[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7553-7559]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  NOMINATION OF PAMELA K. HAMAMOTO TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED 
    STATES OF AMERICA TO THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHER 
   INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN GENEVA, WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the Hamamoto nomination.
  The bill clerk read the nomination of Pamela K. Hamamoto, of Hawaii, 
to be Representative of the United States of America to the Office of 
the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva, 
with the rank of Ambassador.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be 
yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Pamela K. Hamamoto, of Hawaii, to be Representative of the United 
States of America to the Office of the United Nations and Other 
International Organizations in Geneva, with the rank of Ambassador?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 
1:45 p.m. be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. CASEY. Madam President, the 
Senator from Kansas will speak and then I will follow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Tribute to Charlotte Linsner

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I am here this afternoon to pay tribute 
to an exceptional woman in my hometown. She is retiring from a career 
of aiding victims of domestic violence across Northwest Kansas. 
Charlotte Linsner in Hays, KS, is concluding more than 25 years of 
service to Options Domestic and Sexual Violence Services with half of 
her time in the role as its executive director.
  Back home, especially in the rural parts of our State where doors are 
left unlocked and most people know everyone else, we often think that 
domestic violence doesn't occur on our streets or in our homes or to 
people in families that we know. Unfortunately, that is not the 
reality, and the evidence clearly indicates that is not the case.
  Since Options opened its doors 30 years ago under the name of 
Northwest Kansas Sexual and Domestic Violence Services, 18,000 Kansans 
in 18 northwest counties have been assisted in seeking a safe 
environment. There are locations in Hays and Colby, and in addition to 
providing direct assistance, Options has been instrumental in raising 
awareness of domestic and sexual violence in our corner of the State.
  Almost from the very beginning Charlotte was there working to help 
those in need. She has offered compassion and strength and hope to 
those who walked through Options' doors or called the hotline. Her 
coworkers use words to describe her such as ``passion'' and 
``spunkiness'' and ``one of the nicest people.'' From my time living in 
Hays and visiting Options, I can attest to those attributes. These 
characteristics are what make Charlotte so very effective in her job. 
Those who come to Options are bruised physically and emotionally, and 
they find among the staff at Options understanding and expertise. 
Effective leadership has made this an effective organization.
  Last year our State's attorney general presented Options with the 
Outstanding Victims Service Organization for 2013, an award at its 16th 
Annual Crimes Victims' Rights Conference. Mindful that domestic and 
sexual violence is a scourge not just throughout Northwest Kansas but 
throughout our State and society, Charlotte told the audience:

       Options accepts this award in honor of all advocates and 
     domestic/sexual programs across the State. Advocates go to 
     work each day to find safety for victims.

  Charlotte would be the first to say that great things cannot happen 
through one person's work alone. So I also wish to commend all who 
staff Options, who sit on its board of directors, who raise money, and 
the outside groups and individuals who tirelessly work to protect the 
vulnerable in our communities. I also want to acknowledge her husband 
Larry and her four children, who have supported her as she has devoted 
so much of her life and so much of her time to helping other families.
  Charlotte is retiring but not until July 1, and for as long as she is 
on the job she is hard at work to solidify her agency's mission. She 
will lead a capital campaign with the goal of $250,000, and once the 
day comes, she will mentor the new executive director. Not only that 
but she plans to still work once a month at the shelter house as an 
advocate, which is how she started her career.
  Charlotte leaves huge shoes to fill for the next executive director, 
but with the foundation that Charlotte and others have laid throughout 
the community in community partnerships and generous benefactors, 
Options will be helping those in need--our neighbors, our friends, 
sometimes even our relatives--for years to come.
  Thank you, Charlotte. Best wishes. I am glad you live your life in a 
way that is committed to helping others.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, with regard to the 
Hamamoto nomination, the motion to reconsider is considered made and 
laid upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Syrian Atrocities

  Mr. CASEY. Thank you, Madam President.
  Madam President, I rise this afternoon to discuss the recent events 
in Syria and the United States' response to the crisis.
  Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with President Ahmad Jarba of 
the Syrian National Coalition to hear firsthand about the Assad 
regime's intolerable violations of international law and human rights 
norms. I will begin by reviewing the situation as it stands today.
  More than 3 years since the fighting first began, the conflict in 
Syria rages on. The fighting has driven more than 2.4 million refugees 
out of the country and displaced 6.5 million more Syrians inside of 
Syria itself. The violence is so terrible that the United Nations has 
stopped estimating the death toll. According to the Syrian Observatory 
for Human Rights, at least 150,000 Syrians have been killed. This 
conflict has had a disproportionate effect on children in Syria. A Save 
the Children report indicates that at least 1.2 million children have 
fled to neighboring countries while about 10,000 have died in the 
violence.
  The Assad regime has used every available tactic to terrorize the 
Syrian people. Some civilians have resorted to eating grass as 
desperately needed humanitarian and food aid has been withheld from 
besieged communities. The whir of helicopter blades above portends 
barrel bomb strikes that we have

[[Page 7554]]

heard so much about that could easily land on a school, a hospital or 
an apartment block. For example, on April 30, Assad's air force dropped 
a barrel bomb on an elementary school in Aleppo. This attack killed 25 
children. This kind of activity by the Assad regime is, in a word, 
intolerable.
  Yesterday the remaining opposition fighters in Homs, once an 
opposition stronghold, were evacuated under U.N. supervision. If my 
colleagues here in the Senate have not yet seen the images of Homs, I 
would urge each of them to take a look at them. The ancient city of 
Homs is absolutely destroyed. In the midst of this, Mr. Assad declared 
his candidacy for reelection. Although presidential elections in Syria 
have never been free and fair, this one that he has declared his 
candidacy for is a farce, and we can add other words to that as well. 
This is an attempt by Mr. Assad to legitimize the extension of his 
brutal rule.
  Bashar al-Assad lost his legitimacy a long time ago. What concerns me 
and so many others is this: Assad believes he is winning. He believes 
he can starve, bomb, and terrorize the Syrian people into submission. 
In light of all this it is incumbent upon the United States to take 
action to change or at least to help to change the momentum on the 
battlefield. Our national security interests are clear and have become 
even more clear in recent days. First, the Iranian regime's status as 
the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism is well established, and 
its proxies have perpetrated attacks against the United States, Israel, 
and our allies. Emboldened by the Iranian regime's support, Hezbollah 
has conducted attacks against U.S. targets and western interests. The 
Assad regime has been an important conduit between Iran and Hezbollah. 
As such, they are fighting side-by-side with the regime forces in Syria 
and providing the regime much needed supplies and financial assistance.
  It is also abundantly clear that Russia simply does not share our 
interests in the region. I guess that is an understatement. Russia has 
continued to back the regime. It has consistently blocked U.S. actions 
in the U.N. Security Council, including efforts to invoke chapter VII 
authorization to enforce existing Security Council resolutions 2118 and 
2139. Russia continues to provide the regime materiel assistance, 
including ammunition, weapons, airplanes, and spare parts that are 
keeping the regime afloat. From Syria to Ukraine, it is clear that 
President Putin's approach to foreign policy is rooted in old Cold War 
regrets.
  The administration has taken steps to respond to the protracted 
conflict in Syria. Let me outline a few. First, on chemical weapons: 
The agreement negotiated last fall has led to the vast majority of the 
Syrian regime's declared chemical weapons stockpiles being removed from 
Syria. Taking most of these dangerous weapons off the table was a great 
step forward. However, I remain concerned about reports that the regime 
could keep the remaining 8 percent of those chemical weapons as an 
insurance policy.
  Equally, if not more, concerning are indications that the Assad 
regime retains secret stockpiles of chemical weapons that we cannot 
account for. Further, the regime's use of chlorine gas attacks to 
terrorize Syrian civilians demonstrates categorically that Assad will 
never abide by the spirit of that agreement--even an agreement that has 
led to that 92-percent removal. Here is what he won't fully agree to: 
to stop using chemical weapons against his own people in clear 
violation of international law.
  Second, on humanitarian assistance, the administration has supported 
increasing efforts to reduce the suffering. The State Department and 
USAID must be commended for mobilizing a tremendous aid effort. 
American taxpayers have contributed over $1.7 billion in humanitarian 
assistance both inside of Syria and in its neighborhood. This important 
assistance has fed, clothed, vaccinated, and sheltered Syrians 
displaced by the fighting. However, the humanitarian crisis remains, as 
David Milliband put it, ``a defining humanitarian emergency of this 
century.'' So much more remains to be done just on the humanitarian 
challenge in and of itself.
  Since the beginning of this conflict I have been calling for a more 
robust response by the United States. Yesterday I met with Mr. Jarba, 
the president of the Syrian National Coalition. While we discussed the 
situation in Syria and while we know this situation is terribly 
complicated, his bottom line message to me--and I am sure he will be 
addressing this with other American officials as well--and his message 
was very clear: Without significant support from the United States of 
America, the fighting will continue and a political solution will not 
be reached.''
  We must act to change the battle's momentum and to fundamentally 
shift Mr. Assad's calculus. As long as he believes that there are no 
real consequences for his actions, he will continue to defy the U.N. 
Security Council. Consequently, I have sent a letter to President Obama 
today which asks him to consider some next steps.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the 
President dated today be printed in the Record.

                                         United States Senate,

                                      Washington, DC, May 8, 2014.
     Hon. Barack Obama,
     President of the United States, The White House, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. President, In recent weeks, Bashar al-Assad's 
     reign of terror has intensified. His forces have used 
     starvation as a war tactic by refusing to deliver 
     desperately-needed food assistance to opposition-controlled 
     areas, bombed an elementary school in Northern Aleppo killing 
     17 children, rained barrel bombs on residential areas in 
     violation of UN Security Resolution 2139, and regained the 
     former opposition-stronghold of Homs. Meanwhile, he has 
     declared his intention to run for President. The United 
     States has clear national security interests in Syria, in 
     stabilizing the region, ending Assad's slaughter of 
     civilians, and confronting the Iranian regime and Hezbollah. 
     [However, Assad clearly believes he has the upper hand on the 
     battlefield.
       First, I commend the work you and your administration have 
     already done to help the people of Syria, a country that 
     journalist Nicholas Kristof called the ``world capital of 
     human suffering.'' The State Department and USAID have 
     mobilized a remarkable humanitarian aid effort thus far. 
     American taxpayers have provided substantial assistance to 
     help those suffering in Syria and the refugee communities in 
     the region. Your administration's agreement with Russia to 
     destroy Syria's chemical weapons has since resulted in the 
     removal of 92.5 percent of Syria's declared stockpile. 
     However, the humanitarian crisis is only expanding as the 
     conflict rages on, and Assad has been deploying chlorine gas 
     to terrorize Syrian civilians and circumvent the chemical 
     weapons agreement.
       The U.S. State Department recently highlighted Syria's 
     critical importance to the United States' strategic, long-
     term interests in its 2013 Country Reports on Terrorism. The 
     State Department's findings that civilians in Syria were 
     primarily the target of terrorist violence are deeply 
     troubling. The report found that Iran and Hezbollah provided 
     critical support to Assad's regime by radically boosting 
     Assad's capabilities and exacerbating the conflict. The 
     report also noted that the Syrian conflict ``empowered ISIL 
     [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] to expand its 
     cross-border operations in Syria, and dramatically increase 
     attacks against Iraqi civilians and government targets in 
     2013.''
       I remain firmly convinced that a more robust U.S. strategy 
     is needed to change the balance of power on the ground and 
     prevent either of two scenarios from occurring. First, that 
     Bashar al-Assad could bomb and starve out any opposition and 
     thus retain his grip on power in Syria.
       Second, as members of your administration have warned, that 
     terrorist organizations could take advantage of the chaos in 
     Syria to establish a new safe haven, like a new Pakistani 
     FATA, from which to launch attacks against U.S. interests.
       Yesterday, I met with President Ahmad Jarba, to hear 
     firsthand about the situation on the ground. I urge your 
     administration to continue efforts to help the Syrian 
     opposition bring Assad's tyrannical rule to an end and to 
     stave off extremist influence. The State Department's 
     commitment of $27 million in non-lethal assistance should be 
     expanded to include additional assistance for the opposition 
     Assistance Coordination Unit and local councils, which are 
     the face of the opposition for Syrian civilians. With U.S. 
     assistance, the opposition can ramp up its efforts to deliver 
     humanitarian assistance and basic services to communities 
     inside Syria.
       I am aware of reports that American-made anti-tank rocket 
     systems have made their way to a group of moderate Syrian 
     rebels. Whatever the origin of these systems, I believe their 
     provision can help change the momentum on the ground. 
     However, to take

[[Page 7555]]

     down Assad's helicopters and bombers, the opposition forces 
     need anti-aircraft weapons. If your Administration judges 
     that there are sufficient safeguards available to track and 
     disable such weapons remotely, I would support their 
     deployment to trusted, vetted Free Syria Army commanders. I 
     fully understand the risks of introducing more of these 
     weapons to the region. However, as long as the regime enjoys 
     control of the skies over Syria, its aircraft will continue 
     regularly and indiscriminately raining bombs and killing 
     Syrian civilians en masse. Little else would have such a 
     profound impact on the balance of power on the battlefield.
       The international community has clear interests in 
     stabilizing the region and preventing future atrocities. UN 
     Security Council Resolution 2139 requires that ``all parties 
     immediately cease all attacks against civilians, as well as 
     the indiscriminate employment of weapons in populated areas, 
     including shelling and aerial bombardment, such as the use of 
     barrel bombs. . . .'' Since the resolution's adoption on 
     February 22, Human Rights Watch has documented at least 85 
     barrel bomb strikes in Aleppo alone. This is intolerable.
       I ask that your Administration resume its advocacy for an 
     invocation of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. Assad continues to 
     violate Security Council Resolution 2139 by deploying barrel 
     bombs against civilians. A tailored and conditional Chapter 7 
     resolution to respond to the regime's willful disregard of 
     the UN Security Council and the laws of war would not only 
     hold Assad accountable but would also force Russia to take a 
     stand on Assad's continued attacks on civilians.
       The Senate has repeatedly voiced its concern regarding the 
     deepening conflict in Syria. In July 2013, the Senate Foreign 
     Relations Committee reported out S. 960, the Syria Transition 
     Support Act, which authorized lethal assistance to vetted 
     elements of the Syrian opposition. In the bill's findings, 
     the Committee noted that it was vital to the United States' 
     national security interests to limit the threat posed by 
     extremist groups in Syria. Last month the full Senate agreed 
     to S. Res. 384, which expressed the Senate's condemnation of 
     the Syrian humanitarian crisis.
       The sheer scale of war crimes, human rights abuses, and 
     regional destabilization in the Syrian crisis is, as David 
     Miliband of the International Rescue Committee put it, ``a 
     defining humanitarian emergency of this century.'' As such, 
     it deserves the United States' attention and carefully-
     considered action. I thank you for your leadership on this 
     important issue and stand ready to help bring this conflict 
     to an end.
           Sincerely,
                                             Robert P. Casey, Jr.,
                                            United States Senator.

  Mr. CASEY. I thank the Chair.
  Let me outline some of what I set forth in the letter. First, I asked 
that the President seriously consider allowing the deployment of lethal 
assistance to the moderate military opposition. A serious effort to 
help narrow the gulf between the moderate opposition and the better-
trained and better-equipped extremist fighters would not only boost 
morale in the Free Syrian Army but could actually change the momentum 
of the battle. Yesterday President Jarba expressed his commitment to 
continuing to fight extremist forces. He made that commitment to me, 
and I am sure he would reiterate it to others. There is no question 
that there are risks here, but the greater risk is allowing Syria to 
fall into the hands of extremists and to allow the regime to murder 
thousands more Syrians and prevail in this conflict. If the 
administration judges that it has the confidence in Mr. Jarba's pledges 
and that we have conducted sufficient vetting of key opposition 
commanders, it should either consider allowing our partners in the 
region to supply lethal aid or consider providing such weapons 
ourselves.
  I have not and will not advocate for American boots on the ground in 
this conflict, but giving moderate opposition forces the assistance 
they need to stem Assad's reign of terror and drive back foreign 
extremist fighters is in our national interest.
  Second, my letter urges President Obama to resume the push for a 
chapter 7 authorization in the United Nations. Getting Russia to agree 
to U.N. Security Council resolutions 2118 and 2139 was a difficult 
task, far more difficult than it should have been considering 
international law is clear about the deployment of chemical weapons and 
the use of humanitarian assistance as a tool of war. Enforcement of 
these resolutions is critical. If Assad does not make good on his 
commitment to turn over 100 percent--not 92 percent--100 percent of his 
chemical weapons caches, there should be consequences. If he continues 
to starve and barrel bomb Syrian children, there must be consequences.
  Pressing for a chapter 7 authorization would help us hold both Mr. 
Putin and Mr. Assad to their commitments. It would also pave the way 
for the United Nations to ramp up its cross-border humanitarian 
assistance, which is desperately needed inside of Syria.
  When we met yesterday, President Jarba was clear: There will be no 
momentum behind a political solution until the momentum on the 
battlefield changes. I have believed that for a long time. The United 
States has an opportunity not only to help end the suffering in Syria 
but to send a strong message to those who support the Assad regime, 
including Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.
  I strongly urge the administration to consider the high stakes of 
allowing this conflict to continue unabated, and I ask that the 
administration strongly consider supporting a more substantial effort 
to properly train and equip the moderate Syrian opposition so they can 
reject extremist forces, defeat the regime, and begin to rebuild Syria.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  (The remarks of Ms. Collins on the Introduction of S. 2307 are 
printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                          Peterson Nomination

  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Madam President, I am pleased to recommend 
to the Senate James D. Peterson to be the U.S. district judge for the 
Western District of Wisconsin.
  Jim has deep roots in Wisconsin, having earned a bachelor's, 
master's, and Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison before his 
first career as an associate professor of film studies at Notre Dame 
University. After a number of productive and successful years of 
academic life, his restlessness for intellectual challenge was 
energized when his wife Sue Collins interested him in the law as she 
was teaching legal writing at Valparaiso University Law School. They 
both returned to Wisconsin, where they each obtained their law degrees 
from the university.
  Jim is currently the leader of the law firm Godfrey & Kahn's 
Intellectual Property Litigation Working Group and has handled a wide 
variety of commercial and constitutional disputes. He has served as a 
local counsel in two dozen patent disputes in the Western District of 
Wisconsin. In addition, he has appeared before the Wisconsin Supreme 
Court, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals 
for the Federal Circuit, which hears appeals of patent cases from 
district courts across the country.
  This experience is important for the Western District of Wisconsin, 
which oversees many complex intellectual property cases. Since 2007 the 
Western District of Wisconsin has ranked among the top 25 most popular 
for patent litigation, largely due to the court's speed--commonly 
referred to as the ``rocket docket.''
  Jim is also the author of numerous academic publications, many of 
which I had an opportunity to review during his application process. 
Right after law school he saw firsthand the challenges and requirements 
associated with being a judge when he served as a law clerk to Hon. 
David G. Deininger of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. He has had a 
challenging and successful career as a legal practitioner. I have no 
doubt that he will, as a Federal district court judge, excel in yet 
another career for which he is well suited.
  Jim has my full support, and I am happy to recommend him to the 
Senate for swift confirmation.
  I would like to conclude by thanking my colleague Senator Baldwin for 
the bipartisan process that resulted in the selection of this well-
qualified jurist who will serve Wisconsin's Western District well.

[[Page 7556]]

  The Western District is currently facing a judicial emergency. U.S. 
district judge Barbara Crabb has continued to serve on the bench 
despite retiring 4 years ago, and I sincerely appreciate her dedication 
in the State of Wisconsin during this vacancy.
  I have full confidence that with Jim's expertise and experience, he 
will now be able to fill this void.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The Senator from Wisconsin.


                          Peterson Nomination

  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to urge my 
colleagues to confirm James Peterson for the United States District 
Court of the Western District of Wisconsin.
  I will start where my colleague left off, which is to state that I am 
proud to have worked with Senator Johnson to put in place a nonpartisan 
Federal Nominating Commission and a process for moving judicial 
nominations forward, because the people of Wisconsin deserve to have 
experienced and highly qualified judges working for them, and they 
deserve to have judicial vacancies filled on a timely basis.
  Addressing vacant Federal judgeships in Wisconsin has been a top 
priority of mine since I was sworn into the Senate last year. I thank 
Senator Johnson for working to find common ground with me on this very 
important issue for Wisconsin.
  Together, we believe James Peterson will be an outstanding Federal 
district judge, and his experience, qualifications, and expertise will 
serve the Western District of Wisconsin and our Nation very well.
  James Peterson was among those recommended by our nominating 
commission, and together Senator Johnson and I submitted his name to 
the White House for consideration. I am so pleased President Obama 
nominated him to serve and that his nomination was reported out of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee.
  For the last 14 years Jim's professional life has been devoted to the 
practice for the firm Godfrey & Kahn in Madison, WI, where he is the 
leader of the firm's intellectual property litigation working group. 
His work on behalf of his firm's national clients has been 
substantially before the U.S. District Court for the Western District 
of Wisconsin.
  Outside of his practice Jim is a leader in the Western District Bar 
Association, the mission of which is to work with attorneys, the court, 
and the public to facilitate the just, speedy, respectful, and 
efficient resolution of all matters before the court--qualities that 
have been the hallmarks of the Western District of Wisconsin. In an 
effort to foster the next generation of great lawyers, Jim is a member 
of the adjunct faculty of the University of Wisconsin Law School where 
he has taught copyright law and public speaking workshops.
  I am proud to join Senator Johnson in supporting this nomination, and 
I am proud to come before my colleagues and ask my colleagues to 
confirm this judgeship. Mr. Peterson's confirmation today will end a 
vacancy that has lasted for more than 5 years and has been declared a 
judicial emergency. We are most grateful for the tireless commitment of 
soon-to-be really retired Judge Barbara Crabb who has filled in during 
this vacancy, and we are very grateful for her commitment.
  Senator Johnson and I agree on this nomination to the U.S. District 
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, and our joint support 
should send a strong message to the entire Senate that he is the right 
choice for this judgeship. I urge my colleagues to confirm James D. 
Peterson so he can serve the people of Wisconsin and our Nation.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Energy Efficiency Amendment

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment to S. 2262 
that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from a massive 
regulatory outreach. I understand under current procedure we are not 
allowed to do that, but I will explain it so when I can bring this 
amendment up, people will already know about it and join me in voting 
for it. It is similar to an amendment I offered last September to the 
energy efficiency bill. Unfortunately, the Senate majority leader 
blocked amendments from being considered. I am hoping that doesn't 
happen this time.
  My amendment is simple and straightforward. It promotes the right of 
each State to deal with its own problems. It returns the regulation of 
regional haze to where it properly belongs: in the hands of State 
officials who are more familiar with the problem and know the best way 
to address it. I hope my colleagues will support my effort.
  The Environmental Protection Agency's move to partially disapprove of 
the State of Wyoming's regional haze will create an economic and 
bureaucratic nightmare that will have a devastating impact on western 
economies. The decision by the EPA ignores more than a decade's worth 
of work on this subject by officials in my home State and seems to be 
more designed to regulate coal out of existence than to regulate haze. 
The haze we most need to regulate, in fact, seems to be the one that is 
clouding the vision of the EPA as it promotes a plan that would impose 
onerous regulations on powerplants that will, in turn, pass those 
increased costs in the form of higher energy prices on to consumers. 
These are the middle-class folks we keep talking about. It will also 
increase the cost for manufacturers, and that will drive them overseas, 
so that will eliminate jobs. So we are talking about a lot of impact.
  That tells me the EPA's purpose is to ensure that no opportunity to 
impose its chosen agenda on the Nation is wasted. It doesn't seem to 
matter to them that their proposed rule flies directly in the face of 
the State's traditional and legal role in addressing air quality 
issues.
  When Congress passed the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act to 
regulate regional haze, it very clearly gave the States the lead 
authority. Now the EPA has tossed them in the backseat and grabbed the 
steering wheel to head this effort in its own previously determined 
direction. That isn't the kind of teamwork and cooperation Congress 
intended.
  The goal of regulating regional haze is to improve visibility in our 
national parks and wilderness areas. The stated legislative purpose for 
that authority is purely for aesthetic value and not to regulate public 
health. Most importantly, the EPA shouldn't be using regulations to 
pick winners and losers in our national energy market. The cost for 
this rule is in the billions, and the bureaucratic evaluation says it 
will still have little or no actual effect. Why would we force the 
spending of billions for little or no actual effect?
  This is a State issue, and Congress recognized that States would know 
how to determine what the best regulatory approach would be to find and 
implement a solution to the problem. The courts then reaffirmed this 
position by ruling in favor of the States' primacy on regional haze 
several times. The EPA ignored all of that clear precedent and, 
instead, handed a top-down approach that ignored the will and expertise 
of the State of Wyoming and other States.
  This inexplicable position flies in the face of Wyoming's strong and 
commonsense approach to addressing regional haze in a reasonable and 
cost-effective manner.
  I invite everybody to come to Wyoming. We have the clear skies. 
People can see more miles there than people can see here. Of course, a 
lot of it out here is humidity, I think. But we do not have the 
regional haze they are talking about. The EPA's approach will be much 
more costly and have a tremendous impact on the economy and the quality 
of life not only in Wyoming but in neighboring States as well.

[[Page 7557]]

Clearly, we cannot allow this to happen.
  Every family knows when the price of energy goes up, it is their 
economic security--costing more--as well as their hopes and dreams for 
the future that are threatened and all too often destroyed.
  The EPA's determination to take such an approach would be 
understandable if it would create better results than the State plan. 
It does not. That is another reason why it makes no sense for the EPA 
to overstep its authority under the Clean Air Act to force Wyoming to 
comply with an all-too-costly plan that in the end will provide the 
people of Wyoming and America with no real benefits.
  The plan does not even take into account other sources of haze in 
Wyoming such as wildfires. Wildfires are a problem on Wyoming's plains 
and mountains every year. It is a major cause of haze in the West. It 
makes no sense for the EPA to draft a plan that fails to take into 
consideration the biggest natural cause of the very problem they are 
supposed to be solving.
  The Forest Service could do a lot of prevention if forest plans did 
not get delayed.
  The State of Wyoming has spent over a decade producing an air quality 
plan that is reasonable, productive, cost-effective, and focused on the 
problem at hand. The EPA has taken an unnecessary and unreasonable 
approach that violates the legislatively granted job of State 
regulators to address this issue. We cannot afford to increase the cost 
of energy to families, schools, and vital public services by 
implementing an EPA plan that will not adequately address the issue of 
regional haze.
  I know my colleagues will see the importance of this matter and 
support my amendment that will stop the EPA in its tracks and end its 
interference with Wyoming's efforts to address this issue. It only 
makes sense to me that Wyoming's plan be given a chance to work. It is 
more than a 10-year effort, and it will make a difference, and not at 
the cost that will be imposed.
  It is only fair, and it is the right thing to do. I ask for the 
support of my colleagues.
  I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Election Spending

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, as I think most Americans know, about 4 
years ago the Supreme Court rendered a decision, which I happen to 
believe is one of the worst in the history of the Supreme Court, and 
that is their decision regarding Citizens United. As a result of that 
decision, what they said is corporations are people and individuals 
could spend an unlimited--unlimited--sum of money in elections. By 
``unlimited,'' I mean hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, if 
not billions of dollars--quite as much as they want through independent 
expenditures.
  I think many Americans observed the repercussions of that decision 
just last month. A gentleman named Sheldon Adelson, one of the 
wealthiest people in this country, worth many billions, held what was 
called the Adelson primary in Nevada. What he did was invite 
prospective Republican candidates for President to come to Nevada to 
chat with him, to tell him their views; and if he decides to support 
one of those candidates, they will end up receiving, in all likelihood, 
hundreds of millions of dollars.
  But it is not just Sheldon Adelson. Probably even more significantly, 
when we talk about the impact of Citizens United and we talk about the 
flood of money coming in from the billionaire class to the political 
process, it is important to talk about the Koch brothers.
  I understand there has been a lot of criticism of Majority Leader 
Reid because he has talked about the Koch brothers, but I think the 
majority leader is exactly right. The issue is not personal. I don't 
know if the Koch brothers are nice guys or not nice guys; that is not 
the issue.
  The issue is the impact this billionaire family, the second 
wealthiest family in America, is having on the political process; and, 
second of all, and even more importantly, what do they stand for? Who 
are they? Why are they pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the 
political process?
  I have a problem, to tell you the truth--whether somebody is a 
rightwinger or leftwinger--I have a real problem with these rich guys 
spending huge sums of money.
  But at the end of the day what is important to understand is what do 
they want? Why are they spending so much money in politics? Why are 
they supporting candidates throughout this country, running for the 
Senate, running for the House? Clearly they will be heavily involved in 
the next Presidential election. What do they stand for? That is the 
issue.
  It disturbs me very much, by the way, that the media hasn't been 
talking about that. What do these guys stand for? What do they want?
  Many Americans know the Koch brothers provided the main source of 
funding for the creation of the tea party--that is fine--and many 
Americans know the Koch brothers want to repeal the Affordable Care 
Act. They have run a lot of ads supporting candidates who want to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act. That is their view, and that is fine as 
well.
  But what I think most Americans don't know is the Koch brothers want 
to repeal virtually every major piece of legislation that has been 
passed in the past 80 years to help the middle class, to help working 
families, to help the elderly, to help the children, to help low-income 
people. Their view, their ideological view, is that we should eliminate 
or substantially cut back on all of those programs.
  In 1980, David Koch, one of the Koch brothers, was the vice 
presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party. In fact, he helped 
fund the Libertarian Party in that year. I want to read to you and 
discuss with you a few of the excerpts from the 1980 Libertarian Party 
platform that David Koch ran on. People may think: Well, that was back 
in 1980. But do you know what. It is my impression their views haven't 
changed one iota; that they are funding many organizations all over 
this country that essentially espouse those very views David Koch ran 
on in 1980.
  This is the first quote that was in the 1980 Libertarian Party 
platform David Koch ran on as a vice presidential candidate and helped 
fund. He said: ``We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually 
bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system.''
  That is their view. That shouldn't surprise anybody. These guys do 
not believe government should be involved in health care, in retirement 
security. It is totally consistent with what they believe.
  But when Americans see ads on television paid for by David Koch, I 
hope they understand these guys eventually want to see--probably not 
tomorrow--the repeal of Social Security. They want to privatize it, 
they don't want it to exist.
  What is the reality? The reality is the overwhelming majority of the 
American people disagree with the Koch brothers. The reality is Social 
Security is probably the most successful Federal program in the history 
of our country. For more than 78 years, in good times and in bad, 
Social Security has provided every single benefit owed to every 
eligible American without delay. That is in good times, bad times, 
recession, boom, whatever it was. Before Social Security was created, 
nearly half of seniors lived in poverty. Today, while still too high, 
that number is 9.1 percent. We have gone from 50 percent down to 9.1 
percent largely because of Social Security.
  The main point is according to virtually every poll I have seen, 
including the latest National Journal poll on the subject, 76 percent 
of the American people do not want to cut Social Security at all, an 
issue you and I were involved in. They do not want to cut Social 
Security. They sure as heck do not want to repeal Social Security.

[[Page 7558]]

  So when you see the ads on television being paid for by the Koch 
brothers, understand where they are coming from in terms of Social 
Security.
  Let me give another quote, and this is an exact quote from the 1980 
platform of the Libertarian Party, David Koch, vice presidential 
candidate: ``We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid 
programs.''
  Abolition, what does that mean? It means if you are a senior citizen, 
70 years of age, you are not feeling well, you go to the doctor, the 
doctor diagnoses you with cancer, you are not going to have Medicare 
there for you. If you don't have a lot of money, how are you going to 
get the health care you need? Well, you know what. You may not, because 
according to the Koch brothers, the Federal Government should not be 
involved in public health insurance programs such as Medicare and 
Medicaid.
  What happens if you are a low-income person? What happens if your kid 
is on the Children's Health Insurance Program, called Dr. Dynasaur in 
Vermont--I don't know what it is called in Hawaii--but it covers all of 
the States in this country. Millions of kids are getting their health 
insurance through the Children's Health Insurance Program. What is the 
Koch brothers' view? We should eliminate it. The Federal Government 
should not be involved in health insurance.
  According to the latest polls I have seen on this subject, 81 percent 
of the American people do not want to cut Medicare benefits at all and 
60 percent of the American people don't want to cut Medicaid benefits 
at all, because they understand that in these tough times it is 
terribly important that we have guaranteed health care programs for our 
people. Yet the view of the Koch brothers is we should end Medicare and 
Medicaid.
  So, again, when you see ads on television, understand who is paying 
for them.
  We have been discussing the minimum wage bill. The Presiding Officer 
and I agree it is absolutely imperative that we raise the minimum wage. 
I think $10.10, the bill we had on the floor last week, is a start. I 
would go farther, but I think most Americans understand a family 
breadwinner and a family who is making all of $7.25 an hour or $14,000 
or $15,000 a year is not a wage upon which anyone can live.
  Yet when you read the platform David Koch ran on--and again, their 
success has been that where their ideas were thought to be pretty crazy 
and kooky in 1980--he got 1 percent of the vote and ran because they 
thought Ronald Reagan was much too liberal in 1980--today these ideas 
are increasingly becoming mainstream. They are in the Ryan budget 
passed by the Republican House. They are reflected by actions in the 
Senate by my Republican Senate colleagues.
  One example is when we talk about the minimum wage, some of us think 
we have to raise it. Their view, what the Koch brothers said in 1980, 
and I believe it is their view today:

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

  So this is not a debate about whether you raise the minimum wage to 
$10.10. You do what they are doing in Seattle, WA, over a period of 
time raising it to $15 an hour, whether you raise it to $9 an hour, 
that is not their debate. Their debate is we should repeal the concept 
of the minimum wage.
  What does that mean in real terms? It means that in high-unemployment 
areas of this country where workers are desperate for jobs, if an 
employer says: I am going to give you 3 bucks an hour, and you say: I 
can't live on 3 bucks, and the employer says: Well, I have 20 other 
people who are prepared to take the job, that is their goal. They do 
not believe the Federal Government should be involved in providing at 
least a minimum wage for the workers of this country.
  They believe, among other things, that we should abolish the U.S. 
Postal Service, and I want to get into that. Their view is, again, the 
Postal Service, a Federal Government program--not a question of having 
a debate, how do you strengthen the Postal Service, what do you do, and 
what do you not do--they want to abolish the U.S. Postal Service.
  Let me go to another quote from David Koch, which I think maybe is 
the most interesting of all. This is where they are coming from. This 
is their philosophy:

       We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and 
     ``aid to the poor'' programs. All these government programs 
     are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and 
     inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is 
     the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

  I want to put into English what they say. What they are saying is 
they want to get rid of food stamps, they want to get rid of all 
nutrition programs, all affordable housing programs, Meals On Wheels 
Programs, which help vulnerable seniors, congregate meal programs, Head 
Start--which obviously are important to millions of working families 
and their children.
  So you ask: Well, what happens if I am hungry and there is no food 
stamp program because they want to get rid of all of these programs, 
because they think the Federal Government should not be involved in 
these issues? What do we do when people are hungry when they can't find 
jobs?
  Well, they can go to their local church, they can go to their local 
charity. Maybe they will get some help, maybe they won't. In other 
words, we are back to the days of Charles Dickens. We are back to the 
days of Charles Dickens where ordinary people and lower income people 
have no rights and no benefits. The only way they get help is if some 
charity is there to dole out some money.
  I don't believe that is where the American people are, and I don't 
believe that is what the American people want.
  Back In 1980, the Libertarian Party had a rather bold proposal, and 
they said: ``We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.''
  Essentially what they are saying is no more government. That is it. 
No more government.
  There is going to be a vote in a few minutes, and I am going to 
seesaw, and I will be back on this issue. But I wanted to point out to 
what degree these folks, who are worth at least $80 billion, whose 
wealth increased last year by $12 billion, who have indicated they are 
prepared to spend as much as it takes to elect people who to some 
degree or another--I am not sure all of the candidates they support 
agree with everything they say, but they know what they are doing. They 
are smart.
  They are spending huge sums of money to create an America in which 
the wealthiest people will get huge tax breaks while working families, 
the middle class, the elderly, the children, and the sick will be left 
out on the street all by themselves. That is not the vision of America 
the American people believe in. I doubt there are 5 or 10 percent of 
the American people who believe in that vision, maybe less than that.
  But when you have $80 billion, and you are worth that much and can 
spend unlimited sums of money, you will have a huge impact on the 
political process, and you will have candidates who talk about this 
perspective, who defend this point of view, because that is where their 
money or campaigns comes from, rather than talking about the needs of 
working families or ordinary Americans.
  Let me make this last point, and that is this: It was 34 years ago 
the Koch brothers said:

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

  They have come so far in 34 years that that is now the position of a 
number of Republicans, including, as I understand it, the chairman of 
the National Republican Party.
  What does that mean? It means if you repeal all campaign finance 
laws, the Koch brothers and other billionaires will not just be able to 
spend as much as they want on independent campaign expenditures, they 
will be able to give money directly to the candidates of their choice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for debate has expired.
  Mr. SANDERS. Let me conclude by saying: I hope everybody pays 
attention to what the Koch brothers stand for.

[[Page 7559]]

  With that, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________