[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8779-8795]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 NOMINATION OF DAVID JEREMIAH BARRON TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE 
                    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Immigration Reform

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, a year ago the Senate Judiciary 
Committee reported out a piece of legislation that would do more than 
increase the gross domestic product, do more than reduce the deficit, 
do more than promote prosperity, and do more than create jobs. It 
passed legislation that would take 11 million people out of the shadows 
in America, prevent anyone from becoming a second-class citizen in this 
country, and finally establish comprehensive, commonsense immigration 
reform.
  Today, 1 year later, it sits languishing in the House of 
Representatives and 11 million people wait and wait and wait. While 
they wait, while they hope that we come to our senses and govern as we 
should, the toll from inaction compounds: families suffer, children 
suffer, deportations continue, and injustice prevails.
  There is a cost to our inaction, a cost those in the House of 
Representatives are forcing upon us, as we wait for them to act, that 
accrues every day. They claim they are for fiscal responsibility. Yet 
their inaction is costing us each year, on average, $80 billion of real 
GDP, $40 billion in higher deficits, 40,000 STEM grads who earn a 
Master's or a Ph.D. in STEM fields from U.S. universities, 50 million 
in the Social Security trust fund, over 50,000 fewer jobs, and $13.5 
billion in lost revenue.
  I hope our Republican colleagues in the House understand exactly what 
the cost of inaction is. I hope they understand that every minute we 
waste passing commonsense immigration reform is costing American 
taxpayers more and more, and the cost is on them, and the losses I view 
as Republican losses.
  The fact is Republicans are acting as if nothing is at stake, as if 
there is no cost, as if the lives of people and families are not in the 
balance, and they could not be more wrong. Besides the economic cost of 
inaction, there is a very real human cost. Franklin Roosevelt once 
said, citing Dante, that, ``Better the occasional faults of a 
government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent 
omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.''
  Let us not be frozen in the ice of our own indifference. Let us act, 
govern. I call on my Republican colleagues to warm their hearts and 
think about the costs of inaction not only in dollars and cents but in 
the lives of families and the future of this Nation. The legislation we 
are waiting for is a comprehensive way to tackle our immigration 
problem.
  We are on the verge of historic change. I am proud to have been part 
of the Gang of 8 that hammered out a strong bipartisan effort that 
passed this institution with 67 votes. That is not usual these days for 
questions of great controversy.
  I say to my friends in the other body: Do the right thing for America 
and, by the way, for your own party. Find common ground, lean away from 
the extreme, opt for reason, and govern with us.
  In my view, the leadership in the other body has a chance to be 
American heroes, a chance to bring both sides together in an alliance 
that will ensure passage of this bill. I believe, based on poll after 
poll, that a vast majority of Americans want immigration reform to 
pass, and will thank them for doing the right thing. I hope they have 
the political will. I hope they have the political courage to unite the 
Nation and send this bill to the President's desk. I hope they will 
pass a bill that will increase the gross domestic product, reduce the 
deficit, promote prosperity, and create jobs.
  As I have pointed out on this floor many times, this chart shows 
cumulative economic gains of the legalization process over 10 years 
after passage of this legislation. Fixing the broken immigration system 
would increase America's gross domestic product by over $800 billion 
over the next 10 years; it would increase the wages of all Americans by 
$470 billion over 10 years, and increase jobs by 121,000 per year for 
10 years. That is over 1.2 million jobs.
  What do we ever get to do here that increases the gross domestic 
product, reduces the deficit, raises the wages of all Americans, and 
creates 120,000-plus jobs per year? Very little. This legislation does 
that, not just simply because I say it but because the Congressional 
Budget Office said many of these figures were, in fact, a reality. 
Immigrants will start small businesses, they will create jobs for 
American workers, and it is time to harness that economic power.
  The CBO report also tells us we reduce direct spending and the 
deficit by $158 billion over the next decade, and by another $685 
billion more from 2024 through 2033. Let's remember, we are talking 
about almost $1 trillion in deficit spending that we can lift off the 
backs of the next generation, exactly what our Republican friends 
demand. Yet they are balking in the face of achieving one of their very 
fundamental principles. What other single piece of legislation 
increases GDP growth, increases wages, increases jobs, and lowers the 
deficit?
  The Center for American Progress found that fixing the broken 
immigration system would increase wages of all Americans by $470 
billion over 10 years and increase jobs by 121,000 per year. What we 
realize now and what the numbers tell us is that giving 11 million 
people a clear and defined earned pathway to citizenship is, in effect, 
an economic growth strategy that lowers the deficit and creates jobs. 
That is exactly what we are looking to do to move this economy forward.
  New Americans who follow this pathway we lay out will have to play by 
rules. They will have to pass criminal background checks, they will 
have to pay a fine, they will have to pay their taxes. But if they do, 
there will be no obstacle they cannot overcome to the day when they 
raise their right hand and pledge allegiance to the United

[[Page 8780]]

States and become a naturalized citizen.
  Too many families have waited too long for that day. Too many have 
waited too long to say those words that will change their lives 
forever. They changed my mother's life, and, in turn, gave me a chance 
to stand here today and vote for a pathway to citizenship that can 
change the lives of millions of others.
  But it is not just the economics of the legislation that creates the 
urgency of now, it is the human toll, the toll on millions living in 
the shadows. That can be pretty dark and frightening. Last year over 
150,000 people were deported just for paperwork violations. Hundreds of 
thousands have been deported despite having U.S. citizen children. They 
are not criminals; they are hard-working families trying to make ends 
meet.
  For many years I have asked the administration to stop deporting 
fathers and mothers, stop separating families, stop taking away parents 
from their U.S. citizen resident children. Let me tell you about one of 
these cases, the case of Carlos Oliva-Guillen who was about to be 
deported away from his three U.S. citizen children, including his 7-
month-old infant son who is suffering from a life-threatening disorder. 
The baby was on the verge of a coma and facing potential brain damage 
while his dad was in detention about to be deported.
  The doctors needed to do a blood test on Carlos, the baby's dad, to 
see if the baby's illness is genetic. Thank God that Carlos was 
released and brought back to New Jersey so doctors could pursue these 
lifesaving tests and treatment.
  Those tragedies continue as long as we do not have comprehensive 
immigration reform. With all of these economic benefits and the 
tremendous human suffering at stake, what are we waiting for? We are 
waiting for the House leadership to stand up to a minority--to a 
minority. We are waiting for Speaker Boehner to schedule a vote. We are 
waiting for reason to prevail, for our Republican friends in the other 
body to once and for all do what is right and think about the cost of 
inaction, not only in dollars and cents but in the lives of the 
families and the future of this Nation.
  We are waiting for the Speaker to stop letting the most radical 
voices, such as Stephen King, dictate the future of immigration reform. 
Speaker Boehner himself has publicly denounced Congressman King for his 
``hateful language.'' Yet the only--the only--immigration-related vote 
the Speaker of the House of Representatives has allowed in the past 
year was for radical proposals to end DACA and deport our Nation's 
DREAMers. It is time for Speaker Boehner to stand for the majority of 
the Republican Party and of the Congress in the House of 
Representatives and remove Stephen King's undeserved carte blanche on 
immigration policy.
  If we had a vote in the House, the Senate bill as passed would pass. 
It would pass today. It would pass with both Democratic and Republican 
votes. We have the votes in the House to pass the Senate bill. We just 
need the will of a Republican leadership behind a bill that reduces the 
deficit, increases the GDP, creates jobs. I cannot understand, for the 
life of me, why they cannot break the stranglehold by a few against the 
will of the many.
  Considering that there are enough votes in the House to pass the 
Senate bill and send it to the President, we deserve action. Eleven 
million people deserve, at the very least, the political courage to 
face down the extreme minority and do what is right and govern from the 
commonsense center.
  Time is not on our side. There is a limited window of opportunity. We 
only have about another 2 months at most for the Speaker to act. So it 
is in the Speaker's hands. Does he want reform or doesn't he? I know I 
hear him say he does. I want to believe that. I will be the first to 
applaud him.
  Speaker Boehner, however, on the one side said he wants to get 
immigration reform. The next thing I hear is that he questions the 
President's commitment to enforce the law as the reason why they are 
not moving forward on immigration reform, even as this President is 
deporting more people than the Bush administration. This administration 
has deported almost 2 million people. I do not understand. When the 
Speaker says, ``We can't trust the President to enforce the law,'' it 
seems to me what he is calling for is even greater deportations than 
the greatest deportations that have taken place over the last 
Republican administration.
  So saying the President isn't enforcing enough, the Speaker is really 
arguing for more deportations and has done nothing to stop those 
deportations.
  The only conclusion we can draw is that my friends on the other side 
support the current dysfunctional system, and they do so at a cost to 
the country. They do so at a cost to families, and I also believe that 
beyond all the policy arguments that I have talked about--the GDP, the 
reduction in the deficit, the creation of jobs, the raising of wages, 
helping our agricultural industry through the ag jobs provision, 
helping our high-tech industries through the provisions of the 
legislation, and so many others--not only do they risk all of that and 
risk the families, but I believe they risk their political futures.
  The road to the White House goes through the barrio, as my friend in 
the House of Representatives, Congressman Gutierrez, says. If we look 
at States across the country in which there are large immigrant 
populations who vote, who are U.S. citizens, and who look at this as 
the civil rights issue of their time, you cannot win the electoral 
votes of those States if you cannot find a way to a commonsense 
immigration reform. So their own futures, politically speaking, are at 
risk.
  But even more than that political risk, our country is at risk--a 
risk that will hinder our own economic growth and leave millions in the 
shadows as second-class citizens, a risk that deportations will 
continue to tear parents away from their infants, despite the parents 
desperately seeking to register, get right with the law, and pay their 
taxes.
  I thought that so many of my colleagues talk about the family values. 
Well, family values isn't about ripping families asunder. Family values 
isn't about ultimately saying that someone has a paperwork violation, 
so you rip them apart from their three American children--a risk that 
we will address as one of the greatest civil rights' issues of our 
time.
  I have cases in my office of U.S. citizens and legal permanent 
residents of the United States unlawfully detained in immigration raids 
because of the happenstance of where they live or what they look like 
or how they speak.
  Who among us, who have the privilege of serving in this institution, 
is ready to become a second-class citizen because of the happenstance 
of where you live, what you look like or how you speak, when you are a 
U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident? This includes among others, 
in one case, an Iraq war veteran who was detained while his status was 
determined.
  My first and foremost focus is on getting the House Republican 
leadership, after 1 year of this body's having passed an immigration 
bill, to either consider the Senate legislation or their own 
comprehensive version. That is the ultimate solution. Everything else 
is a bandaid. But let me be clear. There is a limited window of 
opportunity we have open to us until the end of July.
  If Republicans do not act, they will have forced the President to 
ultimately use his executive powers on enforcement questions and on 
deportation relief.
  Either they are tone deaf to the priorities of the Nation's largest-
growing and fastest-growing minority or they are ignoring the will and 
interests of their own party and acting against their own stated goal 
of reducing the deficit.
  They can keep finding excuses for inaction, but there are no more 
excuses. Enough is enough.
  The community across the country is riveted in their attention as to 
what is going to happen in the House of Representatives. I hope that 
attention will ultimately be a joyful one if the House acts. But if it 
does not, it will reap the

[[Page 8781]]

wrath of a community who sees this as the critical civil rights issue 
of their time and the consequences will be longstanding. I hope they 
meet the better angels that are within them and ultimately produce the 
comprehensive immigration reform the Nation needs for its security, for 
its economy, for doing the right thing as a nation of immigrants, by 
doing the right thing for those families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                             Koch Brothers

  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, as the ranking member of the Rules 
Committee, I take no pleasure in making these remarks, but the 
circumstances have given me absolutely no choice.
  Our distinguished majority leader recently came to this floor and 
declared that his minority colleagues--that would be us on this side of 
the aisle, Republicans--were ``addicted to Koch.''
  To those who regularly watch our proceedings, however, it is clear 
who is suffering from this addiction.
  Practically every morning our leader starts our session by giving a 
speech personally attacking David and Charles Koch and their families. 
The only thing he seems to do more often than block Republican 
amendments is attack the Kochs.
  As distasteful as that is, it is apparently no longer sufficient. The 
problem with addiction, of course, is that as a tolerance develops, 
more and more of the drug is needed to satisfy the craving.
  So now we have learned that not only does the majority leader spend 
his mornings attacking the Kochs, but he spends his evenings doing so 
as well.
  Last night, the majority leader attended an event in the Capitol 
Visitor Center--the CVC in the Capitol building--to promote a movie 
attacking the Kochs. Never mind that the regulations prohibit--
prohibit--the use of the CVC space for any ``campaign, commercial, 
promotional or profit-making purpose.''
  As House Administration Committee Chairman Candice Miller said:

       We cannot hold partisan political rallies or fundraisers on 
     the grounds of the Capitol, or within its walls. Our work in 
     this hallowed building must solely be in the interests of the 
     American people and not in the interest of any political 
     cause.

  This event is just the latest demonstration of an apparent belief 
that the rules do not apply to the Democratic leadership. We now have 
another new precedent: a majority leader appearing in and then 
promoting a movie in the Capitol.
  It also further demonstrates the hypocrisy of the majority's quest to 
stifle dissent. They celebrate and promote films that attack their 
opponents but want to outlaw films that criticize the majority Members 
and their agenda.
  The irony of promoting a film to advance their campaign to restrict 
speech is apparently lost on the majority. So it is worth reminding 
them what the Citizens United case was really all about. It was about a 
movie--``Hillary: The Movie,'' to be precise. ``Hillary: The Movie'' 
was made in the wake of ``Fahrenheit 9/11.'' Anyone who saw 
``Fahrenheit 9/11'' knows that the purpose of the film was to convince 
people that George W. Bush was not worthy of the Presidency and should 
not be given a second term.
  Anyone who saw ``Hillary: The Movie'' knows the purpose was to 
convince people that Hillary Clinton should not be elected President of 
the United States. I suspect that many of the people who went to see 
the movie in the CVC last night thought that ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' was 
great and ``Hillary: The Movie'' was terrible.
  The point of the Citizens United case was that it really doesn't 
matter. It doesn't matter which film a majority in Congress might 
prefer. The producers have the right to make and distribute either one, 
and they can raise the money necessary to do so as they see fit, not 
subject to any restrictions or limitations imposed by the Congress. 
They are guaranteed that right by the First Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States. This Congress cannot take that away.
  Is that too difficult a concept to grasp? Isn't it obvious? Of course 
it is.
  Yet the majority has spent the last 4 years misrepresenting it, and 
now it even wants to amend the Constitution to reverse it. That is just 
incredible.
  In a press release announcing an upcoming hearing on the majority's 
amendment to the First Amendment, it was declared that it was necessary 
to ``build support for amending the Constitution to ensure that all 
Americans can exercise their First Amendment rights.''
  It is not necessary to amend the First Amendment to ensure that all 
Americans can exercise their First Amendment rights. Those rights are 
already guaranteed by the First Amendment as written. The amendment the 
majority wants to impose would allow them to once again curtail those 
rights. Why can't we just be honest about this. Because of the Citizens 
United decision, people of all points of view now have the opportunity 
to make their views widely known. Even people who disagree with the 
majority in the Senate have that right, and we should all be very 
grateful.
  I know the majority preferred a system where those who wished to 
criticize them were restrained in their ability to do so. They want to 
reimpose those restraints. I do not think they will succeed, but we 
should make clear what they want to do.
  In their view, a corporation that happens to own a network, such as 
NBC or CNN, should be able to broadcast the movie they promoted last 
night as much as they want. If the networks wanted to show the movie 
every night of the week for 2 hours, that would be just fine with the 
majority.
  But if somebody wanted to buy a 30-second ad during the airing of the 
movie to present an alternative point of view, that would be 
unacceptable. A 2-hour movie? No problem. A 30-second ad? Terrible. It 
can't be allowed.
  That is simply absurd, but that was the reality before the Citizens 
United decision. Media corporations could do or say whatever they 
wanted. Other corporations, however, could not. Citizens United ended 
that ridiculous distinction and the majority has been trying to 
reinstate it ever since.
  The majority claims they are concerned about wealthy donors. No, they 
are not. They are concerned about wealthy conservative donors.
  According to the Los Angeles Times, the very film they promoted last 
night received financing from foundations and large individual 
donations. But those donations were OK, I suppose, because they went to 
promote a cause the majority supports--attacking the Koch family.
  Likewise, billionaires who support the causes of the majority are not 
targeted. Billionaire former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer has 
indicated he intends to spend over $100 million to influence the 
midterm elections.
  Does the majority have any problem with that? Of course not.
  Spending huge amounts of money in politics only concerns them if it 
is spent against them or on behalf of their opponents, but if it is 
spent to promote the majority and their agenda--no problem.
  The majority leader has convinced himself, however, and seeks to 
convince the rest of us, that the Kochs are somehow unique, that the 
Koch brothers present some kind of evil threat, if you will, that other 
billionaires with different points of view do not pose. He seems to 
think that for everything bad that happens the Kochs are to blame.
  Recently he claimed that they were one of the main causes of climate 
change. He said: ``Not a cause, one of the main causes.''
  What do we make of such a statement? Could anything be more absurd? 
There are over 7 billion people on Earth, but our majority leader 
believes two men, Charles and David Koch, are a main cause of climate 
change.
  What is that all about?
  Just yesterday, the majority leader blamed the Kochs for the 
wildfires in California. What is next? Maybe the Kochs are to blame for 
the planes lost in the Bermuda Triangle? How about the volcanic 
eruption at Pompeii years ago or even the futility of the Chicago Cubs? 
That has to be the Koch family.
  The majority leader convinces himself that his Koch obsession is 
justified

[[Page 8782]]

because he believes their political involvement is motivated only by 
their own financial interest.
  It is inconceivable to him that people might exist who simply 
disagree with him and his agenda and want to see the country take a 
different path. The reality is that there are millions of Americans who 
want to see this country take a different path, and the Koch family 
proudly supports that goal and has made donations to help achieve just 
that.
  You will never hear it from the majority leader, but it is time 
someone presented the rest of the story about the Koch family. This 
family has pledged or contributed more than $1 billion to cancer 
research, medical centers, education, the arts, and to assist public 
policy organizations--$1 billion. Is that the act of a family motivated 
solely by financial interests? I don't think so. Of course not.
  Consider a few of these gifts: $100 million as a prime contributor 
for cancer research at MIT; $100 million to the New York-Presbyterian 
Hospital to build a new ambulatory care center, plus $28 million to 
other research causes; $20 million to Johns Hopkins University for a 
cancer research center; $30 million to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering 
Cancer Center in New York; $26 million to the M.D. Anderson Cancer 
Center in Houston; $26 million to the Hospital for Special Surgery in 
New York City for the Building on Success campaign and other causes; 
and $35 million to the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History 
to renovate what is called dinosaur hall, which will include one of the 
largest and most complete T. rex specimens in the world; $20 million to 
the Museum of Natural History; and $65 million to the Metropolitan 
Museum of Art. Likewise, the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation gave 
$100 million for the preservation and renovation of Lincoln Center, 
home to the New York City Ballet and the New York City Opera.
  All these acts of extraordinary generosity are completely ignored by 
the majority leader. They are ignored because the Koch family has 
committed one unforgivable sin: They have opposed him and the 
Democratic majority and President Obama. They present a threat to the 
Democrats' hold on power. That is why they are being demonized. That is 
why they are being attacked. That is why they are being vilified. That 
is why they have become his obsession.
  They have had the temerity to challenge the agenda of this majority 
and its leader, and the leader is not happy about it and he wants it to 
stop. And it looks as if he will do anything he can to make it stop, up 
to and including amending the Constitution of the United States. I 
think that is a disgrace. It has demeaned this institution. It should 
stop. The first amendment doesn't exist to protect those of us in this 
body. It exists to protect the people. It is there to prevent us from 
silencing our critics. And thank God for that.
  I wish the majority would recognize that they do not have the power 
to silence their critics. The first amendment denies them that power. I 
wish the majority leader would stop engaging in character assassination 
against citizens who choose to exercise their first amendment rights. 
And I wish he would stop acting as though he is the only person on 
Earth who can say whatever he wants. He isn't. We all have the right to 
express ourselves--all of us--from Michael Moore to Citizens United, 
from Tom Steyer to the Koch family. All of us have that right. All of 
us. Let's stop trying to deny it. Let's stop trying to change it. It is 
beneath us. It demeans this body, and it is wrong.
  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.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business, followed by the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I came to the floor today to take a few 
minutes and talk about a piece of legislation I have been working on, 
along with seven of my colleagues from this Chamber and from the House 
of Representatives. That legislation is called the Workforce Innovation 
and Opportunity Act. This is a long-overdue bill that will reauthorize 
and improve the Workforce Investment Act--or WIA, as we call it--which 
includes dozens of critical workforce development programs in all 50 of 
our States.
  This is an issue I have been working on for more than a decade. For 
several years now I have been very proud to work here in the Senate to 
reauthorize WIA, so I am very glad we are finally on a strong 
bipartisan path to get this done for families and businesses in 
Washington State and across the country who have been telling me how 
important effective workforce programs are for them and their 
communities.
  The reason we were able to introduce such a strong bill this 
morning--and a bill that I think has a real chance to become law--is 
the incredible bipartisan process we have had over the last few months 
to reach a compromise between both parties and both Chambers. So I 
would like to thank each of the Members who helped me introduce the 
legislation this morning by name: in the House of Representatives, 
Representative John Kline, Republican from Minnesota; Representative 
George Miller, Democrat from California; Representative Virginia Foxx, 
Republican from North Carolina; and Representative Ruben Hinojosa, 
Democrat from Texas; and here in the Senate, Senator Tom Harkin, 
Democrat from Iowa and the great chairman of our HELP Committee; 
Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican from Tennessee; and finally my 
close partner and cohort in this process, who is here with me today, 
Senator Johnny Isakson from Georgia.
  None of us got everything we wanted in the bill we introduced this 
morning, but all of us got legislation we believe in. It is a bill that 
will help our workers, and it will help our businesses and the economy 
for years to come.
  I am as strong a supporter of our Federal workforce development 
program as anyone. I have seen firsthand in my home State of Washington 
workers who were laid off and who were able to get new training and new 
skills and new jobs. I have seen many of our Washington State 
businesses, from aerospace companies to video game design firms, that 
were able to access workers with the new skills they needed to grow and 
compete.
  But the fact is that we have been relying on Federal workforce 
development programs that were written in the 1990s, and with millions 
of new jobs that will require postsecondary education and advanced 
skills in the coming years, we will fall behind in the world if we do 
not modernize our workforce development now. We have to make sure that 
when high-tech jobs of the 21st century are created, Americans are 
ready to fill them. That is what we have done in this bill. We have 
doubled down on the programs that work, we have improved the programs 
that have become outdated, and we have created a workforce system that 
is more nimble and adaptable and better aligned with what businesses 
need and more accountable so we can continue to make it better. That is 
what we were sent here to do--work with our colleagues across the aisle 
for the American people. We had a House proposal and we had a Senate 
proposal and we met in the middle.
  I can't count how many times Senator Isakson, my Republican 
colleague, and I have talked about the importance of getting this done. 
His office happens to be right next door to mine. So whether we were at 
a committee hearing or on a train to the Capitol, we were always 
focused on how we could work together and find a path to a deal.
  We are not done yet. I am going to be working with my colleagues in 
the Senate--Democrats and Republicans--

[[Page 8783]]

to get their support for this compromise, and our colleagues will be 
doing the same in the House of Representatives.
  This is an all-too-rare opportunity for all of us to get behind a 
strong, bipartisan, bicameral bill that will help our workers and get 
our economy back on track. I am very proud of the work that went into 
this.
  I yield to my colleague, Senator Isakson. This would not be on the 
floor today without his tremendous work and his work ethic and his 
willingness to work across the aisle to get this done. I sincerely 
thank him.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the Senator from Washington for her overly kind 
remarks with regard to my participation. To reiterate and underline 
what is in fact true, we were a team for 8 years when we both chaired 
and were ranking member of the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace 
Safety in the HELP Committee. We time and again had gotten it to a 
point we thought we could pass it and then everything was falling 
apart.
  We were at a huge divide and chasm at the beginning of this year. The 
House had passed the SKILLS Act; we had passed an act. They didn't 
think we did anything; we thought they did too much. It looked like a 
chasm too far to bridge, but because of the work of Senator Murray, my 
office, and Senator Alexander's office--Virginia Foxx, for whom I 
cannot say enough. She was the original author of the SKILLS Act. She 
came to the table with us, and we sat down one floor below this 
building, this floor right now. We sat down around a long table, and we 
started talking about the art of the possible, not the art of the 
impossible.
  Here are the high points I wish to focus on: first of all, 
consolidation of programs that were not working to empower programs 
that were working; flexibility for Governors, both on what they can do 
with their one-stop shops, as well as their ability to transfer money 
for unemployed programs and underemployed programs; 100 percent 
transferability on the behalf of the Governors; 15 percent total 
flexibility of the appropriations that come to them through the WIA--
Workforce Investment Act--and workforce investment program.
  We skinnied down the board so you don't have these huge boards. 
Instead, you have boards that can work. We reduced their size by about 
61 percent. We included management as a majority but labor at the 
table, to make sure all facets of work were there.
  Most important, we empowered the States to write the kind of 
curriculum for the kind of training their State needed. We have 4 
million unfilled jobs in America. We sometimes talk about all the 
unemployment--and we all hate the unemployment--but we have some 
underqualified people who are underemployed who can take better and 
bigger jobs available in America right now if we train them for these 
jobs.
  So this new Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act is just what it 
portends. It is an innovation in the WIA Program, and it is an 
opportunity for millions of Americans to find the training and skills 
necessary to find a job and keep a job, which is, in turn, good for our 
economy and good for our country.
  But this is something that happened because people of good will on 
both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol got together and 
said let's figure out what we can do rather than argue about what we 
can't do.
  Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller in the House--whom I served 
with on that committee years ago--did a tremendous job. Virginia Foxx 
was very willing to work and Tim Scott, the Senator from South 
Carolina, who was the author of the SKILLS version of Virginia's bill 
in the Senate. Chairman Harkin deserves a lot of credit, particularly 
for his focus on those with disabilities, and we preserve the programs 
that make sense for people with disabilities, retraining them and 
giving them the training they need to have meaningful and skillful 
employment in the future.
  But, most important of all, Lamar Alexander, the ranking member, kind 
of steered the ship. He was the rudder in the water who helped guide us 
to the point we got to today.
  I am pleased both the Senate and the House Republican conferences 
have all had presentations. The feedback we have gotten to date is 
extremely favorable. We hope this is going to be one of those rare 
occasions in 2014 where Republicans and Democrats come together for the 
benefit of the American people to address the No. 1 problem we face in 
America; that is, unemployment and underemployment, and empower people 
through innovation and opportunity for jobs in the 21st century.
  I will end where I began. It would not have happened without Senator 
Murray. I am grateful for her help and assistance and I am proud to be 
her partner.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, would the gentleman yield for 1 second?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. ISAKSON. To Senator Murray, if I could talk about our staff. Tom 
Nguyen is behind me. I could not have done what I did in this bill 
without Tom Nguyen, and Senator Murray has an outstanding staff who 
worked for us. I wish to have the Record include the tremendous staff 
work both of us received.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would like to extend a gracious thank 
you to staff from my office, senior advisor Scott Cheney; my chief of 
staff Mike Spahn; my Budget Committee staff director Evan Schatz; Stacy 
Rich and Emma Fulkerson from my floor and leadership staff; my 
communications team, especially Eli Zupnick and Sean Coit; and everyone 
else from my team, who have all worked very hard to move this bill 
forward.
  I would like to thank the wonderful staff from Senator Isakson's 
office: Tommy Nguyen, staff director of the HELP Subcommittee on 
Employment and Workplace Safety; as well as Brett Layson and Michael 
Black.
  I thank Chairman Harkin's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
Committee team: senior education policy advisor Crystal Bridgeman; 
chief education counsel Mildred Otero; disability policy staff director 
Michael Gamel-McCormick; disability policy advisor Lee Perselay; Derek 
Miller, staff director of the HELP Committee; deputy staff director of 
the HELP committee Lauren McFerren; and labor policy advisor Liz Weiss; 
and many more who have helped.
  I also thank the staff for Senator Alexander: senior education policy 
advisor Patrick Murray; education policy director Peter Oppenheim; Bill 
Knudsen; and HELP Committee staff director David Cleary.
  Finally I would be remiss if I didn't thank the professionals in the 
Senate Legislative Counsel's office, specially Liz King, Amy Gaynor, 
Kristin Romero, and Katie Grendon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.


                          Veterans Health Care

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I am honored to represent the 12.5 
million people living in the State of Illinois, and it is a special 
honor to represent 745,000 veterans who live in my State. These men and 
women have served their country honorably. Many of them are leading 
great lives and making great contributions to our State. Some are 
struggling, returning from war with wounds--visible and invisible.
  I came to speak to the issue involving the so-called VA scandal at 
the Arizona Hospital. What I have been told is troubling. What I have 
been told is that there were secret waiting lists of veterans who were 
being unnecessarily delayed when they needed critical medical care. The 
allegations suggest that some of them may have died while on the 
waiting list. That is as cruel an allegation as anyone could make about 
anybody and particularly cruel when it applies to our veterans.
  We are trying to investigate this, as we should. The President sent 
his Deputy Chief Rob Nabors, a person I know,

[[Page 8784]]

to Arizona today, but we are not going to stop with that. We are going 
to do everything we can to make sure every veterans facility across 
America is serving our veterans in a timely and professional way. That 
includes, of course, those in the State of Illinois.
  Tomorrow I will be meeting with General Shinseki in my office. He is 
the head of the Veterans' Administration. We are going to focus on 
Illinois, because in Illinois we have five VA medical centers, 30 
outpatient clinics, and 11 veterans centers. I want to make certain 
there are no secret waiting lists at any of those facilities, and I 
want to make certain we are doing everything in our power to serve our 
veterans in a timely professional way.
  We know the stories--the stories that have come out of these wars we 
are concluding now. The war in Afghanistan is winding down to a close. 
Iraq was over just a few months, maybe 1 year ago, but despite the end 
of these wars, it is not the end of the war for many veterans. They 
come home with needs--serious needs: post-traumatic stress disorder, 
traumatic brain injury, amputations, serious problems that will haunt 
them for some time.
  We promised these men and women, if they would volunteer to serve our 
Nation, if they were willing to serve and even die for our Nation, we 
would never quit on them; that when they came home, we would stand by 
them.
  We passed a GI bill on the floor of the Senate several years ago. Jim 
Webb was the Senator from Virginia, a Marine Corps veteran himself of 
the Vietnam war. He brought in a modern GI bill for those men and women 
currently serving, and it passed overwhelmingly with both political 
parties supporting it, as they should. In a place where we don't agree 
on much, we sure agreed on that. When it comes to veterans and the GI 
bill, we stood together. We have to do it again on a bipartisan basis.
  I read the comments from President Obama this morning. I thought they 
were unsparing in terms of his personal concern over what has been 
reported.
  I know we all honor the contribution made to America by General 
Shinseki, a disabled veteran himself from the Vietnam war. He is an 
extraordinarily good man. The question is whether he can fix this 
problem if one exists.
  I don't know about the Arizona situation. We will wait until those 
facts come together. But this much I do know: Our Veterans' 
Administration has been overwhelmed by disability claims coming in at 
rates that surpass this country's experience in any previous war. 
Almost half, almost 50 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are 
filing for disability benefits when they come home.
  The backlog at the VA is 300,000 cases--applications for disability. 
They have been pending for more than 125 days--4 months. Some have been 
in the process for more than 1 year. It is an improvement--300,000 from 
611,000, which was the case last year--but not good enough.
  Illinois has cut its backlog in half as well. But when I read some of 
the delay times in making a decision at the VA, we will understand why 
we find this still unacceptable.
  Seven years ago the average processing time for an Illinois veteran 
claim was 1 year, maybe 18 months. Appeals sometimes took 2 years. 
Today veterans tell us the claim will easily take 2 years to process, 
maybe longer, and an appeal may take 3 or 4 years. Compared to the 
numbers of 7 years ago, the numbers are much worse today. I understand 
there are more veterans who are applying, but it just means we need to 
put the resources in place to serve this surge of veterans looking for 
help.
  The veterans who call my office are just asking for updates and 
accurate information about the claims and medical care. They want to 
know if somebody--anybody--atthe VA is taking a look at their 
application. They get conflicting information from the VA.
  Sometimes the VA calls them back and says: You have to send such and 
such a document.
  The veteran says: I have already sent it.
  That kind of frustration for someone who is coping with illness or 
problems is unacceptable, and it is certainly unacceptable when it 
comes to our veterans.
  Even when claims are processed, there are cases of mistaken identity. 
A bad address leads to canceled benefits and checks, and it takes 
months to fix it. I am trying to help. As chair of the Appropriations 
Defense Subcommittee, I put $3.6 million in the Defense Department to 
speed up the program that allows servicemembers' records to be 
transferred to the VA electronically so we can have at least a quicker 
response from the VA. I directed the DOD inspector general in my bill 
to work with the VA inspector general to streamline the transfer of 
records between the Departments.
  Another way we tried to step up support for veterans is by creating 
the Caregiver Program at the Veterans' Administration. I will be the 
first to tell you this was not my idea. It was the idea of Senator 
Hillary Clinton of New York. She used to sit back there, and she came 
up with an idea: If members of a disabled veteran's family will stay 
home with them and help them get through, we ought to help those 
members of the family. She called it the caregivers act. It didn't pass 
while she was here, but when she left I liked it enough to call her and 
say to the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton: Do you mind if I steal 
your idea and try to pass it? She invited me to be her guest, and I 
did. With the support of Senator Danny Akaka, Senator Patty Murray, and 
others, we made the caregivers act the law of the land, and now across 
America hundreds of spouses and parents who care for disabled veterans 
are getting a helping hand. We provide them medical training, nurses 
training so they can take care of their veteran. We give them respite 
care of up to 2 weeks a year so they can have some time off, a vacation 
to recharge their batteries. If they have a financial hardship, we 
provide a modest amount of money to help them get by. It is the right 
thing to do. These veterans get to stay home with families who love 
them. That is where they want to be. From our point of view as a 
government, just to put it down to dollars and cents, it is a lot 
cheaper when they stay home. So we do well and the veterans do well. 
That is a great outcome.
  We have to expand the reach of caregivers assistance through the VA 
so at every veterans center there is a source of information to tell 
that veteran and the veteran's family: The Caregiver Program is there 
if you want to stay home. We want to help you stay home and be healthy 
as you do.
  I think that is a good thing to offer the veterans. The ones I have 
met, there are some amazing stories in Chicago that truly warm your 
heart to know that those veterans, after what they have been through, 
can stay home with their families and be there with the people they 
love and who love them too.
  There is another area I wish to mention. Our committee has pushed the 
Veterans' Administration to focus on the sustainability of orthotics 
and prosthetics. We are worried about the professional workforce that 
deals with these important parts of restoring a veteran's life.
  Twenty percent of the orthotics and prosthetics workforce, about 
7,000 clinicians, will retire over the next 5 years. We have never 
needed these specialists more than we need them today: 1,715 
servicemembers lost limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many have lost 
multiple limbs. The United States has 5 quadruple amputees and 40 
triple amputees from these wars. The VA serves 40,000 people with limb 
loss every year. That is why I am focused on this--to get the 
professionals in the orthotics and prosthetics fields of medicine to be 
trained and ready to help these veterans in the years to come while 
others are retiring.
  There are 745,000 veterans in my State, and not a single one of them 
should be deceived about what they can receive for their service nor 
delayed when it comes to seeing a doctor or having their claims 
processed. Not one of them should wait 2 years before they start 
getting disability benefits. We have 5 VA Medical Centers, 30 
outpatient clinics, and 11 Veterans Centers across Illinois, and we 
have to be there to serve them in a timely way.

[[Page 8785]]

  None of these facilities has the right to mislead or lie to the 
veterans about what doctors they can see or what services they can 
receive. The Senate just added $5 million to the budget of the 
inspector general at the Veterans Administration, and the Inspector 
General is now investigating 26 facilities.
  One of the toughest votes that a Member of Congress is called on to 
cast is whether we should go to war. It has happened a few times in my 
career. You don't sleep well the night before, wondering how you are 
going to vote, and knowing that at the end of the day, even if this is 
a just and necessary war, innocent people will die, including innocent 
Americans. What I have come to learn over the years is that it is not 
just a matter of that simple decision to go to war, but it is the cost 
of war--the cost in human lives. Over 4,000 died in the war in Iraq, 
and over 2,000 have died in the war in Afghanistan. There are thousands 
and thousands who come home with injuries, and, of course, there are 
the expenses and budget costs that come along with each and every one 
these conflicts.
  It really helps when you make these decisions and reflect on them to 
also be aware and honest about the real cost of war. The real cost of 
war in human life and human suffering can't be calculated, but we did 
make a promise that those who would stand for our country in those wars 
would have our help when they came home.
  The scandal that has been reported in Arizona--the problems at the VA 
centers--is unacceptable in a Nation as great as America, and we owe it 
to these veterans and their families to stand by them. I promise I 
will, not just for veterans facilities in Illinois, which is my first 
priority, but for those across the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                              LEGISLATING

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his 
comments about a problem--and how extensive it is--we are seeing across 
the United States. I don't think there is a Senator who is not looking 
into that and ensuring that something is done. I looked at the 
resources that have been allocated, and noticed that we increased the 
resources 60 percent in the last 5 years. I think there is a severe 
management problem, and after reading some of the emails I have 
received, I am very concerned about that.
  I want to talk about a different subject today. A recent headline 
from a Capitol Hill newspaper declared that our current Congress could 
be the ``worst ever.'' Another said negotiating political agreements is 
a ``lost art.'' The whole country knows something is wrong with our 
government. The problem is that Senators are being prevented from doing 
their job. Common sense is ignored because bills are being made in a 
political vacuum. This results in more lengthy, complex, 
incomprehensible laws that defy logic.
  Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said that Congress would 
first have to pass a bill in order to find out what was in it. That is 
a problem. Legislation is often hundreds, if not thousands, of pages 
long. One bill could contain provisions affecting everything from 
health care to housing and increase the debt by hundreds of billions of 
dollars.
  I recently introduced a bill with Senator John Barrasso, also from 
Wyoming, that would take a page from Wyoming's State legislature 
handbook. In order to stop Congress from passing bills with countless, 
unrelated measures, S. Res. 351 would require any legislation 
considered by the Senate to be limited to a single issue. One topic per 
bill will help get things done. It means more understandable and 
manageable bills. This is not a flashy concept, but I have found people 
of both parties are receptive to it. It makes sense to them.
  Change is hard and those who control the Senate now like the system 
we have. Most Members of Congress have no opportunity to weigh in, and 
neither does the public--directly or indirectly. This is a very tidy 
arrangement for those who are in power now, especially in the Senate. 
Nothing is approved unless the majority leader allows it to come out.
  Dissenting opinions are rarely considered. The majority leader uses 
procedural tactics to prohibit amendments to improve bills in order to 
control the legislation and to prevent his party from taking 
politically difficult votes. He has done this more than any other 
majority leader--perhaps more than all the previous leaders. Political 
motivations and consolidation of power should not be used to deny 
Senators from either party the right to represent their people.
  Last week the majority leader used procedural tactics to prevent us 
from voting on tax amendments important to Wyoming, such as the 
permanent State and local sales tax deduction amendment offered by my 
friend on the other side of the aisle, the Senator from Washington. We 
were also prevented from voting on amendments that would be important 
to all of us, such as preventing waste of taxpayers' dollars by 
stopping the IRS from giving bonuses to employees who have not paid 
their taxes. Amendments were filed by Members from across the country. 
By my count, more than 60 amendments to the tax package were filed by 
Senators from the other side of the aisle. Nobody is being represented 
by amendments. At some point we need to actually vote on the issues 
that are important to our constituents, and Members on both sides of 
the aisle who support these amendments need to insist on that.
  Last week Politico's Huddle claimed ``Senate GOP Filibusters $85B Tax 
Extenders,'' but there is no opportunity to filibuster when the debate 
is cut off before it ever begins. That is what the majority leader did 
by filing cloture on the tax extenders package. Cloture is a political 
tactic designed to bring debate to a close after a supermajority of the 
Senate is satisfied that a matter has received adequate consideration.
  In recent years this majority leader has often filed a cloture motion 
immediately--before there is an opportunity to debate or introduce 
amendments, not after adequate consideration. The number of same-day 
cloture filings has more than doubled compared to when Republicans last 
controlled the Senate. We are not even being given a chance to debate, 
much less offer amendments, and that is why I have joined Senator 
Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, in cosponsoring his Stop Cloture 
Abuse Resolution. It would amend the Senate rules to prohibit filing 
cloture until there has been at least 24 hours of debate.
  Another telling statistic is the number of amendments the current 
majority has blocked from being considered in the Senate. As this chart 
shows, in 2005 and 2006, the Senate voted on almost 700 amendments on 
the Senate floor. Since the Senate has been controlled by the current 
majority, the number has dwindled. In 2011 and 2012, there were about 
350 amendments, and since July of last year, the majority leader has 
allowed votes on only 9 Senate Republican amendments. The House--where 
debate is very limited and controlled by the majority--had 132 votes on 
Democrat minority amendments.
  Let's see. The minority in the Senate--the cooling saucer for the 
country where there is supposed to be open debate--had nine amendments. 
The House--always controlled by the majority in a very strict way with 
a rules committee--had 132 Democratic minority votes on amendments.
  The leader has used the tactic of filling the amendment tree to 
prevent amendments from being introduced, and because of that tactic, 
the amendment to prevent wasting taxpayers' dollars by stopping the IRS 
from giving bonuses to employees who have not paid their taxes doesn't 
get to come up. That is just one example of many that has happened. In 
the last 8 years, he has used this tactic 86 times, and of course, we 
are still counting. By contrast, the last six majority leaders combined 
only filled the tree 40 times.
  What is filling the tree? It is a political tactic of setting up a 
few amendments that cannot be taken down, that have to be voted on 
before the bill can be done, and filing cloture even prevents those 
from getting done.

[[Page 8786]]

  The chart shows that there have been 86, and still counting, and the 
six previous leaders only filed cloture 40 times.
  Filling the amendment tree has become a routine way to prevent any 
Senator--majority or minority--from exercising their right to offer an 
amendment because once the tree is filled, no Senator can offer an 
amendment.
  Almost half of the Senate has been here less than 6 years. Yes, 45 of 
the 100 Senators are in their first term. They don't realize that there 
is a better way. They have not seen how it could work, how it did work, 
and how it should work.
  I know how this can hurt. I once had a bill that would have been the 
first step of 10 for solving health care in this country, and it was a 
small business health plan. It would have allowed small businesses 
across the country to join together through their association to get a 
big enough block to effectively negotiate with the insurance company or 
even set up their own selfinsurance pool.
  The majority leader was willing to bring it up and then filled the 
tree and filed cloture. I had 2 people that would have made the 60 
votes necessary to get that passed, but each had 1 amendment to the 
bill, and they would have been good amendments. They were not allowed 
to bring up their amendments, and consequently I wound up being just 
short to pass a very important bill that would have brought down health 
care costs for this country and might have encouraged people to do the 
other nine steps in the plan that Senator Kennedy and I put together 
and provided more in the way of insurance than what we have now, and it 
would have been paid for.
  Committees should have the first opportunity to shape legislation. It 
is there that Members are able to iron out unintended consequences and 
craft better legislation before it goes to the floor. There is a lot of 
flexibility in the committee process. I used to sit down and go through 
all the amendments. There might be 200 amendments on a bill we were 
working on, and we would put them into piles according to what we 
covered. We would look to see who was involved in that particular pile 
and send that bipartisan group off to come up with a solution to these 
multiple solutions that had been presented. They were usually able to 
craft something out of that and bring it back as another amendment that 
would make the bill better and eliminate unintended consequences and 
perform a real service for our country.
  Most of the bills now don't go to committee first. After a bill goes 
to committee, then it comes to the floor. All 100 Members of the Senate 
should have an opportunity to improve the legislation. The reason we 
have so many people in Congress--100 here and 435 at the other end of 
the building--is to bring together 535 different backgrounds that can 
suggest improvements to bills. Different Members may know something 
from their background that others may not have noticed, and that is why 
we do amendments. Rarely is that happening in today's Senate. More 
often than not, committees are ignored and massive legislation is the 
result of a few people behind closed doors deal making for the more 
than 535 Members of Congress. We need to get away from deal making and 
start legislating again, and that is apparent, especially in our 
spending. The job of Congress is to decide how much the Federal 
Government should spend and on what priorities. That is not being done 
under the Senate's current management. Deals are made.
  In fact, last January, the legislation we voted on was a deal between 
one Member of the House and one Member of the Senate. Do you know how 
many amendments we got on that? Nobody had an amendment to it. The 
debate was very limited. There was $1.1 trillion spent on one vote that 
was put together by two people. That is deal making, not legislating, 
and that is what is costing this country so much money and what stifles 
things.
  A couple of weeks ago we had a bill that was allowed to have 
amendments, and in 2 days we covered the amendments and passed the bill 
unanimously because it had been improved significantly. That is what we 
need to get back to. More time is spent on negotiating not to have 
amendments than it would take to vote on 75 amendments on a bill. Yes, 
a lot of them would fail, and that is typical, but at least a Senator 
could feel that his constituents have been heard but he just didn't 
have the votes for it. At least they have been heard, and that is what 
we are missing right now.
  We are not getting to cover the amendments, and they can be covered 
relatively quickly. So deals are made and then spending bills are all 
packaged into one massive ``take it or leave it'' bill and the deficit 
has increased.
  In 2013, the Senate didn't pass a single appropriations bill. We were 
supposed to do 12 of them right after April 15. We didn't do any of 
them. We only considered 1 of the 12 bills on the Senate floor, and 
that bill was shut down because the first amendment the majority leader 
didn't like, so he pulled it off of the floor and he never brought it 
up again, nor did he bring up any other spending bill. Is it any wonder 
that since January 2009 the total Federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion 
and now it is over $17 trillion? We don't budget; we don't appropriate; 
we just deal-make. It has never risen so high so fast in our country's 
history.
  Similar to legislation on one topic per bill, we should look at each 
spending bill individually. The committees should be able to look 
closely at each branch and each agency. That is how it used to work 
before the power shift, but we can make some changes now to encourage 
more spending scrutiny. We could switch to a biennial appropriations 
process. That means once every 2 years for each agency. I have 
introduced S. 625, the Biennial Appropriations Act, and I am 
cosponsoring Senator Johnny Isakson's version of the legislation.
  My bill would require the President to submit a 2-year budget 
resolution at the beginning of each Congress. Congress would then adopt 
a budget resolution. Following adoption of a budget resolution, 
Congress would focus on appropriations bills. Each Congress would 
debate the Defense appropriations bill; however, the other 
appropriations bills would be split into two groups. The more 
controversial bills would be debated in the first year after an 
election and the easy ones would be done the year before an election. 
Of course the bill would mandate at least one joint oversight hearing 
with the authorization committee and the Appropriations Committee in 
the off-appropriations year for those particular bills.
  When you are spending a trillion dollars, it is so much money that 
nobody can look at the details. I don't even remember the last time we 
looked at something as small as a billion dollars, let alone a million 
dollars, and a million is a lot of money out where I live. We have to 
get back to where we can have some scrutiny on the appropriations, not 
a one-time deal.
  Congress has 535 elected representatives. When each of us looks at 
every proposal, lots of viewpoints and experience get put into the 
decisions we make for our country, but if all decisions are made by the 
majority leader, the vast majority of Americans get shortchanged. 
Shortcuts are taken, committees are skipped. Legislation is long, 
cumbersome, and it is not easily read and understood. If you skip all 
the process to do that, then spending will reach all-time highs and we 
will get less for our money. That has to change.
  These are some ideas on how we can solve those problems. This won't 
change unless those who are here exercise our rights. That may not 
happen until those outside Washington demand that these and other ideas 
get considered. Demand your Senators be allowed to represent you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Alaska is 
recognized.
  Mr. BEGICH. I wish to speak as if in morning business to talk about 
one issue, IRS overreach.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BEGICH. Before I do that, I do want to say to my friend who just

[[Page 8787]]

spoke, I am one of those who loves biennial budgets. I think it is a 
great idea and one we should continue to work toward. It makes work a 
little bit better and we also get a little bit longer planning horizon.


                             IRS Overreach

  Mr. President, I come to the floor because there has been a lot of 
talk recently in different areas about the IRS, and virtually none of 
it is good. Let me be clear. The IRS going after taxpayers for debts 
allegedly incurred by their dead relatives is shocking. Tax-delinquent 
employees with IRS bonuses are offensive. Targeting individuals or 
groups for their political beliefs is unacceptable. But today I want to 
talk about a different issue: a vital industry in my State crushed by 
overbearing IRS enforcement of their own incomprehensible regulations.
  Folks who have been to Alaska know we have some of the most beautiful 
terrain in the world. Most of the best sights, however, are off the 
road system. What does that mean? That means you cannot drive to them. 
That means if you want to visit a remote part of the Denali National 
Park or try to spot some bears or go to a great fishing area, the 
easiest way to do that is by airplane.
  Companies that provide these sightseeing services are overwhelmingly 
small businesses, mom-and-pop operators. They aren't tax attorneys. 
They aren't CPAs. They are pilots. They live to fly. As you can see 
right here, this is an incredible view right outside of a glacier where 
a small plane has just landed. That is why it is so devastating that at 
least one of these businesses had to sell its plane to pay the IRS and 
close up shop forever. Countless others live under the cloud of 
uncertainty because the IRS goes to extraordinary lengths to find them 
liable for taxes. In fact, one company received this massive tax bill, 
including penalties, even after they had negotiated with the IRS and 
received a favorable resolution. In other words, this bill came after 
they had agreed with the IRS to get rid of these penalties and these 
interest charges and everything else. The IRS said there was a little 
mixup, and maybe for them that is all it was, but for a small business 
it could mean financial ruin. Also, getting a bill like this would 
drive you crazy after you just had a conversation with the IRS and 
resolved this.
  Let me give a little history. Air transportation is usually subject 
to excise taxes, which go to a trust fund for airports, much like the 
gas tax pays for the highway trust fund. But since 1970 Congress has 
made it crystal clear that these excise taxes shouldn't apply to small 
aircraft, the type shown in the first photo.
  Here is another example. These types of planes have not been subject 
to excise taxes since 1970, unless they are flying regularly scheduled 
routes, such as the route I take going back home to Alaska. I fly from 
the airport in Washington, DC, to Seattle and then to Anchorage. Those 
are regularly scheduled flights.
  But the IRS brought down the enforcement hammer on some businesses in 
Nevada and Alaska. Those companies sued the IRS and eventually lost. So 
Congress came back again in 2005 and said, look, we meant what we said 
in 1970. Small aircraft used for sightseeing are supposed to be exempt 
from excise tax--pretty simple, pretty clear, not complicated.
  But the IRS doesn't get it. The IRS still won't listen to Congress. 
The IRS still thinks it can ignore the plain meaning of the law backed 
by clear congressional intent. A lot of folks around here talk about 
Federal overreach. This is a perfect example of Federal overreach. 
Congress told the IRS not once but twice: Small aircraft offering 
sightseeing services should not have to collect excise taxes, and still 
the IRS thumbed its nose at Congress and says, ``We'll do whatever we 
like,'' in clear contradiction to the plain meaning of the statute that 
was supposed to be upheld.
  That is not the way this country is supposed to work. Agencies such 
as the IRS don't get to go it alone. They are bound by the Constitution 
to enforce and follow the laws that Congress writes.
  I was pleased about a recent letter that was written to the Alaska 
Air Carriers Association in which the IRS acknowledged their guidance 
was unclear and inappropriately enforced. They offered to give refunds 
to companies flying small aircraft on sightseeing tours. While it is a 
step in the right direction to recognize they got it wrong, they 
refused to back down completely. The IRS is still reserving the right 
to go after these same companies in the future.
  That is why I called the IRS Commissioner into my office last week 
and that is why I am here today, to make it clear to the IRS that I 
will not stand idly by while they send Alaskan small businesses into 
bankruptcy. I will keep coming here as long as I have to, until the IRS 
lets Alaskan small businesses do what they do best: Fly and share all 
of the beautiful sights my great State of Alaska has to offer to all 
Alaskans and all Americans.
  It is happening in Alaska. It is starting to happen in other States. 
My guess is this will go anywhere there are sightseeing planes to be 
determined from the IRS perspective that they know what is best. The 
law is clear. The IRS in their letter made it clear that their 
interpretation of the law may be unclear and inappropriately enforced. 
Well, if it is wrong, don't enforce it, or enforce it the way it was 
set out in 1970 and 2005. If you put someone in a plane and take them 
out for sightseeing, they are exempt. There is no rate or schedule.
  Here is what is also amazing about this. I will go to this first 
photo again, the one with the glacier. They are restricted as to where 
they can go. So when the IRS says they flew from point A to point B on 
a regular basis, that is because they are regulated by the Federal 
Government to go to that location. I think this visitor would love to 
fly all around the glaciers, but they are not allowed to by Federal 
law. So they are sightseeing, and the law is clear about this. But, 
once again, the IRS has determined what they think the law is. The FAA, 
which regulates the air industry, makes it clear who is sightseeing and 
who is regularly scheduled. So I would plead with the IRS to do the 
right thing here, settle this issue once and for all and make it 
crystal clear. The law has been passed by Congress--not once but twice. 
It is time to get off the backs of these small businesses, small 
business people, not only in my State but across this country. Ensure 
they can do their business, and make sure the great sights of Alaska 
can be seen by anybody anytime through these great tour operators who 
operate in my State and the operators all around the country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 WRRDA

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 2013 
Water Resources Reform and Development Act conference report. I agree 
with my colleagues who have spoken about this and who believe that 
passing this conference report is important for our communities. As 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
and as one of the members of the conference committee that came out 
with this report, I believe the agreement we have today addresses the 
issues facing the Army Corps of Engineers and facing our country.
  We have problems in this country with aging infrastructure, we have 
problems with a lack of transparency, and we have problems with fiscal 
accountability--all of which impact public health, public safety, as 
well as the

[[Page 8788]]

environmental welfare of our communities. As a conferee, I and my staff 
have worked with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both 
sides of the building, House and Senate, to create a bipartisan product 
to address these real concerns. We may have our differences on some key 
issues, but the bulk of what we have accomplished is about protecting 
our States. It is about protecting our constituents. It is not about 
partisan politics.
  For example, issues such as flood mitigation are very important to my 
home State of Wyoming. Predicting floods and being able and better 
prepared for them is a major component in keeping Wyoming and other 
western communities safe. That is why we have successfully included 
language in this bill for the authorization of the Upper Missouri Basin 
flood and drought monitoring. This program will restore the stream 
gauges and the snowpack monitors through the Upper Missouri Basin at 
all elevations. These gauges are used to monitor snow depth and soil 
moisture to help inform agencies such as the Corps of Engineers as to 
potential flooding as well as drought in the future. This type of 
monitoring will help protect communities and will save lives.
  We also included language in this bill for technical assistance to 
help rural communities comply with environmental regulations. Rural 
communities often don't have the expertise or the funding to make 
important upgrades to their water systems. Dedicated professionals, 
such as the folks at the Wyoming Rural Water Association, use this 
funding to go into those communities and provide the critical 
assistance these people need.
  We also secured an agreement that establishes a 5-year pilot program 
known as the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act. This 
program will allow the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental 
Protection Agency to provide loans and loan guarantees for flood 
control, for community water systems, for aging water distribution 
facilities, and for wastewater infrastructure projects. It also 
includes language that makes tribes eligible for the loans.
  As I mentioned, transparency and fiscal responsibility are also 
important components to tackling the issues that need to be addressed 
with the Army Corps of Engineers. That is why we have included language 
in the conference report to create an Army Corps project 
deauthorization process. Under this process, the Army Corps would 
identify projects for deauthorization based on established criteria. 
Then, after taking public input, they would submit those projects as a 
single package for an up-or-down vote in the Congress.
  Many of these projects are on the books and have been on the books 
for extended periods of time, and they authorize the expenditure of 
millions of taxpayer dollars. Yet these are projects that are going 
nowhere. Under this conference report, the Corps would have to propose 
a list of the projects to cut. The list would total $18 billion and 
would be sent to Congress for this up-or-down vote. And $18 billion is 
more than enough to offset the entire total authorization of this piece 
of legislation.
  It truly is time for the Corps of Engineers and for Congress to clean 
the books, cut the waste, and bring fiscal responsibility to this WRDA 
process.
  I wish to thank my colleagues, including Chairman Boxer, Ranking 
Member Vitter, and former Senator and subcommittee ranking member Max 
Baucus for the bipartisan process under which this bill was considered.
  The conference report is not perfect, but I believe we have achieved 
a product that is substantive, effective, and in the public interests. 
It is a product that will save lives, maintain the flow of commerce, 
and protect communities for years to come. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this conference 
report.
  Once again, I thank the Presiding Officer and my committee colleagues 
for their willingness to work together on this bill.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to give this speech in full.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Tax Extenders

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments this afternoon 
to correct the record on something very important.
  In his opening remarks this morning, the distinguished Senate 
majority leader made a number of claims and accusations relating to the 
tax extenders legislation.
  As you will recall, last week the Senate voted not to invoke cloture 
on the substitute amendment to the tax extenders bill. Since that time, 
the Senate majority leader has been accusing Republicans of voting 
against tax relief. He said we are obstructionists and that we ``work 
so hard to do nothing.'' This is, as we know, par for the course.
  When the majority leader is not calling out American citizens by name 
and attacking them for getting involved in the political process, he is 
usually accusing Senate Republicans of one thing or another, and doing 
it so unjustifiably.
  Today, he attacked me personally for my vote against cloture on the 
tax extenders substitute, saying: ``The primary Republican who 
negotiated this, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, 
voted against his own bill.''
  It is true that I negotiated. It is true that I helped to get it 
through the committee. It is true that I got our side to agree to a 
voice vote.
  Needless to say, I cannot let this go unanswered. I am here now to 
set the record straight.
  First and foremost, I want to make clear that I support the tax 
extenders legislation, and everybody in this body knows it, and if they 
do not, then they better go take an IQ test. I want to see that bill 
passed, and I believe we should pass it sooner rather than later.
  I do not want to speak for anyone else, but I suspect that the 
majority of Senate Republicans feel the same way. But there are serious 
and legitimate process issues at stake here.
  At the time of last week's cloture vote, the substitute amendment had 
been available to the full Senate for little more than a day. Although 
there were 167 amendments filed--including about 70 Democratic Party 
amendments--the distinguished majority leader blocked the consideration 
of any and all amendments.
  This, unfortunately, has become the norm here in the Senate, where we 
have voted for a grand total of 9 Republican amendments in the past 10 
months--9. By contrast, in the House of Representatives, where the 
Republicans are in complete control, where the Rules Committee is 9 to 
4 in favor of Republicans--the committee that decides what comes to the 
floor--the Democrats, who are in the minority, have had votes on 242 of 
their amendments in that same timeframe.
  Sheila Jackson Lee, for instance, a single Democratic House Member, 
has received votes on 22 separate amendments in the same timeframe that 
all Republican Senators have, combined, received votes on only 9.
  So, yes, I, along with almost all of my Republican colleagues, voted 
against cloture--in fact, all but one voted against cloture--on the tax 
extenders substitute. But I made it clear before and after the vote 
that my vote against cloture was a vote to allow Senators--both 
Republicans and Democrats, especially those who do not serve on the 
Senate Finance Committee--an opportunity to amend the tax extenders 
legislation, something you would think every Senator in this body would 
want to justify and would want to support.
  As I said, at the time of the cloture vote, there were a total of 167 
amendments filed. Yet the Senate majority attempted to close off debate 
on the

[[Page 8789]]

bill without considering or voting on a single amendment--on a bill 
costing $85 billion so far. That is no way to operate the Senate, 
particularly on a bill as broad and as consequential as the tax 
extenders bill.
  There are a lot of interests at stake with the expired or expiring 
tax provisions, a number of voices that deserve to be heard. Why, then, 
would we want to rush through the debate without considering a single 
solitary amendment? It does not make sense.
  My vote against cloture was never intended to kill this legislation, 
as the majority leader claimed this morning. As I made clear last week, 
my vote was for a fair, open, and cooperative process--a bipartisan 
process, if you will, something we have not had much of around here 
lately. I would have thought the majority leader would have been 
listening last week when Republicans, including myself, made it very 
clear why we were voting against cloture. But either he was not 
listening or he forgot everything we said because this morning he came 
to the floor to attack us, once again, claiming that somehow our votes 
against cloture on the tax extenders legislation were related to 
President Obama.
  So let me make it clear for our distinguished majority leader and 
anyone else who may be misunderstanding what is going on with the tax 
extenders bill. This has nothing to do with President Obama. There is 
only one person who is stopping the tax extenders bill from moving 
forward. It is not me. It is not the minority leader. It is not anyone 
on the Republican side or caucus.
  The distinguished majority leader could solve this impasse today if 
he would simply allow the Senate to operate in a way it always has. He 
knows--and he knew then when he made these comments because we chatted 
the day before--he knew that my job is to try and winnow down the total 
number of amendments on this bill, approaching almost 100 for each 
side, and get it to where we basically could pass this bill.
  He can come to the floor as often as he wants to attack Republican 
Senators or anyone else, but that does not change the fact that he is 
the one in control here. He is the one who will decide if the Senate 
will live up to its legacy of being the greatest deliberative body in 
the world or if it will continue to be what it has become--a graveyard 
of ideas.
  Once again, I stand willing and able to work with the Democrats to 
get this bill across the finish line. I do want this legislation to 
pass. It is important legislation. But I do think we ought to have the 
Senate operate as it always has in the past, where each side has at 
least a reasonable opportunity to bring up amendments that they 
consider to be important. It is important that the Senate operate in 
that way, and not in the way it is currently being operated. As I said, 
it is not up to me.


                       California Drought Relief

  I would like to take a moment to address the California drought 
relief bill Senator Feinstein has been working so hard on for the past 
several months. There is no question that we are facing some very 
serious conditions across the West. We need to be doing all we can to 
provide relief to the farmers in California and elsewhere. But it does 
not make any sense that this drought has gotten to the point that it 
has when it could have been avoided. This is a manmade crisis. The 
water that should have been and could have been stored behind the dams 
in California's Central Valley during the past several years has 
instead been flushed downstream to create fish habitat for the 
endangered delta smelt. Now, do not get me wrong, protecting our 
natural resources is important. But there is a problem with our system 
when we put the needs of fish--and especially this fish--ahead of the 
needs of people.
  This is happening in other States too. We are seeing the needs of 
people made secondary to the regulatory requirements that may or may 
not even be benefiting the species they are designed to help.
  I think we have some of the stupidest people in the environmental 
movement that you can possibly imagine. They consistently place these 
trumped-up situations against human beings and humankind. It is getting 
real old to me.
  Senator Barrasso has an amendment to Senator Feinstein's bill that 
would bring some common sense into this situation by allowing for some 
flexibility for communities that are facing dire situations as the 
result of Federal regulatory requirements.
  I support the Barrasso amendment and would have liked to have seen it 
included in the California drought relief bill. I also recognize that 
the farmers and farm workers in California cannot afford to have 
Congress playing games with their livelihood. For that reason, I am not 
going to object to this bill.
  To have California, where some of the greatest, most productive 
farmlands in the world are, basically shut down for really what are 
stupid approaches when there could be an accommodation to help both 
sides on those issues is hard for me to understand.
  When the members of the California delegation sit down with the 
committees of jurisdiction to work out the differences between the 
Feinstein bill and the bill that has already passed the House, I would 
urge them to implement Senator Barrasso's proposal into the final bill. 
This will help rural communities across America avoid getting into 
potentially disastrous situations that are caused by out-of-date, out-
of-touch regulations.
  The economy and job creation do not have to be at odds with 
conservation. This is the perfect opportunity to create some badly 
needed flexibility to make sure they are not. I, for one, would like to 
see that for a change in the Senate.
  I sure would like to see us depoliticize this place so we can work 
together again. I have been here only 38 years, but I have to tell you, 
there were many times in that 38 years where we worked together, we 
solved the problems of America together, and we had the country running 
well. Frankly, we all walked out of here feeling pretty good.
  Most people in the Senate right now do not feel all that good--first 
of all, because of the way it is being run; secondly, because there is 
a partisan divide that exists--on both sides, by the way; thirdly, 
because we have a rough time getting people together in a bipartisan 
way; and last but not least, because we do not spend much time together 
anymore. It used to be that Senators got together and cared more for 
each other and cared less about attacking each other and cared less 
about some of the ridiculous, stupid things that have been going on 
over the last few years.
  I would suggest to my Democratic friends that they start thinking 
this over because the Senate has really gone downhill. We have to stop 
it and start working together for the best interests of our country.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Murray pertaining to the introduction of S. 2366 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mrs. MURRAY. 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. WICKER. 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 Mississippi.


               Water Resources Reform and Development Act

  Mr. WICKER. I rise this afternoon to express my strong support for a 
new Water Resources Reform and Development Act, which we can send to 
the

[[Page 8790]]

President this very week, and it will be a great bipartisan 
accomplishment. It will be a major win for economic development also.
  I am proud to have worked on this legislation as a member of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, and I am excited about the 
potential the WRRDA bill has to make a difference in States such as my 
home State of Mississippi.
  Like many States, we routinely depend on water infrastructure. In 
Mississippi, our ports and waterways are crucial to commerce, and our 
system of levees protects us from natural disasters. These modernized 
ports and commercial waterways are critical to maintaining 
competitiveness in a global economy. They are essential to boosting 
trade and job growth across the Nation.
  The House-Senate agreement on this new water resources bill--the 
first in 7 years, I might add--would accomplish a number of goals, from 
restructuring the inland waterway system to completing storm protection 
projects. It would help ensure that U.S. industries have a reliable, 
navigable, and cost-effective transportation network to do business.
  In particular, I am encouraged by reforms to the harbor maintenance 
trust fund which promise to help our ports with much needed dredging. 
The fund, which was established for port improvements, is currently 
underutilized. Using this money for its intended purpose would help 
facilitate critical port upgrades--an especially important investment 
in preparation for the upcoming completion of the Panama Canal 
expansion.
  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has estimated that America's busiest 
ports, including the Port of Pascagoula in Mississippi, are operating 
at their full capacity only 35 percent of the time or less. This is 
unacceptable. As a matter of fact, for other ports around the country, 
the situation is worse than that.
  A lapse in maintenance can become a vicious cycle, impairing a port's 
ability to secure future maintenance dredging. Coastal ports, such as 
Mississippi's Port of Gulfport, have been disadvantaged as a result. We 
haven't received the maintenance. We have less traffic. Therefore, we 
are entitled to less future maintenance dredging.
  I am pleased to report to my colleagues that thanks to an amendment 
by Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi on crediting authority for 
navigation projects, ports such as the Port of Gulfport would have 
greater flexibility in making dredging upgrades.
  Other provisions in the new water resources bill seek to ensure 
fiscal responsibility by streamlining project requirements and 
timelines. This means allowing greater private contributions to 
infrastructure repairs and deauthorizing projects no longer in the 
national interest.
  Mississippians understand why water resource infrastructure matters. 
In recent years we have faced very different challenges because of 
extreme conditions on the Mississippi River. First, historic flooding 
put flood control mechanisms such as the Mississippi River and 
Tributaries Project to the test. Then the very next year severe drought 
turned large stretches of the river into nothing more than sandy 
beaches. These situations can have a big impact. Any disruption in the 
movement of goods along the Mississippi River has the potential to 
affect staple products such as corn, grain, and petroleum. When that 
happens, consumers are often left with higher costs. The Mississippi 
River alone is responsible for more than $100 billion of America's 
gross domestic product.
  For our coastal communities, this Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act would also advance beneficial storm protection 
projects. Many of these projects, developed after Hurricane Katrina 
under the Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program, have been left 
unfinished. Their completion would help create more resilient coastal 
communities and lower the risk of future hurricane and storm damage.
  Of course, our work is not finished. Implementing this legislation 
will require oversight, and more can be done to improve our inland 
waterway trust fund and to protect medium-use ports. I hope in a couple 
of years we will be considering another Water Resources Development 
Act. In other words, I hope we don't wait another 7 years for a WRDA. 
But today and tomorrow we have an opportunity for a great step forward, 
demonstrating the strong bipartisan cooperation that exists in the 
House and Senate for America's future vitality and competitiveness.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Ohio.


                                 China

  Mr. BROWN. I rise to discuss the growing problem with U.S.-China 
relations.
  Earlier their week we saw another example of how the Chinese 
Communist government will do everything it can--anything--to get ahead. 
The United States of America, in something that rarely happens, charged 
five Chinese military officers and accused them of hacking into 
American nuclear, metal, and solar companies to steal trade secrets.
  This is not only a national security concern, it is an economic 
concern. Two who were allegedly hacked are U.S. Steel and the United 
Steelworkers union--organizations with which I have helped to file 
unfair trade practice cases against Chinese state-owned companies. It 
is not only a cause-and-effect, but these two entities, a steel company 
and a steelworkers union, filed unfair trade practices against China, 
and now the U.S. Government is filing legal charges against them for 
going after these two companies--against the Chinese.
  We won these trade cases because we held China's feet to the fire and 
used our trade laws to level the playing field for our steel companies 
and our steelworkers. Jobs were saved and factories stayed open because 
of these trade cases, and that is precisely why China is targeting 
these companies.
  We know the Chinese will do just about anything to get ahead 
economically. Fair enough. We also know that China will cheat and spy. 
The best example is currency manipulation, which makes Chinese exports 
more competitive.
  When you manipulate the currency--when China sells products into the 
United States, the price is less, basically subsidizing Chinese exports 
into the United States, putting American workers out of jobs. When U.S. 
companies export to China, because China has manipulated the currency, 
it means that the prices are higher for these American goods, making 
them significantly less than competitive, if you will, in China. So 
when China cheats on currency, our workers at U.S. Steel in Lorain, 
Wheatland Tube in Warren, Vallourec Star in Youngstown, and TMK IPSCO 
in Brookfield lose out, and when our workers suffer, our economy 
suffers.
  A December 2012 report by the Peterson Institute--a conservative 
think tank--found that currency manipulation by foreign governments 
costs the government between--quite a range--1 million and 5 million 
jobs, increasing the U.S. trade deficit by $200 to $500 billion a year. 
These are manufacturing jobs that are about export or competing with 
imports. They are almost always pretty good-paying jobs.
  In 2012 our trade deficit with China broke $300 billion for the first 
time, and then in 2013 for the second time it broke $300 billion.
  An Economic Policy Institute report notes that ``addressing currency 
manipulation is the single most important policy change for U.S. 
workers.'' EPI argues that up to 5.8 million American jobs--40 percent 
of them in manufacturing--would be created if currency manipulation 
were eliminated by next year. It would reduce the goods deficit by at 
least $200 billion. For my home State of Ohio, EPI found that 
eliminating global currency manipulation by next year would create 
254,000 jobs--up to 75,900 in manufacturing; reduce Ohio's unemployment 
rate by nearly 3 percentage points; increase Ohio's GDP by up to $17.4 
billion; and improve the fiscal position of Ohio's State and local 
governments altogether by up to $3.7 billion. That is only Ohio. It 
doesn't

[[Page 8791]]

count Connecticut; it doesn't count Arizona; it doesn't count the other 
47 States. That is why we are urging the administration to be more 
aggressive and level the playing field for American workers and 
businesses.
  We should pass my bipartisan legislation with Senators Sessions, 
Graham, Stabenow, Hagan, and others, which would treat currency 
manipulation as an unfair trade subsidy and require the Commerce 
Department to investigate currency manipulation.
  It is also why we must urge China to comply with the World Trade 
Organization commitments and fully and faithfully implement all the WTO 
rulings against it.
  The U.S. Trade Representative's report paints a sobering picture of 
the Chinese state's efforts to intervene in the economy and unfairly 
help China's businesses despite its WTO commitments that it wouldn't do 
that. China still has not agreed to the procurement agreement from WTO. 
By not doing so, our businesses miss out on the opportunity to compete 
for potentially $100 billion a year in contracts. In other words, China 
won't let us sell into their country in many cases because they don't 
follow the WTO procurement agreement.
  Another issue noted by the USTR is China's imposition of retaliatory 
duties against countries bringing WTO cases against it. One case 
involving grain-oriented electrical steel--and I was speaking to an 
executive at AK Steel, David Horn, an executive at AK Steel in 
southwest Ohio--China not only lost in a WTO challenge but now appears 
to not comply with the ruling. The continued imposition of these duties 
even after WTO ruled against it has caused significant harm to 
companies such as AK Steel, as I mentioned, which is based in West 
Chester, OH.
  The issue of retaliation figured prominently in the latest cyber 
espionage cases brought by the Department of Justice. Several American 
companies and the steelworkers union that were targeted were taking 
part in trade cases to challenge China's unfair trade practices.
  China tries to intimidate our companies and they try to intimidate 
the U.S. Government from holding them accountable to international and 
U.S. laws. Living up to their trade obligations and promoting the rule 
of law in China not only benefits American companies, American workers, 
and American local communities, it also benefits the Chinese people.
  There are already examples of Chinese companies willing to play by 
the rules. I applaud the announcement that Fuyao Glass Industry Group, 
a Chinese producer of auto safety items, has finalized its agreement to 
buy the former General Motors plant in Moraine, OH, a Dayton suburb. It 
is an example of how fair trade and foreign direct investment going 
both ways can benefit the Chinese, a Chinese company, and create 800 
new jobs in Ohio. But to truly have a fair trading relationship, there 
must be a level playing field. That means playing by international 
rules.
  This brings me to my final point. If China continues to manipulate 
its currency, cheating American workers, cheating American businesses, 
refuses to abide by WTO rules, is now accused of stealing trade secrets 
from American companies and unions, why in the world would this Senate 
even consider and why would the President consider entering into a 
bilateral investment treaty with China? Have we not learned?
  In 1999, the year 2000, we passed permanent normal trade relations 
with China. Many of these issues were aired then. China said they would 
follow the rule of law. China said they would do it right. China hasn't 
followed the rule of law. China hasn't done it right. China hasn't 
played fair. So we are considering entering into a bilateral investment 
treaty with China? I don't think so.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 394

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 88, S. 394, the Metal 
Theft Prevention Act; that the bill be read a third time and passed; 
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the theft of 
valuable metal is a serious crime, one that can damage valuable 
infrastructure--sometimes government infrastructure--and it can cause 
serious harm to businesses and to the owners of the infrastructure at 
issue. For this reason, many States, including my own State of Utah, 
have enacted measures that deter such criminal activity and punish 
harshly those who engage in this type of criminal activity. These 
measures are generally appropriate, but where the Federal Government 
enacts legislation creating criminal penalties, we as lawmakers must be 
careful to respect the Constitution's enumerated powers and the 
constitutionally ordained structure of federalism.
  I have heard concerns expressed regarding people who steal valuable 
metal and cross State lines to sell stolen metal. While I would support 
Federal legislation addressed to such truly interstate, unavoidably 
national circumstances, I cannot support legislation that more broadly 
regulates intrastate conduct.
  Because this bill exceeds Congress's power under the commerce clause 
and imposes a Federal regulatory scheme in an area of the law the 
Constitution properly reserves to the States, I must object to the 
Senate passing it by unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I appreciate hearing Senator Lee's 
objection. I do believe this is an issue that has been delayed for too 
long. The bill passed the Judiciary Committee by voice vote last June. 
Yet businesses, communities, and individuals continue to be victimized.
  This is a bipartisan bill. This is legislation that has been 
introduced with Senator Graham of South Carolina, with Senator Hoeven 
of North Dakota--two Republicans--as well as Senator Schumer and 
Senator Coons. As I noted, it passed the Judiciary Committee. Yet we 
still have objections from the other side--people who are holding up 
this bill. At the same time, metal theft continues to rise across the 
country.
  This bill does not create the kind of burdens my friend mentioned. 
This bill is very narrow. The only crime it creates for a Federal crime 
is a crime of theft of critical infrastructure--critical 
infrastructure, something that could threaten the national security--
and this is not a far reach, given we have seen people stealing copper 
pipes, given we have seen houses blow up. So it is not a far reach at 
all.
  Secondly, what does this bill do? It leaves it to States to decide 
what metal theft laws they want. In the end, it does not preempt those 
laws. If States have laws that are on point, if they have laws relating 
to metal theft that create some kind of a requirement that not 
everything can be paid for by cash so law enforcement can actually 
track this, then we have a situation where that State law would govern.
  It is not an overly burdensome law. In fact, many States are adopting 
these kinds of laws. Our problem is there are some States that refuse 
to adopt these kinds of laws. So people are stealing metal from places 
such as Minnesota and bringing it to those States--to scrap metal 
dealerships that are accepting that metal and that don't have to report 
any kind of information to the police and don't have to have any 
recordkeeping.
  We have a national problem. If you don't believe me, listen to this 
story. Just last week, in my home State, metal thieves robbed dozens of 
veterans' graves--veterans' graves as we are approaching Memorial Day. 
What did they do? They took the brass rods that hold their symbol of 
service.
  People want to tell me this isn't a problem? People are stealing 
stars on veterans' graves and they are stealing the brass rods that 
hold their symbols of service. Just when families are gathered for 
Memorial Day, we have metal

[[Page 8792]]

thieves wreaking havoc because they can go to some scrap metal dealer 
that isn't following the law and sell it and no one is going to keep 
track of who they are.
  This is a crime. This is a crime, and it is not the first time. On 
Memorial Day in 2012, thieves stole more than 200 Bronze Star markers 
from veterans' graves in Isanti County, MN.
  So I ask my colleagues who are holding up the bill how they explain 
defending this kind of practice and allowing it to continue, when this 
metal is being taken because it is valuable and it can be brought to 
scrap metal dealers that aren't following the law.
  Metal thieves have become infamous for shameless acts such as this. 
These thieves will stop at nothing to get this high-priced metal and 
make a quick buck. Last month thieves stole the aluminum wheelchair 
ramp from the front steps of a man's house in Washington, stranding the 
man inside.
  Enough is enough. Are our friends going to be listening to some scrap 
metal dealers when most of them follow the law, but clearly some don't 
want to follow the law; is that what we are listening to in this 
Chamber? Are we going to listen to the veterans of this country? Are we 
going to listen to the police groups?
  By the way, this bill has been endorsed by the Major Cities Chiefs of 
Police, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Major County Sheriffs' 
Association. So I ask, are we going to listen to those groups or are we 
going to listen to the scrap metal lobby?
  In Minneapolis, thieves have targeted the city's oldest continuously 
used church. First, they stole the copper downspouts. Then they came 
back to steal two air-conditioners and gut the copper supply lines to 
the kitchen freezers. Before the church even had time to replace the 
stolen air-conditioners, the thieves came back a third time to steal a 
third air-conditioner and gut the newly replaced copper lines. 
Replacing the stolen items and installing security fixtures has cost 
the parish thousands of dollars that could have otherwise been spent on 
the good work of the church.
  These thefts have cost the parish more than money, it has also cost a 
tradition. This church has been serving French meat pies since the late 
1800s, but this year they had to cancel it because of the thieves.
  Last winter at a recreation center in St. Paul, MN, thieves stole 
$20,000 worth of pipe from the outdoor ice rink, causing the center to 
close until local businesses donated labor and materials to make the 
repairs--$20,000 worth of pipe. The problem is the replacement is much 
more than $20,000. It was hundreds of thousands of dollars because they 
have to repair the whole ice rink.
  In Rochester, MN, I met with local businesses that have been robbed 
by metal thieves--one local business 12 times in just the past 2 years 
and has suffered more than $150,000 in losses, similar to the story 
Senator Hoeven and I heard when we met with electric companies in Fargo 
and in Moorhead. During one of the robberies in Rochester, thieves even 
stole a truck with the company logo on it and then used the truck to 
rob other construction sites without raising suspicion.
  Across the country, copper thieves have targeted construction sites, 
power and phone lines, retail stores and vacant houses. They have 
caused explosions in vacant buildings by stealing metal from gas lines, 
and they have caused blackouts by stealing copper wiring from street 
lights and electrical substations. Do you know why? Because they have a 
willing buyer. They have people who are willing to buy their stuff and 
will not even take the care of keeping records and taking checks so law 
enforcement can later investigate who they are.
  These next examples show how dangerous metal thefts can be. Last 
October four people were injured in an explosion at a University of 
California-Berkeley electrical station. Officials blamed it on copper 
theft that occurred 2 hours before the explosion. The copper is stolen, 
the pipes don't work, the workers turn it on, and there is an explosion 
and four people injured.
  Georgia Power was having a huge problem with thieves targeting a 
substation that feeds the entire Atlanta airport--one of the busiest 
airports in the world, the Delta hub. The airport was getting hit two 
to three times a week and surveillance didn't lead to any arrests.
  This is a crime that knows no borders, no boundaries. It happens in 
cities, it happens in suburbs, and it happens certainly in rural areas. 
Depending on the case, it threatens public safety, weakens our 
infrastructure, and undermines our businesses.
  The impact is staggering. In one study, the U.S. Department of Energy 
found the total cost to industries affected by copper theft would 
exceed over $900 million every single year--$900 million every single 
year. Between 2010 and 2012 the National Insurance Crime Bureau 
identified nearly 34,000 insurance claims related to metal theft. To 
put that number in perspective, it marked a 36-percent increase from 
the 25,000 claims reported between 2009 to 2011. That 25,000 number was 
more than an 80-percent increase from the previous reporting period.
  Listen to who is supporting this bill, and then I ask my colleague: 
Are you going to listen to these businesses or are you going to listen 
to the scrap metal dealers?
  Air Conditioning Contractors of America, supporting the bill, 
American Public Power Association, supporting the bill, American Supply 
Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, CenturyLink, Edison 
Electric Institute, Heating, Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration 
Distributors, the Home Depot, International Council of Shopping 
Centers, Independent Electrical Contractors, Independent Telephone and 
Telecommunications Alliance, Lowe's Companies, Inc., National 
Association of Electrical Distributors, National Association of Home 
Builders, National Electrical Contractors Association, National Retail 
Federation, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Retail 
Industry Leaders Association, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning 
Contractors' National Association, Inc., United States Telecom 
Association, Windstream Corporation, XO Communications.
  I could go on and on. These are mainstream businesses on Main Street 
that support this bill because they are getting ripped off.
  So what can we do about it? We know why it is happening; that is, 
because there is a global demand for copper, especially from China and 
India, and higher prices encourage thieves to steal copper and other 
metals. We all know the vast majority of scrap metal dealers are 
legitimate and law-abiding. They do not want to buy stolen property. I 
have worked extensively with the scrap metal industry in my 
legislation. We have made some changes they suggested in order to 
improve the effectiveness of the bill and lessen the burden on scrap 
metal dealers wherever possible.
  Given the scale of the problem, I believe we have to take strong 
steps to fight these crimes and give law enforcement the tools they 
need. I worry that at some point we are going to have a major break in 
our Federal infrastructure and everyone will look back and wonder why 
they listened to some lobbyist representing the scrap metal dealers 
instead of all these businesses I mentioned and instead of the police. 
They will look back to this moment.
  Maybe they could at least listen to the beer dealers. They support 
this bill because their kegs are getting stolen all over the country.
  What does our bill do? First of all, it puts modest recordkeeping 
requirements on the recyclers that buy scrap metal, limiting the value 
of cash transactions, and requiring sellers in certain States to prove 
they actually own the metal.
  The bill also makes it a Federal crime to steal metals from critical 
infrastructure and directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review 
relevant penalties.
  Our intention is not to preempt State laws, so if a State already has 
laws on the books regarding metal theft, they would still apply and the 
Federal law would not.
  These criminals work across State lines--we know that--and they take

[[Page 8793]]

advantage of States without this type of law. This bill is intended to 
fill the gap in States that don't have these protections. My people are 
getting ripped off in Minnesota because some States don't have laws. 
This is a Federal crime, and it is a Federal problem.
  The shameless--shameless--robberies of veterans' graves make clear we 
can't just let this go anymore. It is time to pass this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                                Earmarks

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of talk lately 
about earmarks. Some Members are even talking about bringing them back.
  I grew up earmarking. I grew up on a ranch, where we earmarked 
cattle. That is where earmarking gets its name. I didn't think much of 
the practice then. We already had a brand on the critter. An earmark 
seemed to be redundant. After a while, we didn't do it any more.
  Then I came to Congress--first in the House and now in the Senate--
and I had hoped not to be earmarking any more. But when I got to the 
House I found out the practice was not just prolific but rampant, so I 
come here today, after hearing some people want to bring the practice 
back--after we had the moratorium placed a couple years ago--and urge 
caution. Let me explain a few reasons why.
  One reason we lamented the absence of earmarks was the saying: 
Earmarks are the glue that helps legislation get passed.
  I would say it is a little more accurate to say: Earmarks usually 
represent the lard that allows earmarks to squeeze through the door and 
get through to the President's desk.
  Senator Tom Coburn has spoken often about earmarks. I think he at one 
point said the best statement ever made about earmarks: They are the 
gateway drug to spending addiction.
  Earmarks are usually small items, but they lead to massive spending 
overall. They leverage greater spending. Once you get an earmark in a 
bill, you usually vote for that bill no matter how big it becomes. We 
had years and years of that, and we shouldn't return to it.
  But now earmark fans have a new argument--spending oversight. They 
say we can provide better oversight when we earmark; we will keep 
better track of that spending.
  They argue that Congress is derelict in its article 1 constitutional 
responsibilities, the power-of-the-purse argument: By not allowing 
earmarks, we are somehow derelict in our duty. That is an interesting 
argument which we ought to explore for a minute.
  The same people who will defend earmarking as a constitutional right 
and responsibility will also note: Don't worry, it is only 1 percent or 
less than 1 percent of all Federal spending.
  But think about that for a minute. If it is our constitutional 
responsibility, why would we stop at 1 percent? That is not a valid 
argument at all. If it is constitutional, for our constitutional 
responsibility, shouldn't more than 1 percent be earmarked?
  When we look at when earmarks were here, they were never evenly 
spaced. Every Member of Congress in the House and the Senate has the 
same constitutional right, I would assume. But with earmarks, committee 
chairs or those on the appropriate committees get the lion's share of 
the earmarks when rank-and-file members get far fewer. So the 
constitutional argument is specious at best.
  I do share a concern that Congress has ceded to agency bureaucrats 
and administration officials much of our discretion over spending 
decisions. The culprit is not a lack of earmarks but the lack of 
oversight opportunities. The problem is we haven't gone through regular 
order for a long time.
  Right here in the Senate is the perfect example. We have only had 
nine votes on Republican amendments in this Senate Chamber since July. 
Nine votes. This is the most deliberative body in the world. The 
hallmark of this body is an open amendment process, open debate--
unlimited debate. Yet we have only had nine Republican amendments 
rollcalled in the Senate Chamber since last July. That is no way to 
provide oversight. We have to get back to regular order if we want to 
have oversight.
  We have a pretty dismal record lately on appropriations bills. We 
have become addicted to continuing resolutions, so-called CRs.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, between fiscal year 
1977 and fiscal year 2014, in all that 30-year period there were only 4 
years where all appropriations bills were enacted on time, and in only 
one other year were more than half of them completed on time. The last 
year Congress actually moved through all the appropriations bills and 
did it on time was 1997. That is the problem we are having with 
oversight: When we don't authorize and pass appropriations bills one by 
one, we lose the ability to conduct oversight over the Federal agencies 
and over Federal spending in general. Since then, there has been an 
average of six CRs per year. This year will be no different.
  I will consider some of the arguments.
  We are often told this is a way we can have a check on the agencies. 
But what we have seen in the past is that when we earmark, the bulk of 
the time spent by the Appropriations Committee is not spent in doing 
oversight but is spent in doling out earmarks.
  The last year we had earmarks, 2009, there were 9,000 earmarks in 1 
Omnibus appropriations bill. What was the Appropriations Committee 
doing for months prior to that? Most of their time and staff's time--
time that should have been spent on the other 99 percent of Federal 
spending--was spent securing that 1 percent of Federal spending that 
constituted earmarks for the Members. So we are not exercising 
oversight with earmarks. We are abdicating our responsibility and 
spending far too much time on these earmarks.
  There are 43 Members of the Senate who are in their first 6 years in 
this body, myself included. I happened to have spent some time in the 
House, so I have some perspective there. For those who haven't seen the 
appropriations process with earmarks, I think it is useful to take a 
little walk down memory lane and see what it was like in years past.
  Jack Abramoff, who spent some time in prison for working the 
appropriations process pretty well, called the Appropriations Committee 
the earmark favor factory. That I don't think has been seriously 
refuted by anyone. That is what the Appropriations Committees became 
during that time--earmark favor factories.
  It is worth remembering some of the earmarks that finally galvanized 
the country against them: the Bridge to Nowhere; the indoor rainforest 
in Iowa. We could go on and on. I went to the House floor myself 
several hundred times over the period of a couple of years to challenge 
these individual spending projects.
  In 2008, there was a lobbying firm founded by a former Appropriations 
Committee staffer that specialized in getting particularly defense 
earmarks from the Appropriations Committee. The FBI finally got wind of 
some of this and started to investigate. Politico reported that sources 
within the FBI indicated they were ``conducting research on earmarks 
and campaign contributions.'' While they did so, this investigation 
commenced and within weeks the firm imploded.
  According to analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, clients of the 
firm received at least $299 million in earmarks. The firm or 
individuals from the firm made campaign contributions of more than $3 
million to nearly 300 elected officials.
  ABC News said at the time of the firm's operation: Millions out to 
lawmakers, hundreds of millions back in the form of earmarks for 
clients, have made it for many observers the poster child for tacit 
pay-to-play politics.
  I don't think we want to go back to that time. News reports every day 
were looking at the link between earmarks and campaign contributions. 
There was a smack of corruption there.
  As I said, as soon as the FBI turned its attention to this firm doing 
a lot of this earmarking, it imploded almost overnight and went away. 
There was

[[Page 8794]]

great public distrust in the process, and well there should have been.
  At that time I remember going to the House floor and offering over a 
series of weeks nine separate privileged resolutions asking for the 
Ethics Committee to look at that relationship between campaign 
contributions and earmarks.
  Let me take this time to say this is not a partisan issue. 
Republicans as well as Democrats over years past participated in this 
process of earmarking with equal abandon. I am not pointing the finger 
at either party. There are Members of both parties who seek to return 
to the practice. But we ought to remember that it wasn't good for this 
institution. For those who say we ought to go back to it, I don't 
understand. I would argue it doesn't give us any better oversight 
because we spend all of our time actually earmarking projects rather 
than providing oversight over the other 99 percent of government 
funding.
  There is no constitutional requirement. And, frankly, if it is just 1 
percent of all spending, how can we argue it is our constitutional 
responsibility? Why wouldn't we be earmarking more of it? I don't know 
how the corruption that comes with it is avoided.
  Members may say it will be better now than it was before--names will 
be attached to earmarks. We will have total transparency. The 
investigation of this firm and others happened when there was 
transparency, when names were attached to earmarks. That didn't help. 
The corruption continued. There is no way to police this process 
adequately when we earmark in that way.
  I encourage my colleagues, when we hear Members pining for the old 
days when we earmarked, remember that Congress went for decades and 
decades with maybe one here or one there on the margins. It was only in 
those last couple of decades, the 1990s through about 2010, where we 
had a rampant corrupt process which I would argue we wouldn't want to 
return to. So let's think twice before doing that.


                                 WRRDA

  Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the Water Resources Reform 
and Development Act before the Senate for a vote tomorrow. To call 
WRRDA, as it is called, an expansive bill is an understatement.
  This single piece of legislation would impact the Nation's harbors, 
waterways, shorelines, infrastructure, and of course it will impact the 
budget for many years to come. Yet all the talk around the bill before 
us today seems to focus on what has thankfully been left out of its 
pages--the very topic I have just been discussing--earmarks.
  No doubt this reform-minded WRRDA is a step in the right direction, 
and I applaud my colleagues in the House and in the Senate who have 
been able to move a bill without earmarks. It is a real accomplishment, 
as it should be done.
  That said, I do have many concerns about the bill. My chief concern 
is the process by which infrastructure projects will be authorized. 
Simply put, just because it doesn't have earmarks doesn't mean it will 
be a good process for the taxpayers.
  Under this legislation, non-Federal interests will have authority to 
propose projects that meet broadly defined goals to the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers. Once the Corps confirms that these projects have met 
these broadly defined goals, they will be included in a report to 
Congress that will serve as a de facto authorization bill for 
feasibility studies, and then on the conveyor belt to the chief's 
report and ultimately to construction.
  It seems to me that, in order to be effective, this process relies on 
things that are either entirely unlikely or things we haven't seen 
before. It relies on State and local governments, for example, on being 
judicious on what they request from the Corps. Instead, I suspect we 
will see a virtual tsunami of requests flooding in.
  It requires the Corps to be selective in what it ultimately embraces 
as worthy projects.
  This again is an agency that has a reputation of never meeting a 
project that it didn't want to build.
  It will require Members of Congress to ultimately be willing to cross 
projects off a list to prevent taxpayer dollars from going to them. I 
think we can all be realistic about the chances of that happening.
  During the process of this bill moving forward, I suggested Congress 
ought to give the process some statutory sidebars to ensure that only 
worthy projects make it through the stringent cost-benefit ratio 
requirement and tight criteria for what will and will not be reviewed. 
In addition to making sure the projects themselves are actually worth 
constructing, a limited budget means that some prioritization will be 
necessary. I believe it would be prudent to include statutory 
priorities. Unfortunately, these were not included.
  So my concern remains that this process will put us in the same 
position we have been in recently: Faced with sizable backlogs of 
authorized Corps projects for varying worthiness, appropriators will be 
in the position to pick and choose which of those get funded. Again, 
just because something isn't earmarked doesn't mean it benefits 
taxpayers. My hope is that once we see how it plays out, Congress will 
be willing to adjust this process. As it stands now, while I sincerely 
congratulate those involved for working diligently to move forward in a 
manner consistent with the earmark moratorium we have, I will not be 
supporting the WRRDA conference report.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I have come directly to the Senate 
floor from a terrific event in the Dirksen building where hundreds of 
people who are concerned about what the carbon pollution is doing to 
our atmosphere and oceans gathered to wake up Congress. At 5 o'clock a 
whole bunch of alarms went off down there, and it was a very exciting, 
very enthusiastic moment with more than 40 members of Congress showing 
up to reflect our commitment to getting this done.
  One of the things I told people at the rally was that we are close to 
turning this issue around. The barricade of special interest propaganda 
that has surrounded Congress is eroding. The denial castle is built on 
sand and the sand is eroding the foundations for that propaganda, 
washing out from underneath it, and it will collapse soon. Why do I say 
that? I say that for several reasons.
  The first reason that I believe we are close to a win is that for a 
long time the big polluters have had a free shot at the atmosphere and 
oceans. Pollution costs them nothing, and that has created a mindset of 
entitlement and it created a mindset in which pollution was viewed as 
of no consequence. Thankfully, the President of the United States has 
required the EPA to promulgate regulations that will for the first time 
put a price on the carbon pollution that is emitted from our biggest 
power plants, and the 50 biggest power plants in America put out more 
carbon than Korea. They put out more carbon than Canada. So this is a 
very serious situation. When they are faced with the regulation, I 
think that is not just going to reduce their emissions, but it is going 
to change the way they see the problem, and they will be motivated in a 
new way to think: ``Wait a minute; what is the best way to solve this 
problem?'' Once they are no longer free to pollute, once the advantage 
is taken away, the whole equation changes for them, and I suspect that 
it will not take long between a polluter change in point of view and a 
change in point of view on the other side of the aisle in the Senate.
  The second reason is the politics on this. We have seen a recent poll 
that I have talked about on the floor before that points out that 
Republican voters--self-identified Republican voters--if they are under 
the age of 35 think that climate denial is--not my words, but in the 
words in the poll--ignorant, out of touch or crazy.
  So if you are a modern political party and you have built your 
climate change policy on a theory of denial that your own youth cohort, 
your own young voters under 35 think is ignorant, out of touch, or 
crazy, that is what I mean by a castle that is built on sand and that 
is doomed to fall.
  The third reason I want to mention here is there is a very 
significant role

[[Page 8795]]

for America's corporations because what you get in this body from the 
so-called self-appointed corporate mouthpieces--the Wall Street Journal 
editorial page, the so-called U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National 
Association of Manufacturers--what you get from all of them is flat out 
climate denial, the absolute hard stuff--just complete denial, absolute 
ignorance and ignoring of the science, totally in the tank with the 
polluters and the oil and coal industry. What is interesting is that 
actually doesn't represent the views of America's corporate community, 
and it doesn't represent them by a lot.
  If you look at big brand name American corporations, if you look at 
Coke and Pepsi, if you look at Apple and Google, if you look at WalMart 
and Target, if you look at Mars and Nestle, UPS and Federal Express, GM 
and Ford, look at the entire casualty property insurance industry, look 
at the bulk of the electric utility industry, look at the entire green 
energy sector, all of them know that climate change is a real problem, 
understand the undeniable science of what carbon pollution does to the 
Earth's atmosphere and to our oceans, and they are doing things about 
it.
  They have sustainability policies. They have climate policies. 
WalMart has probably done more to get rid of the incandescent bulb than 
any other force on the planet. They are very strong on this issue. But 
within those great corporations, it tends to be cabined into their 
corporate business and sustainability divisions. It hasn't really 
influenced yet the way they communicate with the public, and it 
certainly hasn't influenced much their government relations. So there 
is a huge mismatch between the so-called voice of the corporate 
community, which is really a polluter-paid propaganda effort coming 
through the Wall Street Journal, coming through the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, and coming through the National Association of 
Manufacturers--a huge difference between that and what the underlying 
leaders of what regular Americans think of as the American corporate 
community believe. That difference is eventually--like these other 
forces--going to tear apart the foundation of the denial castle.
  We have the chance to make this happen and to make this happen soon, 
and we need to. We absolutely need to. The Presiding Officer is the 
senior Senator from Connecticut, a State which borders mine. 
Connecticut and Rhode Island share a critical factor, which is 
coastline. If you follow the logic, such logic as exists in the denial 
machinery, they will take you off into distant and complex computer 
models of what the temperature is going to be and what the atmosphere 
is going to be like 30 or 40 years from now. And yes, that is 
complicated. In that area there is room to sow confusion.
  Come to the coast. At the coastline you see sea levels rising because 
of an immutable law of nature called the law of thermal expansion. The 
ocean is warming because it has caught more than 90 percent of the 
excess heat that the carbon has trapped, and when it warms, it expands.
  It is as simple as that. That means when you go to my State to the 
Newport tide gauge off the Naval Station Newport, you see it is 10 
inches higher than it was in the 1930s. That is a big deal because in 
the 1930s we had the hurricane of 1938. And if you look back at the 
devastation that hurricane caused to our coastline and you adjust for 
what 10 additional inches of sea would do and adjust again for stacking 
up that 10 inches in what a storm surge would do, you end up with a 
truly apocalyptic vision of the Rhode Island shore, and it is not 
deniable.
  You cannot quarrel about a tide gauge. It is in effect a yardstick 
nailed to a dock, and the water has gone up 10 inches. To deny that is 
not just to deny science; it is to deny measurement. I think it is a 
bit of a stretch for even the most ardent of my denier colleagues to 
deny measurement. With a thermometer you measure that Narragansett Bay 
is nearly 4 degrees warmer in mean winter water temperature, and that 
means a lot for fishermen who used to fish for winter flounder. It 
doesn't take a very complicated test to determine what the acidity of 
the ocean is and to measure just the way you would measure the acidity 
in an aquarium. Our oceans are acidifying at the fastest rate that has 
been measured in 50 million years.
  Remember we are a species that has been on this planet as Homo 
sapiens for a little over 200,000 years. So when you are talking about 
the steepest rate of acidification in millions of years, that is a 
dramatic shift in the habitability of our planet. If you want to know 
who that matters to, go to the west coast, go to the oyster fisheries 
and look at the wipe-out of young oyster species that took place when 
acidified ocean water got into the growing oysters and killed them all 
off. It was simply too acidic for their little shells to survive.
  These are the harbingers of things to come. These are the undeniable 
facts. These are the truths the oceans tell us and our coastlines tell 
us. For all those reasons, I am confident that we will be at serious 
business to address climate change a lot sooner than the deniers think. 
The American public simply is not going to put up with a Congress that 
has become the prisoner to a barricade of special interest propaganda 
when they know better. Now the American people do, indeed, know better.
  I yield the floor, 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________