean Constitutions. Violations of 
another nation's territorial integrity and sovereignty must not be 
tolerated. Russia's flagrant land grab of Crimea has set a horrible 
precedent for those countries harboring illegal territorial ambitions 
around the globe.
  I welcome the President's stepping up of economic sanctions on seven 
Russian officials, including members of President Putin's inner circle 
and 17 companies linked to Mr. Putin. I also welcome the State 
Department and Commerce Department tightening policy to deny export 
license applications for any high-technology items that could 
contribute to Russia's military capabilities. I am confident Russia 
will feel the impact of these sanctions. These, along with the further 
targeted sanctions announced by the EU earlier this week, will only 
continue to have a growing impact.
  Nevertheless, if the situation in eastern Ukraine continues to 
deteriorate, or even should the status quo persist, the United States 
needs to ratchet up these sanctions, and soon, including several 
sectoral sanctions against Russia's industries such as banking, mining, 
energy, and defense.
  Of equal importance, we need to remain steadfast in helping Ukraine 
become a stronger democratic state and foster its political and 
economic stability. The millions of men, women, and children who 
demonstrated for months for human rights and human dignity spoke loudly 
and clearly, expressing the wishes of the vast majority of the 
Ukrainian citizens. The interim government has been working hard under 
exceedingly difficult circumstances to move Ukraine further on the path 
of economic and political reforms. We and our international partners 
need to keep making this progress our focal point. Ukraine needs a lot 
of help after the devastation wreaked on their economy by the 
incredibly corrupt and dysfunctional Yanukovych regime.
  Ukraine has so many pressing needs. Among the most important are 
stabilizing the economy and preparing for the most important May 25 
Presidential elections. Others include judicial reform, reform of the 
police and military, seeking justice and rehabilitation for the victims 
of the violence, including those suffering now at the hands of the pro-
Russian militants, helping internally displaced people who are fleeing 
Crimea, and working to recover the billions in assets stolen by the 
previous regime.
  I am pleased Ukraine's civil society, including Western-educated 
young people, is firmly committed to the rule of law and democracy and 
is playing a critical role in helping the Ukrainian Government work 
toward these ends. NGOs and think tanks have worked with the Parliament 
to pass a law on the independence of public broadcasting, a bill on 
public procurement, and one on how judges are appointed--all critical 
in fighting the scourge of corruption.
  The United States is providing concrete assistance through a U.S. 
crisis support package for Ukraine, which includes support for the 
integrity of the May elections and constitutional reform, substantial 
economic assistance, energy security technical expertise, help to 
recover proceeds of corruptions stolen by the former regime, and other 
anticorruption assistance, and fostering greater people-to-people 
contacts. We need to be willing to provide more resources to the 
Ukrainians as they actively work to fulfill their aspirations.
  Ultimately, these choices will lead to a more secure, democratic, and 
peaceful world, and that is something that reflects both American 
interests and American values.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. 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 Ms. LANDRIEU pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2280 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the motion to proceed to S. 2262 is now 
pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The leader is correct.
  Mr. REID. I have a cloture motion that I would ask to be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 368, S. 2262, a bill to promote 
     energy savings in residential buildings and industry, and for 
     other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Jeanne Shaheen, Michael F. Bennet, Richard J. 
           Durbin, Christopher A. Coons, Bill Nelson, Tom Harkin, 
           Martin Heinrich, Patrick J. Leahy, Richard Blumenthal, 
           Tim Kaine, Patty Murray, Tom Udall, Joe Manchin III, 
           Robert P. Casey, Jr., Angus S. King, Jr., Mark R. 
           Warner.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum required under 
rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 6724]]



                          ____________________