[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10147-10159]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




NOMINATION OF PETER JOSEPH KADZIK TO BE AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, time 
will be charged equally to both sides.
  The Senator from Idaho.


                  Tribute to Leonard N. ``Bud'' Purdy

  Mr. RISCH. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of 
Idaho's legendary ranchers and conservationists, Leonard N. Purdy, who 
was known to all of us as Bud Purdy. Bud passed away on April 14, at 
the age of 96, at his home on Silver Creek in Picabo, ID.
  Bud never called himself a cowboy, but when I think of an Idaho 
cowboy, Bud is the one who frequently comes to mind. As many have said, 
he was the definition of the values we attribute to cowboys--hard work, 
common sense, persistence, determination, faith in others, honesty, 
and, to me, a true friend. Bud demonstrated these every day in life on 
the ranch, at the store and the grain businesses he owned, and 
especially among family, friends, and in the community.
  I think the love of ranching was just in his blood, an inherited 
trait. After graduating from Washington State University in Pullman, 
Bud went to work on his grandfather's ranch. He worked his way up to 
managing the Picabo Ranch and then he bought it. He also bought the 
Picabo Store and Silver Creek Supply--a grain elevator and seed 
business.
  Bud was known by all for his love of the cattle industry. He enjoyed 
moving cattle, riding the fences, and moving and checking water, some 
of which he did long after most would have retired. He was a real Idaho 
cowboy. In fact, Bud helped get the Idaho Cattle Association started, 
where he served as president and was a longtime member of the board.
  Bud was one of the larger-than-life Idahoans who helped make the Gem 
State a great place to live, work, and play. Working the land for 
livestock grazing, Bud recognized the value of conserving for future 
generations, so some 20 years ago he donated a 3,500-acre conservation 
easement along Silver Creek to the Nature Conservancy--a contribution 
valued at $7 million. Yet Bud--true to his character--did not even take 
the associated tax deduction.
  Clearly, like he valued the land, Bud valued Idaho. He had natural 
leadership talent which was called on time and again in community and 
industry organizations. He served on the Idaho Rangeland Committee and 
the National Bureau of Land Management Advisory Council. Bud also gave 
time to foundations of the University of Idaho and College of Southern 
Idaho and the Blaine County Medical Center. In addition, he helped 
raise funds for the new St. Luke's Hospital. Bud also helped establish 
the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, where he also served as 
chairman. IACI, as it is known, is a strong and well-respected group 
fostering business interests in Idaho.
  Amazingly, Bud found time for hunting, skiing, fishing, and flying. 
Among those he hosted, hunted, and skied with were Ernest Hemingway, 
Jimmy Stewart, and Gary Cooper--all frequent visitors to his ranch on 
Silver Creek.
  Flying became a passion. He checked the ranch from the air and 
piloted to many meetings across the State and Nation. As late as last 
year, he and his son Nick flew to California to attend a meeting. At 
the time of Bud's passing, he was the second oldest pilot in Idaho. He 
once told me he hoped he could fly long enough to be the oldest pilot 
in Idaho. Unfortunately, he didn't quite make it. But if there are 
planes in Heaven, Bud is definitely flying one today.
  Among the many honors and awards Bud received were an induction into 
the Idaho Hall of Fame, an honorary doctorate in range science from the 
University of Idaho, the Idaho Statesman Distinguished Citizens Award, 
and serving as grand marshal of the 2013 Ketchum Wagon Days Parade.
  As busy as he was, Bud was always a family man. He and his first wife 
Maxine Dahl had three children--Nick, Mark, and Kris. Nick continues 
the family ranching legacy. In 1952 Bud married Ruth Eccles. Her son 
Gordon helped manage the Picabo Store. Throughout the years, Bud 
employed other family members as well. In fact, you could say the town 
of Picabo is successfully run and managed by the Purdy family.
  Idaho has lost one of its most beloved and respected citizens, but 
Idaho and our great Nation are better places for the accomplishments 
and contributions of Bud Purdy. The legacy he leaves the world is one 
we all would do well to emulate.
  Bud, a grateful Idaho and nation will miss you.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Border Security

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am returning to the Senate floor to 
talk once again about the wave of migrant children who are coming 
across the U.S.-Mexican border unaccompanied by adults. So far this 
year, since October, 47,000 unaccompanied minors have been detained at 
the border, most of them coming not from Mexico, which obviously is 
closer to the United States, but from as far away as Central America 
and beyond.
  To put this in some context, from Guatemala City, Guatemala, to 
McAllen, TX, is roughly a trip of 1200 miles. I have spoken many times 
and I will continue to speak to anyone who will listen about the 
horrific and dangerous conditions these children and other migrants 
travel just to get to the United States. Thousands of migrant children, 
almost all of whom come from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and 
Mexico are currently being held in U.S. military facilities such as 
Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, TX. While Federal, State, and 
local officials try to figure out, No. 1, who they are--find out what 
their identity is, because many of them show up without any 
identification--they try to figure out, well, do they have any 
relatives here in the United States or possible legal guardians? Then 
they have to decide what to do with them while their cases are being 
processed. Obviously since the majority of them come from countries 
other than Mexico, they cannot just be turned back, particularly in the 
case of minor children, some of whom have been reported to be as young 
as 5 years old. The average age is roughly 14 years old, but still when 
I describe, as I will today and will continue to do, the horrific 
conditions under which these migrant children travel from Mexico and up 
from Central America, no one in their right mind would want to have 
their child subjected to that sort of potential and reality of abuse 
and mistreatment.
  I am glad the President has asked Vice President Joe Biden to travel 
to Central America, but I worry that so far I haven't heard any plan 
whatsoever that would stop the flow of these unaccompanied children 
from Central America and Mexico.
  As you can imagine, this is a bureaucratic nightmare, trying to 
figure out how to deal with this mass of humanity coming across the 
border. In fact, the Border Patrol is spending so much time trying to 
take care of the humanitarian crisis that they are neglecting some of 
their principal responsibilities, which are to stem the flow of illegal 
immigration and drugs across the border. So this is diverting law 
enforcement from its assigned role just to deal with the temporary 
crisis. At least I hope it is temporary.
  The authorities in South Texas and the Rio Grande Valley do not have 
the

[[Page 10148]]

resources or the manpower to handle such a massive influx of 
unaccompanied children. In terms of the children who have been released 
from U.S. custody, we still don't know how many of their ``temporary 
guardians'' are themselves illegal immigrants. We don't know because I 
assume there is not a background check conducted on them. I hope I am 
wrong. But I hope we don't find out that some of these unaccompanied 
minors are being turned over to relatives who are themselves perhaps 
criminals or sex offenders. In other words, we have no idea, because 
the President has not spoken out, what kind of plan there is to make 
sure of the conditions these children are living in or what sort of 
potential abuse they might suffer. It is an awful situation any way you 
look at it.
  What makes it even more outrageous is it is directly the result of 
the impression that President Obama is uninterested in enforcing our 
immigration laws, specifically his refusal to enforce and his granting 
of so-called deferred action programs he announced in the Rose Garden 2 
years ago.
  To be fair to the President and the Senators who voted for the Senate 
immigration bill, it would have, if signed into law, granted a deferred 
action for a certain class of minors, so-called DREAM Act kids. But 
none of these children entering the country currently qualify or would 
qualify for either the President's deferred action order that he issued 
unilaterally or the Senate-passed DREAM Act provisions. So we know they 
are entering in violation of American law, but there are no negative 
consequences associated with it as long as they are basically 
accommodated in the United States.
  As a result, the number of children entering the country, together 
with the number of adults, is simply skyrocketing. As I said 
previously, to start with, it was estimated that 47,000 have been 
detained so far this year, and that this entire calendar year there 
will be as many as 60,000. Next year the numbers are expected to double 
to 120,000 children.
  The fact is this is not just affecting States such as Texas, a border 
State, or even Arizona or California. This is affecting States such as 
Virginia, Maryland, Oklahoma, and other places where the Federal 
Government is simply looking for a place to warehouse these children 
while it figures out what to do with them.
  Of course, the ensuing crisis has prompted a fresh debate over 
security conditions at the U.S.-Mexican border. As the debate goes 
forward, it is worth considering exactly what we mean when we talk 
about border security, because I fear it is a term that is often 
misunderstood.
  Border security is not just about catching people along the Rio 
Grande or checkpoints in places such as Falfurrias or Sarita, it is 
also about deterring potential illegal immigrants from starting out 
from their home country on such a dangerous journey in the first place. 
My friend Congressman Henry Cuellar from Laredo said, for example, when 
you play football you don't just defend at the goal line; you start 20 
yards from the goal line, you start at midfield and on the other team's 
turf. So we need to make sure we have a comprehensive approach and a 
plan to deal with illegal immigration into the country, as I said, 
hopefully with the goal in large part of deterring parents from turning 
their children over to the hands of the drug cartels and other 
transnational criminal gangs and sending them on this perilous and 
horrific journey north to the United States.
  This journey from Central America to southern Mexico to the U.S. 
border is one of the most dangerous journeys anywhere in the world. 
Indeed, every single corridor is controlled by transnational criminal 
drug organizations, including drug smugglers and cartels. They prey on 
the weakest and most vulnerable people they find. They will rob them, 
they will sexually assault them, they will kill them if need be in 
order to suit their purposes. Not surprisingly, the ongoing surge of 
Central American migrants has been an absolute gift to the Mexican drug 
cartels and their gangland affiliates. As an Austin-based immigration 
lawyer told the L.A. Times recently: ``The smugglers are milking this 
situation for all it's worth.'' This is money in the bank for the drug 
cartels and the human smugglers, the people who prey on the most 
vulnerable people who are smuggled in from Central America and Mexico 
to the United States. That is how they make their money. That is their 
business model, so to speak.
  President Obama has often defended his immigration policies as a 
humane response to a broken system. I would be among the first to 
acknowledge that America's immigration system is indeed broken, but 
there is nothing humane about incentivizing people who risk their lives 
and their children's lives by traveling through the most dangerous 
smuggling corridors in the Western Hemisphere. There is nothing humane 
about incentivizing people to pay human traffickers for transportation 
through Mexico.
  Yet when the administration deliberately refuses to enforce our 
immigration laws and talks daily about its investigation into changing 
repatriation policies, it effectively tells people in Mexico and 
Central America that if they make it across to the U.S. border they 
will almost certainly be allowed to stay. When the administration does 
those things, it is effectively encouraging poor, vulnerable immigrants 
to embark on a treacherous and often deadly journey.
  As I said, the journey is especially treacherous for young migrant 
women and children. The migrant women are frequently raped, kidnapped, 
and sold to sex traffickers. Some experts believe that 6 out of 10 of 
the migrant women who traverse this dangerous territory are sexually 
assaulted. It is truly appalling and without question one of the worst 
human rights nightmares anywhere in our hemisphere. For that matter, it 
is likely getting worse. A new Congressional Research Service memo 
indicates that girls and children below the age of 13 represent a 
growing number of unaccompanied minors who are being apprehended at the 
southern border. Needless to say, as more and more migrant children 
travel through Mexico, more will be forced into sex slavery and 
prostitution.
  I think we all agree that the status quo is simply intolerable and 
unacceptable.
  So what is the solution? Well, I spent the past couple of days urging 
the President to take a few basic steps that would help curtail the 
seemingly endless flow of unaccompanied minors up through this 
dangerous smuggling corridor. The steps I have outlined I think reflect 
common sense. For starters, the President of the United States must 
make it abundantly clear to everyone that his deferred action program 
on deportation does not apply to the children who are now streaming 
across our border in floodlike proportions. If the President himself 
were to make such an announcement, it would get noticed.
  Right now Central American newspapers as well as the criminal cartels 
are actively spreading the word that if you turn yourselves over to us 
and pay our price to get smuggled into the United States, you can get 
free passage and stay, because they are saying you will not be 
repatriated.
  If the President also worked with the Mexican Government to help 
secure its southern border with Guatemala--that border is about 500 
miles long and it is currently the place the migrants come from Central 
America into Mexico to begin that long, perilous journey, many on a 
train system that has become known as The Beast or The Beast of Death, 
which has been written about a lot. If the President were to help 
provide Mexico, in consultation with our Mexican friends, a way to help 
secure that border, it would help stem more than half the flow of 
migrants including these unaccompanied children from Central America. 
And if the President sent the message, contrary to what he has done 
recently, that he is committed to enforcing all of our immigration laws 
until Congress and the President can engage in our constitutionally 
required process of amending those laws, then the tide of children 
flooding across South Texas might soon be reversed.
  I wish I had confidence that President Obama would take the actions I

[[Page 10149]]

have described. His record on immigration and border security, 
unfortunately, inspires no confidence that he will.
  To reiterate, once again, solving this crisis isn't simply about 
securing America's southern border. It is not just about goal-line 
defense, in the words of Congressman Cuellar, it is about enforcing our 
immigration laws. It is about saving mothers and daughters, fathers and 
sons, from contact with some of the most brutal criminal organizations 
on the planet.
  I hope the President is listening. I am encouraged that Vice 
President Biden is traveling to the region, but, of course, we know 
that Central America, the government there, has deteriorated to the 
point that it has become an increasingly dangerous place. That is 
another one of the arguments that is made, that people are simply 
fleeing from violence in those Central American countries. I certainly 
am sympathetic, but the fact is the United States cannot absorb people 
from every part of the globe who want to come to the United States 
without imperiling our way of life. So what we need to do is find a way 
to control immigration through legal channels, and we need to send the 
message to other countries that you cannot come here with impunity and 
simply overwhelm our ability in the United States to take care of legal 
immigrants.
  The President can do a lot. Sending Vice President Biden to Central 
America is a start, but what we need is a plan along the lines I have 
outlined in order to stem this humanitarian crisis that is occurring 
not just in South Texas but is being spread to Virginia, Maryland, 
Oklahoma, Arizona, and California, because that is where these children 
are being sent in the custody of the Federal Government--basically in 
warehouses or it occurs to me that this is more like a refugee camp on 
American soil. This is not the way we would want our children to live, 
and this is not the way we should want other parents' children to live. 
We will take care of them to the best of our ability while they are 
here, but what we need is an unequivocal message that says America does 
not have an open border and that parents should not turn their children 
over to these dangerous drug cartels and human smugglers in order to 
come to the United States.
  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. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Veterans Health Care

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, what the recent crisis at the Veterans' 
Administration has taught us is that the cost of war does not end when 
the last shots are fired and the last missiles are launched. The cost 
of war continues until the last veteran receives the care and benefits 
that he or she has earned on the battlefield. In other words, the cost 
of war is very expensive. It is expensive in terms of human life, in 
terms of human suffering, and in terms of financial commitment.
  The cost of war in Iraq and Afghanistan alone is almost 7,000 dead. 
The cost of war is some 200,000 men and women coming home from those 
wars with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury. The 
cost of war from Iraq and Afghanistan is that many of our veterans have 
come home without arms or legs or eyesight or without their hearing. 
The cost of war is tragic suicides taking place all over this country 
from people who have returned from war.
  The cost of war is veterans coming home unable to find jobs and get 
their feet back on the ground financially. The cost of war is high 
divorce rates and the impact that family stress has on kids. The cost 
of war is widows suddenly having to start their life anew without the 
person they married at their side.
  Two weeks ago Senator McCain and I hammered together a proposal to 
deal with the current crisis at the VA, and I thank him very much for 
understanding the need to move forward expeditiously.
  Last Wednesday this legislation passed the Senate by a vote of 93 to 
3, and I thank all of the Members in both political parties for voting 
for this bill. I thank them for understanding that we need to continue 
moving forward on this legislation as quickly as possible and in a 
nonpartisan way.
  A recent VA audit revealed that more than 57,000 veterans are waiting 
to be scheduled for medical appointments. They are in facilities where 
the waiting lists are much too long. That, to my mind, is clearly an 
emergency situation.
  I thank all of those Senators who not only voted to pass this bill 
but, perhaps more importantly, voted to pay for this bill through 
emergency funding. I could not agree more with Senator McCain when he 
said:

       If there is a definition of emergency, I would say that 
     this legislation fits that. It is an emergency. It is an 
     emergency what is happening to our veterans and the men and 
     women who have served this country. And we need to pass this 
     legislation and get it in conference with the House as soon 
     as possible.

  I fully agree with Senator McCain's sentiment. Madam President, 93 
Senators--in a strong bipartisan showing--agreed with Senator McCain 
and me that this is an emergency, that veterans must get the quality 
health care they need, and they must get it in a timely manner. We need 
to provide the funding the VA needs and do it in an expeditious way.
  Needless to say, the bill we passed in the Senate is a compromise. It 
is not the bill I know Senator McCain would have written alone, and it 
is surely not the bill I would have written if I could have had the 
power to write it alone. It is a compromise that was hammered out in 
good faith, which is something we need to see more of in this body.
  What this bill does is address the immediate crisis facing the VA of 
long waiting periods and makes certain that as soon as possible, the 
veterans of our country get the high-quality care they need and they 
get it in a timely fashion. That is what our veterans deserve.
  I will briefly touch on some of the major provisions in the bill. 
This bill allows for 26 major medical facility leases, which means 
improved and expanded care for veterans in 17 States and Puerto Rico. 
There has been some disagreement about a 27th facility located in 
Oklahoma. That facility was in the original bill I introduced, and I 
supported its inclusion in final passage.
  This bill also provides for the expedited hiring of VA doctors and 
nurses and $500 million targeted to hire those providers with 
unobligated funds. No medical program can provide quality care in a 
timely manner if those programs do not have an adequate number of 
doctors, nurses, and other medical providers.
  This bill will provide an opportunity for the VA to immediately 
increase capacity within their system. It will provide an expedited 
hiring authority to allow VA to quickly hire doctors and nurses, which 
is not the case right now. One of the problems with the VA is they have 
a very complicated process. It takes a whole lot of time, and they 
often lose their applicants because it takes such a long period of 
time. We need to change that, and this bill does that.
  Right now there are 741 vacancy announcements for physician positions 
at VA on USAJOBS. My understanding is that is a flaw. In fact, the real 
number of physicians needed is significantly greater than that. In 
Phoenix alone there have been estimates that up to 500 new providers in 
that one facility alone--and those are doctors, nurses, and other 
health care providers--are needed if the veterans in Phoenix are going 
to have timely care.
  Further, what our legislation also does is say to veterans around the 
country that if they cannot get into a VA facility in a timely manner, 
they will be able to get the care they need outside of the VA. In my 
view, what we need to do is hire those doctors, nurses, and supporting 
staff so veterans who come to the VA can get timely care there, but if 
they cannot get to a VA

[[Page 10150]]

facility, this legislation is very clear in stating that they can go to 
private doctors, community health centers, Department of Defense bases 
or Indian health care facilities.
  The goal is to give veterans a wide option to access care in a timely 
manner through providers in their communities. If the VA is unable to 
accommodate those veterans, they are going to go outside of the VA and 
get timely health care, and that is a very important provision in this 
bill.
  This bill also says veterans who live 40 miles or more from a VA 
facility--if they choose--also have the option of seeking care outside 
of the VA. For those veterans living in very rural areas--and I have 
talked to one Senator who indicated that in some cases a veteran has to 
travel hundreds and hundreds of miles to get VA health care--this 
provision will also be very important.
  The bill also addresses a major crisis we have seen in the military; 
that is, the tragedy and the outrage of sexual assault. Our bill will 
significantly increase VA services for those veterans who experienced 
sexual assault in the military.
  This bill also deals with an issue--where there is widespread support 
across partisan lines--instate tuition for all veterans at public 
colleges and universities. This bill also importantly provides that 
surviving spouses--mostly wives who have lost their husbands in 
battle--will also be eligible for the post-9/11 GI bill, and that is 
exactly the right thing to do.
  This bill also establishes commissions to provide help to give the VA 
in terms of improving schedule capabilities and capital planning. These 
are areas, frankly, where the VA has not been strong. They can use 
private sector and expert help so they can improve their scheduling 
capabilities and their ability to do capital planning.
  Finally, and importantly, this bill gives the Secretary the authority 
to immediately fire incompetent employees or those who have falsified 
or manipulated data in terms of waiting periods. All of us have been 
outraged that people have intentionally manipulated data to make it 
appear that veterans have been getting timely care when that was not 
the case.
  Our bill gives the Secretary the ability to fire those employees and 
other incompetent employees and it also provides due process. I think 
that is important because I do not want to see the VA politicized. I 
don't want to see a President coming into office with a new Secretary 
firing 300 or 400 top-level supervisors. We do not want to see the VA 
politicized. We want the best people regardless of their political 
views.
  The House of Representatives passed legislation last week which 
covers a lot of the same ground the Sanders-McCain bill covers, and I 
am very confident that in working with chairman Jeff Miller and ranking 
member Mike Michaud, we can bridge the differences and send the 
President a bill he can sign in the very near future. I think that is 
what the American people want. That is what Members of Congress want. 
We do not want this to drag on and on and on. We want to get this bill 
done quickly.
  Finally, I did want to say a word to the 300,000 employees who work 
at the VA. These last several months have been a tough time for many of 
them. The truth is the overwhelming majority of the people who work at 
the VA are hard-working, honest, and serious people. In fact, many of 
them are veterans themselves. I know many others who work at the VA 
look at what they do not as a job--a 9-to-5 job--but they look at it as 
a mission. They feel very seriously that our veterans have to get the 
best health care possible, and they are doing their best to make that 
happen. I thank them very much for that.
  Over and over, I hear from my State of Vermont and from across the 
country that once veterans get into the VA health care system, the care 
is good. That is not just my view; it is the view of virtually all of 
the major veterans organizations and independent studies that compare 
VA health care with care in the private sector.
  In the State of Vermont some 98 percent of veterans get appointments 
into the system within 30 days. That is good, but it needs to be better 
in Vermont and throughout this country. The goal must be the highest 
quality care possible and getting people their appointments in a timely 
manner.
  Let me read, interestingly enough, a poll that just came out from 
Gallup today. It was published today, and it was commissioned by 
MarketWatch from the Wall Street Journal. The interesting paragraph 
here--they polled some 42,000-plus Americans regarding their 
satisfaction with health care in America. Let me quote what the article 
says:

       Despite recent troubles with veterans not having access to 
     prompt medical appointments, current and former military 
     personnel are the most satisfied with their health care, as 
     77% expressed contentment. That was the highest satisfaction 
     rate among those broken out by method of coverage.

  Veterans, obviously, get their health care in other ways--not just 
through the VA--but it is important to recognize that for many, many 
veterans the health care they are getting is good, and they appreciate 
that.
  Let me conclude by saying our job right now--and I think the American 
people are with us on this virtually 100 percent--is to make sure those 
men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend us--they 
are now asking us to defend them, to make sure they get the health care 
and the benefits to which they are entitled. My goal is to see that we 
move this legislation as quickly as possible. I hope by tomorrow we 
will have named conferees to the conference committee. My hope is we 
can get this legislation on to the President's desk as soon as we 
possibly can.
  It is one thing to give heartfelt speeches about how much we love and 
respect veterans; it is another to act, and now is the time for action. 
The Senate and House committee staffs have already begun preliminary 
discussions. My understanding is the House conferees will be named 
tomorrow. I believe we will do the same here in the Senate. My job and 
what I intend to work on as hard as I can is to make sure we pass 
strong legislation as soon as we possibly can and have the President 
sign that legislation.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Immigration Reform

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, just a few minutes ago the Senator from 
Texas, my friend John Cornyn, came to the floor and spoke about 
immigration and the situation on our border. It was a very moving 
statement that he has made before and needs to make again. He did it 
today and identified a serious issue we are facing--not just one but 
several serious issues. They are dramatized by the fact that we are 
seeing hundreds of children who are being turned loose on America's 
border with Mexico crossing the border, being apprehended, and being 
placed in a humane situation in America--children, some as young as 5, 
6, and 7 years of age, not accompanied by adults. You think to 
yourself, what is going on here?
  Senator Cornyn, of course, representing the State of Texas, knows 
this better than most because they are watching these children.
  Eighty percent of these children come from three countries: Honduras, 
El Salvador, and Guatemala. In these countries there is a state of 
lawlessness at this point that is so desperate--so desperate--that a 
family would turn over a child to someone who says: I will get them 
across the American border.
  Some of these kids show up--I do not know how many; I cannot tell 
you--with little slips of paper with a name and a telephone number of a 
relative in the United States. Think about that for a second. How 
desperate would a family have to be to turn over a 5-year-old, a 6- or 
7-year-old child to someone and say: Take them hundreds of miles

[[Page 10151]]

and enter illegally into the United States of America with my little 
girl or my little boy. I cannot even imagine the desperation that 
people are facing that they would do such a thing.
  That represents a major problem for the United States at several 
levels.
  First, we are a humane and caring nation. We will not see a child 
abandoned at the border and turn our backs. What we are doing is taking 
these children into protective custody, trying to find a way to link 
them with some member of their family for their own good. Imagine the 
trauma these kids have gone through at that point and now what they 
might face. That is why we are stepping forward.
  Senator Cornyn came to the floor, and he rightfully said that many of 
these children do not make these journeys unharmed. Terrible things 
happen to them. Awful things happen to them--assaults, rapes, beatings, 
and God only knows. You think to yourself, what impact will that trauma 
have on that child for such a long period of time?
  The lawlessness in these three countries is leading to this 
outmigration for safety, this desperation by many families and parents.
  The second aspect is one that we cannot ignore either. Many children 
come into the United States, and some of them come in the most extreme 
situations for a very basic human reason--children who were raised in 
other countries and their parents are in the United States. They have 
not seen them sometimes for years. They have received cash to keep them 
going under the care of another relative, gifts at Christmas, gifts for 
their birthday. But some of these kids--these little kids--will jump on 
these freight trains and go through Central America toward the United 
States in the hope of finding a parent. I cannot tell you the exact 
numbers.
  There is a book that won the Pulitzer Prize called ``Enrique's 
Journey.'' A woman named Nazario who writes for the L.A. Times went 
down to Central America, got on one of these trains with these kids, 
who sit on top of these freight cars as they go through these countries 
trying to get to the United States. Many of them--she believes the 
majority of them--are simply trying to be reunited with their parents.
  Listen to the tragedy in what I have just described. Think about the 
desperation of families and the desperation of these children and where 
it puts us in the world today, and reflect for a moment on a political 
reality that did not come up in the earlier statement. The political 
reality is that it has been more than 1 year since the Senate passed a 
comprehensive immigration reform bill with 68 votes, 14 Republicans 
joining the Democrats in a bipartisan effort.
  I know a little bit about this bill because I joined the group who 
wrote it, four Democrats, four Republicans, sitting across the table--
on our side, Chuck Schumer of New York, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, 
Mike Bennet of Colorado; on the Republican side, John McCain of 
Arizona, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and 
Marco Rubio of Florida. We sat in this room--many rooms, I should say--
over a period of months and hammered out a comprehensive bill that 
deals with many of the issues that are behind the tragedy I just 
described. That is something we ought to acknowledge is part of our 
challenge today, that 1 year has gone by and the House of 
Representatives has refused to even call this bill for consideration.
  I am pretty proud of what we did and what we wrote. I do not think 
there are many pieces of legislation that bipartisan that have the 
support of business and labor and religious groups of every 
denomination. They all support our bill. I am proud of that fact.
  I served in the House. I know they have some pride of authorship. 
They may want to do their version of the bill. That is OK. But doing 
nothing is not OK. It is not acceptable. We have a broken immigration 
system. Senator Cornyn of Texas said as much himself.
  If we are going to deal with the problem at the border with these 
children, if we are going to deal with the problem of 11 million or 
more undocumented people in America--many of whom have been here for 
long periods of time, may live in a household where everyone else in 
the house is an American citizen, and I know of these cases in Chicago; 
I have met them--people who are willing to come forward at this point 
in their lives, register with the government, tell the government where 
they live, where they work, have a background check so that if they 
have serious criminal issues they are gone, stay in this country, pay 
their taxes, pay a fine for being undocumented, learn English, and wait 
13 years at the earliest before they can become citizens, and they go 
to the absolute back of the line--that is what our bill says. That, to 
me, is a movement toward a solution of what we are facing today.
  But I hear many times criticism of this President. I will tell you, 
this President has been fully supportive of this effort for 
comprehensive immigration reform. I cannot tell you how many hours I 
have spent with him and so many others trying to work toward this goal. 
I know, because he used to be my junior Senator from Illinois and we 
are pretty close. I know that when he was going through the transition 
to become President, he invited Senators McCain and Graham to meet with 
him in Chicago before he was sworn in. They talked about immigration. 
That is how important it is to this President. So those who would blame 
him or dismiss him for the current situation, it is not fair. He 
supports comprehensive immigration reform.
  He said to the House of Representatives and the Republican leadership 
that he will step back in terms of doing anything on an executive level 
and give them the opportunity to do what they are supposed to do--call 
this matter for a vote. We are praying they do it before the end of 
July because we are running out of time. In just a few months there 
will be an election and then a lameduck session between the election 
and the new Congress. Not much can get done in that period of time.
  The President has said to Speaker Boehner and the Republicans: Move 
the bill. So when I hear the criticism of some of the terrible 
injustices in our current immigration system, I think we ought to be 
very honest. We have passed a bill--a bipartisan bill, a comprehensive 
bill--in the Senate, and it has been sitting in the House for more than 
a year. More than a year.
  I came to this issue, like most, with a family story. I have told my 
family story on the floor many times, but I am proud of it, so I am 
going to repeat it.
  My mother was an immigrant to this country. She came to America, 
brought here at the age of 2. She was brought from Lithuania. My 
grandmother packed her up with my aunt and uncle and brought them over 
in a ship. They landed in Baltimore and somehow got on a train to St. 
Louis. They were headed for their great opportunity in America, their 
land of opportunity, the town I was born in, East St. Louis, IL. That 
is where I came from. That is where they landed because the Lithuanians 
were there working in the packing houses and the steel mills and all of 
the jobs that immigrants take.
  That is my story. That is my family's story. But that is also 
America's story. Those immigrants who come here and take the dirtiest, 
hardest jobs, work night and day trying to make sure their kids have 
another chance, create time and again generations of renewal in 
America.
  There is something in our DNA, my friends--all of us who are proud to 
say we are Americans--there is something in our DNA about that 
immigrant spirit, to think that my family and millions of others said: 
We are leaving Jurbarkas, Lithuania, and we are going to America, where 
we do not even speak the language.
  What an adventure. What courage. What Americanism. That is what 
creates us. That is in our national DNA. Thank goodness it is.
  There is something else I would like to note. It has been 2 years 
since President Obama issued an Executive order. It was known as the 
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, DACA.
  Here is the history. Thirteen years ago I got a call in my Chicago 
office from a Korean mother who said she had a problem. She had brought 
her daughter to the United States at the age of 2

[[Page 10152]]

on a visitor's visa. Her daughter was now grown up, 18 years of age. 
She had never filed any papers for her. Technically mom, who was here 
legally as a citizen, had an undocumented child in her house.
  The problem was that this undocumented girl had turned out to be a 
spectacular pianist and had won an opportunity for scholarships to the 
Juilliard School of Music and the New York Conservatory of Music. She 
was that good. When she went to fill out the application, they asked 
her for her citizenship. She turned to her mom and said: What am I?
  Her mom said: I don't know.
  The girl said: What are you going to do?
  Mom said: Let's call Durbin.
  So they called my office. We checked the law. The law was very clear. 
That little girl who had been in the United States for 16 or 17 years 
at that point in her life was undocumented and under the law had to 
leave the United States for 10 years and apply to come back in. That is 
how the law was written.
  I thought to myself: That is not fair. That little girl did not have 
any say in her parents moving here. She had nothing to say when they 
failed to file the necessary papers. Now she was the victim of our 
legal system and her parents' failure to file the papers so she could 
be here legally.
  So I introduced the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act I introduced 13 years 
ago said: If you are in that kind of a circumstance--brought here as a 
child by your parents, have lived in the United States, finished high 
school, no serious criminal record--we will give you a chance. Either 
enlist in our military or go to college for at least 2 years, and we 
will put you on the path to citizenship.
  That is the DREAM Act. Well, that bill has been around a long time--
13 years. It has passed in the Senate as part of a comprehensive bill, 
and it has passed in the House individually. But it has never passed in 
both places, which, as we know, is what is necessary to become a law.
  So I wrote to President Obama, with 22 of my colleagues--that at one 
point included Senator Lugar of Indiana, my Republican colleague then--
and asked the President: Create an Executive order so these young 
people eligible for the DREAM Act will not be deported while we debate. 
Give them a chance to be here in a legally recognized status because 
they would qualify under this bill that continues to pass--the Deferred 
Action for Childhood Arrivals. That, of course, was enacted by the 
President in Executive order 2 years ago.
  After it was enacted, Congressman Luis Gutierrez and I--in Chicago--
said: We want to give all of those eligible to apply for this deferred 
action protection under the Executive order a chance to sign up.
  So Luis and I said: We are going to reserve Navy Pier--if you have 
ever been to Chicago, there is a huge ballroom at the end of Navy Pier, 
one of the most popular sites in downtown--and we are going to invite 
any young person who wants to sign up for DACA so they won't be 
deported to come in and sign up.
  I said initially: I hope we get 200 people to come because we have a 
big room here.
  In the end over 10,000 showed up. It overwhelmed us. We had volunteer 
lawyers there, lots of friends there, and people helping. Parents got 
in line at midnight the night before, standing with their kids and 
waiting for a chance to give these kids a chance to be legally in the 
United States and not deported; that is how much it meant to them.
  Some of these parents, sadly, didn't have the same protection, but 
they wanted to do everything they could for their kids. Well, the time 
has passed, and in the course of time we have seen 560,000 children 
across America who signed up for this protection under DACA--560,000.
  I have come to the floor and told about 50 or 60 stories about these 
DREAMers. We call them DREAMers--these young kids. Each time I tell the 
story, I get responses from people saying: I can't believe that we 
still haven't resolved this problem.
  I want to tell you one of these stories today. I want to update you 
about one of the DREAMers I have spoken about on the floor.
  This is Erika Andiola and her mother Guadalupe Arreola. Guadalupe's 
husband--Erika's father--abused her for 15 years. In order to escape 
this abuse and protect her kids, she fled to the United States.
  Free from threats of violence, Guadalupe and her children made life 
in this country. Her daughter Erika graduated with honors from Arizona 
State University with a bachelor's degree in psychology. She is the 
founder and president of the Arizona DREAM Act Coalition, a group 
advocating for immigration reform.
  After receiving DACA, her protection under the President's Executive 
order, Erika became the first DREAMer to work for the Congress. She 
could legally do it under the President's order. She served as district 
outreach director for Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. I might 
add that Congressman Gutierrez also hired one of the earliest DREAMers 
under DACA on his staff as well.
  The same week that Erika was hired to work for a Member of Congress, 
they received notice that her mother was being placed in deportation 
proceedings. Why were we trying to deport Erika's mother, Guadalupe? 
Because she was pulled over for a traffic violation and she had a 
deportation order that was 15 years old.
  Erika made a difficult decision. She gave up her job with the 
Congresswoman and started focusing on helping her mom. Her mother wrote 
me a letter and said:

       I have always taught my children that there is nothing more 
     important than the love for our families. . . . I ask 
     Congress and the President to realize that I am a human being 
     who was just looking to protect my children from a life full 
     of violence.

  There are 11 million undocumented immigrants like Guadalupe in the 
United States. They are hard-working men and women with courage who 
leave everything behind they know to build a better life. They have 
strong family values, and they make a real contribution to our country 
and our economy. They serve our food in restaurants. They clean off the 
tables when we are finished eating. They take care of our small 
children in daycare, and they watch our parents in nursing homes. That 
is who the undocumented are in America.
  They raise children like Erika and make contributions to our country. 
They want to be Americans. But under current law, there is no way for 
them to get in line and legalized.
  Last week the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh 
Johnson, was kind enough to come to Chicago. I invited him. I wanted 
him to see the Broadview processing facility, where those who are about 
to face deportation are held. It is a grim reminder of families that 
are being broken up right before our eyes. I wanted him also to meet 
with people in the Muslim community, in the Syrian community, in the 
Hispanic communities, and talk about immigration in America today. He 
was kind enough to do that.
  Along with my colleagues, Congressmen Luis Gutierrez and Bill Foster, 
we visited the center. We met in the detention cells a 51-year-old man 
who came to the United States at the age of 6. He has three kids who 
are U.S. citizens. One now serves in the U.S. Army and another is a 
police officer. In the visitation area outside, we met his mother, who 
is 80 years old. She was hoping to get a glimpse of her son before he 
was deported.
  This is the human impact of immigration laws and policies. The House 
of Representatives has a chance to fix this and many other problems. We 
can move together to stop this horrible humanitarian crisis at the 
border with children. We can move together to deal with the 
undocumented among us who will step forward, pay their taxes and their 
fines, learn English, go to the back of the line and wait their turns. 
We will be a better country if we do.
  I hope the House Republicans will take up this responsibility. If 
they

[[Page 10153]]

have a better idea, bring it to the floor and vote on it but, if not, 
call up our bipartisan Senate bill. Let's fix this broken immigration 
system. Let's move this country forward.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 469

  Mr. PORTMAN. I rise today to put the Senate on record on something 
very important, and that is speaking to the decision by the Obama 
administration to release five top Taliban leaders from Guantanamo Bay 
without consulting Congress, as required by law--a decision that I 
believe endangers the lives of American personnel, not to mention the 
countless Afghans and the success of our mission in Afghanistan.
  It has been well reported in the press that this release was done 
without consulting Congress or congressional leaders on either side of 
the aisle--Republican or Democrat, by the way. This was in clear 
violation of a requirement to provide detailed notice to Congress 
before such action is taken--a requirement that is contained in both an 
authorization bill called the 2004 National Defense Authorization Act 
and a spending bill, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, both of 
which passed Congress with big bipartisan majorities. Both were 
bipartisan bills, and there was a bipartisan consensus about having 
this notification.
  Despite several closed-door briefings and public comments from the 
administration since we learned of the release, the administration has 
been unable to provide any legitimate justification for violating the 
requirement and for failing to consult with Congress.
  I believe the President's conduct raises a lot of questions--
questions which should concern every Member of this body on both sides 
of the aisle.
  This is not a partisan issue, nor is it about what kind of soldier 
SGT Bowe Bergdahl may have been. I trust the Army will handle that 
matter appropriately. This is about our role in the Congress, and it is 
about our national security. It is about protecting our men and women 
in Afghanistan. It is about ensuring that what they have fought for in 
the last decade and the gains they have made in our war against 
terrorism and for the people in Afghanistan will not be squandered, as 
we are seeing today in the country of Iraq.
  Congress enacted the bipartisan notice requirement to secure those 
interests and to prevent the release of dangerous terrorists who are 
likely to rejoin the fight if they are freed. It requires the President 
to give a detailed justification for the release of detainees from 
Guantanamo Bay, why such a release is in the country's national 
security interests, and what actions the administration will take to 
ensure that those released detainees do not return to the battlefield 
to threaten American lives--basically asking the administration to 
notify us, but to also provide a justification for the release and the 
conditions of that release.
  Had the President followed the law, I believe many of the dangers 
posed by this decision could have been avoided altogether. I think he 
would have heard on a bipartisan basis the concerns of the Congress, 
which were only voiced after the decisions were made, again, on both 
sides of the aisle.
  Make no mistake, these five men who were released are dangerous. 
Don't take my word for it. This is what the administration has said 
repeatedly. I was in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee in 2012. I was a member of the committee at that time. 
Senator Levin, my colleague and chairman of the committee, who is here 
on the floor with us today, was at that committee hearing. In fact, he 
asked some very good questions, including questions to the President's 
own Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
  What did Mr. Clapper say? He reiterated a 2010 administration 
assessment that these five Taliban leaders--these same five who were 
just released--posed a high risk of returning to the fight.
  On this very point, Director Clapper did not equivocate, saying:

       I do not think anyone harbors any illusions about these 
     five Taliban members and what they might do if they were 
     transferred.

  This was sworn testimony before our committee. Even if, as the 
President admits, there is ``absolutely a risk that these men will 
return to the battlefield,'' these men were senior members of the 
Taliban. They include the Taliban's deputy defense minister, deputy 
minister of intelligence, administrator of the interior, and some were 
closely associated with Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda. Two are wanted by 
the United Nations for war crimes.
  Yet despite these red flags--which, according to reports from the 
press, were reiterated during internal White House debates of the 
transfer--President Obama released these men anyway without following 
the notice provided in the law.
  We need to know why. We need to know what security risks these five 
individuals pose. We need to know what measures have been put in place 
to mitigate those risks. I don't know why any Member of this body would 
oppose going on record saying that the law was violated and seeking 
answers to these good questions.
  In a moment I am going to ask for unanimous consent on a resolution 
which I have offered and many of my colleagues have cosponsored calling 
on Congress, through regular order and committee jurisdiction, to 
investigate the decision to authorize this release. This resolution has 
a very narrow purpose: It only seeks to ensure that, when Congress 
speaks, the President listens. I would remind us that this provision on 
Guantanamo transfer passed in an overwhelming bipartisan manner.
  This is not an issue of politics. No matter what party the President 
is from, our entire constitutional balance depends on adherence to the 
rule of law. This is about more than the President ignoring Congress. 
The American people are the ones who deserve these answers. We are 
their representatives. That is why that provision was put in place, so 
that we, representing them, could give the President better advice.
  The American people deserve these answers. So do, by the way, our men 
and women in uniform who continue to put their lives on the line for us 
every single day.
  Already this month, since the release of these detainees, eight 
American servicemen have lost their lives in Afghanistan. We still have 
over 30,000 troops in the theater--30,000 Americans putting their lives 
on the line for us every day. I think a lot of them are wondering: What 
was the justification? Why? What effect will it have on them and their 
safety? One could hardly doubt that the administration's decision to 
release these Taliban leaders will put even more Americans at risk.
  We should be under no illusions: If we take no action, I do not 
believe this will be the last unlawful transfer of detainees from 
Guantanamo Bay back to the battlefield.
  In other words, if we don't speak and go on record to say: Wait a 
minute; we had a law here; this is wrong; we need a detailed 
justification--I believe the wrong message will be sent to the 
administration. The sense is Congress didn't seem to care that we 
violated the authorization bill, the appropriations bill, and went 
ahead without providing the appropriate notice.
  President Obama has made it clear that closing Guantanamo is one of 
his top priorities in the waning days of his administration. I 
understand that. But he has provided no such clarity on what he intends 
to do with the dangerous men who are housed there--men such as Khalid 
Shaikh Mohammed, the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks. He is 
there. Will he be released? Into whose custody? The terrorist known as 
Hambali, the mastermind of the Bali bombing that killed 200 people, 
including 7 Americans; Ramsey bin Al-

[[Page 10154]]

Shabab, a high-ranking Al Qaeda operative who helped coordinate the 9/
11 attacks.
  We also need to remember why we went to Afghanistan in the first 
place. Before 9/11, under Taliban rule the country had become a haven 
for Al Qaeda, a power base for Osama bin Laden, and a place from which 
to plan and launch attacks against the United States and our allies. We 
went to Afghanistan to seek justice for those who died on September 11, 
but we also went to remove the Taliban from power, to free the Afghan 
people, and to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes this base, 
this platform for terrorist activity which threatens us. We must not be 
blind to the fact that the Taliban aims to regain as much power as they 
can in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. That means a return to oppression, 
human rights abuses, the suppression of women's rights and, most 
importantly to us and our national security, the complicit harboring of 
their ally Al Qaeda. We have just returned to them the leadership team 
to help them achieve that goal.
  President Obama tells us the war in Afghanistan is coming to an end. 
We need to ensure that end is one of sustainable victory, not defeat. 
The deteriorating situation we see unfolding before us on our TV sets 
in Iraq today demonstrates what can happen when we rush to the exits 
without preparing for an appropriate exit.
  Today, the black flag of radical Islam flies over the second largest 
city in Iraq, and armed militants are advancing on Baghdad. Proclaiming 
victory in Iraq did not make it so.
  Many made it clear that if we failed to maintain appropriate forces 
in Iraq to help the government transition and establish its authority, 
the long-term stability of Iraq would be open to threats and radical 
groups. We chose not to complete a status-of-forces agreement with the 
Maliki government. President Obama did not heed the warnings from those 
who saw these threats, and unfortunately we are seeing some of these 
predictions come true. Whatever we do in Afghanistan, I hope we learn 
from the lessons of Iraq.
  The decisions to release high-ranking members of the Taliban while 
the fight against the Taliban continues to this day has shaken the 
trust of the American people, the trust of the Afghan people, and it 
opens the frightening possibility that what we are seeing today in Iraq 
may be a foreshadowing of Afghanistan's future.
  In my view, Congress has the responsibility to get to the bottom of 
how this release happened and to ensure it doesn't happen again. I hope 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the resolution I 
have submitted so we can fulfill that responsibility.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Armed Services Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 469; that the Senate 
proceed to its consideration; that the resolution be agreed to, the 
preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered and 
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I do intend to object to the resolution for 
a number of reasons.
  First of all, the resolution prejudges the very conclusion that the 
resolution says it wants an investigation to determine. It calls for an 
investigation, but then it already concludes that the President 
violated the law. That is not what I call an impartial investigation. 
That is a resolution which reaches a conclusion prejudging the very 
investigation it calls for.
  There are other problems here as well. My good friend from Ohio said 
the President violated the law because he didn't give 30 days notice to 
Congress. Indeed, the National Defense Authorization Act provides for 
30 days notice. But it also is a matter of fact the President said, 
when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act, that if there 
were necessary circumstances where there were negotiations going on 
with foreign countries or foreign people in terms of preserving or 
saving an American life that he is not going to be bound by 30 days 
notice. He said that at the signing ceremony.
  You can't change a law at a signing ceremony, but what you can do at 
a signing ceremony is what this President did: At the very signing 
ceremony for the very act the Senator is relying on, the President put 
us on notice that there could be circumstances under which he could not 
give 30 days notice to the Congress.
  When he did not give 30 days notice in this circumstance, he did it 
on the advice of counsel. The Department of Justice told him that he 
has powers, as Commander in Chief, under article II. That is part of 
the law of this land. The law of this land includes the National 
Defense Authorization Act. As a matter of fact, the Presiding Officer 
is very much aware of the fact that the National Defense Authorization 
Act, of which he is so important a part, is part of the law of this 
land. But so is article II of the Constitution, which gives the 
Commander in Chief certain powers, and the Department of Justice said 
he could use those powers to not give 30 days notice because it could 
jeopardize the life of an American citizen.
  Maybe there are those who argue that is OK, follow the authorization 
law instead of article II, because the authorization law somehow or 
another has precedence over article II, which it doesn't. Article II is 
part of the Constitution. But the authorization act itself was said to 
be subject to article II powers of the President when he signed the 
very act.
  So what happened? The President decided, because of the exigencies of 
these circumstances--whether you agree or don't agree with the details 
of the deal, that is one issue. People can disagree with that all they 
want. But as to whether once the President decided he was going to make 
that deal and save that life and not jeopardize that life by waiting 30 
days, at that point the question is, was that illegal? That is what a 
court could decide if it so chose as to whether a President could use 
article II powers in order to act quickly to save an American life.
  I think that prejudging this kind of an issue with the kind of 
investigation that would prejudge it--because that is part of the 
resolution itself--is not what this Senate should be doing.
  By the way, during that 30-day period the President would have had to 
have not just waited 30 days; he would have also had to have made all 
kinds of detailed and substantive classified notifications. He would 
have had to have made certain kinds of findings, detailed statements, 
the basis for the transfer release, and explanation of why the transfer 
release is in the national security interest of the United States, a 
description of any actions taken to mitigate the risks. He would have 
had to have done all that before he was able to execute the transfer of 
an American citizen to the safety of this country.
  The President did do all of those things immediately after he made 
the decision to act. So we got all of that notification that is 
required by law, but we didn't get it 30 days in advance because of the 
jeopardy it would have created to American life.
  Again, people are going to disagree as to whether this agreement 
should have been reached. That is fair discussion, fair game for 
debate, but that is a very different issue as to whether we should 
prejudge as to whether the President, who acted under his article II 
powers--and told us he might do so when he signed this bill--acted 
illegally, and that is what this resolution says happened--that the 
President acted illegally. It prejudges the investigation.
  I think for a number of reasons it is inappropriate for us to adopt 
this resolution, so I will object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. It is unfortunate that we cannot at this point come to a 
bipartisan agreement on something even, it seems to me, as 
straightforward as this.
  To my friend from Michigan I would say a couple of things. One, this 
resolution does not prejudge the investigation. The resolution--and I 
have it in

[[Page 10155]]

front of me now--does not talk about the President's article II powers. 
It very clearly says that transfer of these detainees violated the 
National Defense Authorization Act--legislation that you brought to the 
floor--and the appropriations bill. That is what it says. So that is 
clear by the very language in those bills, that it does violate those 
bills. It doesn't talk about the constitutional authorities the 
President may have. It does say that it violates the terms of this 
legislation. It does not prejudge the investigation, which is in the 
why, the investigation as to why it happened, with, again, the intent 
of trying to keep this from happening again.
  I do think the President could have used some reasoned judgment from 
some people who have been around a while, maybe even Senator Levin, who 
has some strong views on these national security matters and was 
involved earlier in the hearings that I was in where, under oath, the 
administration official talked about how dangerous these very men were.
  Second, Senator Levin correctly says the President cannot change the 
law, and that is all we are saying. He cannot change the law with a 
signing statement. If he didn't believe this law was appropriate, he 
should have vetoed it, and he has done that in the past--as have other 
Presidents--vetoed legislation with which he didn't agree.
  So I do believe that under article II, Chairman Levin is correct that 
the President does have certain authorities. That is why we were very 
careful when we drafted this legislation, this resolution, to say that 
this says the Congress shall go on record establishing that under the 
clear terms of these two laws that were passed by the Congress and 
signed into law by the President, the President did not follow the 
terms of those laws. That is clear. The investigation, then, is into 
why, and the Armed Services Committee would have the ability to do 
that.
  By the way, today I know many are celebrating the capture of Ahmed 
Abu Khattala. Ahmed Abu Khattala was one of the terrorists who attacked 
the American compound in Benghazi, and I am glad to hear we have 
captured him and he may be deported back to the United States of 
America.
  It is interesting because we got notice. I don't know if the chairman 
was notified, but I know the intelligence committee was notified. And 
that wasn't required by law, by the way. It is just common practice 
that happens when you have a relationship between the administration 
and Congress that is confidential.
  We were notified, of course, with regard to the bin Laden capture. I 
cannot imagine the bin Laden capture was any less sensitive or any 
different in kind to make it something that we could do a notification 
on when we couldn't do it on the release of these five detainees from 
Guantanamo.
  So this is something I think is very reasonable. We are asking for 
justification not after the decision is made--that is not what the 
legislation says. It says before the decision is made so that Congress 
can have the opportunity to discuss this with the President and to make 
sure that, in fact, we are proceeding appropriately with these very 
dangerous detainees at Guantanamo.
  I would again make the point that some of these detainees who are at 
Guantanamo right now are people who--just as in the case of these five 
Taliban--have been considered to be extremely dangerous, and I would 
ask the question, If Congress isn't on record saying that we expect the 
law to be followed here and that the President ought to notify Congress 
before we release these people, what is going to happen with Khalid 
Shaikh Mohammed? What is going to happen with Hambali? What is going to 
happen with Ramzi bin al-Shibh, an architect of the 9/11 attacks? These 
are all people who are at Guantanamo. The President says he wants to 
shut it down.
  I think the legislation Senator Levin and others crafted--which, by 
the way, was legislation that changed over time. It evolved. The 
notification was a relatively slight requirement on the President 
compared to the previous legislation when I was on the Armed Services 
Committee with Chairman Levin. So this was something we thought about. 
We decided notification was appropriate, notifying Congress and 
providing a detailed justification. It is not too much to ask.
  Again, we required the President to tell the Congress before 
releasing Guantanamo detainees. We spoke with one voice in the 
Congress. The President ignored that legal requirement. He ignored the 
voice of Congress. He ignored the law. If we are not going to hold him 
accountable, I don't know who will. Again, what does it say about the 
separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution, which simply says 
Congress has a role as one of the branches of government. No 
declaration, no investigation, no recourse? I don't think that is going 
to be helpful in terms of ensuring that balance of power continues and 
that we don't have this situation recur, as the President is talking 
about shutting down Guantanamo Bay and releasing other detainees.
  I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will reconsider 
their course of action today and take a careful look at this 
resolution, which was carefully drafted--including not to impinge on 
the President's constitutional powers under article II. I think the 
stakes are simply too high to do otherwise.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, first of all, look at what the resolution says. When 
you read the resolution, it says: Congress should investigate the 
actions taken by President Obama and his administration that led to the 
unlawful transfer of such detainees.
  So when my friend says it doesn't prejudge that it was unlawful, by 
its very terms it says ``investigate the actions taken by President 
Obama that led to the unlawful transfer of such detainees.'' That is 
what the resolution says.
  Secondly, the point that the resolution makes no reference to article 
II--my friend says that, and he is accurate in that regard. That is the 
problem. What is missing is a reference to what the President was 
advised he could do--which is act under his article II powers--and what 
the President said he would do when he signed this bill.
  Third, the fact that we were notified of the bin Laden capture--I 
don't know how many of us were notified, but it certainly wasn't 30 
days before he was captured, if it was at all. That is the issue here--
not whether the President should have notified--by the way, I think he 
could have done a better job of notifying Congress. That is not the 
question. The question is whether he acted illegally, as the resolution 
says he did, because he didn't follow the 30-day notice requirement, 
which, in his judgment and I think a lot of other people's judgment, 
including mine, would have jeopardized the life of an American citizen. 
So he acted under article II powers to avoid that jeopardy, and there 
is no reference to article II in here. There is no reference to the 
fact that the Department of Justice informed the President he could act 
without abiding by a 30-day provision if he acted under his article II 
powers to save the life of an American citizen.
  There are many reasons that this resolution--there are many problems 
that it seems to me this resolution does not fairly address or resolve, 
and that is the reason I object.
  One other issue; that is, my friend from Ohio made reference to James 
Clapper, who is the Director of National Intelligence. Well, Director 
Clapper supports the deal that was made relative to this transfer, as 
does General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 
Admiral Winnefeld, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 
4:45 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees 
and that at 4:45 p.m. all postcloture time be expired and the Senate 
proceed to vote on the confirmation of Calendar No. 572, with all the 
provisions of the previous order remaining in effect, and

[[Page 10156]]

that the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, with this agreement there will be two 
rollcall votes at 4:45 p.m., first on the confirmation of Peter Kadzik 
to be Assistant Attorney General and second on cloture on the motion to 
proceed to H.R. 4660, the House Commerce, Justice, Science 
Appropriations Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I am coming to the floor today to talk about what is 
happening in Ukraine, but before I do that, I cannot help but--having 
heard some of the discussion before this from my colleague from 
Michigan and my colleague from Ohio--add to that discussion.
  First of all, the President didn't even notify the chair of the 
intelligence committee and the ranking member of that committee. And I 
think it is clear why he didn't notify the chair of the intelligence 
committee. Because there was widespread opposition from the 
intelligence committee to transferring these five particular detainees, 
and that was made clear to the administration well before this prisoner 
swap was made.
  Moreover, what I find not only shocking--that the chair and ranking 
member of the intelligence committee weren't consulted about this, but 
what made my jaw drop was when I learned that our commander in 
Afghanistan had not been consulted in advance about the impact on the 
ground of this particular prisoner transfer in terms of the five 
Taliban detainees--which, make no mistake, what our intelligence 
community has said is that these five detainees, the five Taliban dream 
team--on a scale of 1 to 10, how likely will it be that they get back 
in the fight against us and our allies and against our interests? Four 
of them, we were told, are a 10 out of 10 that they will get back into 
the fight. That is why these five detainees were designated as high-
risk by the board that is supposed to review these issues and decide 
whether prisoners can be safely transferred out of Guantanamo or 
whether they should be indefinitely detained.
  I just wanted to add that to this discussion because it is important 
to understand. I do believe we should bring our men and women home who 
have served our country, but these five detainees represent a real 
danger to us and our allies going forward, and that is why even the 
intel committee on a bipartisan basis didn't think this was a good 
idea.
  The notion that the President couldn't trust, for example, the 
ranking member of the intel committee, whom I have great respect for, 
and the chairman of that committee, whom we entrust every day to hold 
classified information, to ask at least what the intel committee 
thought, I just think that is absurd, that they would have somehow put 
at risk our soldier in Afghanistan.
  So I wanted to add that to the discussion. And it seems to me that if 
we really wanted to consult on the ground with our commander in 
Afghanistan, we would want to know from him in advance what he thought 
about putting the five detainees back in the battle space, regardless 
of what he thinks now about it because making a good decision means 
consulting the people who are knowledgeable about this in advance.
  What worries me the most about this transfer is the fact that five 
out of the five are likely to get back in the fight, and we don't have 
a good record on this. The estimates are that 29 percent of those who 
have been detained in Guantanamo have either gotten directly back in 
the fight or we believe have gotten back in the fight against our 
interests or the interests of our allies. That is the national security 
concern about this transfer.


                                Ukraine

  I am here today to talk about the situation in Ukraine. As we look 
around the world there is so much happening and so much which is of 
concern to our country, but today I would like to focus on Ukraine and 
what Russia is doing in Eastern Ukraine to interfere with the 
sovereignty of the Ukrainian people, to interfere with their choice of 
how they want to conduct their country, the choices they have a right 
to make for their own country.
  Of course, this began with the illegal invasion and annexation of 
Crimea, but it has not stopped there. It has continued in Eastern 
Ukraine, where essentially we have seen violence and turmoil in parts 
of Eastern Ukraine.
  Make no mistake, the cause of that violence and turmoil in Eastern 
Ukraine is by the so-called separatists, and the cause is very clear: 
Vladimir Putin and Russia hold the key to that violence. They hold the 
key and are as responsible for that violence as they are responsible 
for the illegal invasion of Crimea.
  In fact, I would say Vladimir Putin has operational control of what 
is happening. He could ask those separatists to stop what they are 
doing. He could stop giving them arms. He could stop giving them the 
things he has been giving them, including the capability of shooting 
down Ukrainian planes, giving them the capability of tanks and arms.
  With everything the Ukrainian people are trying to deal with, what do 
they want? The Ukrainian people want to determine their own future. 
They want Vladimir Putin and Russia to butt out. They want Russia to 
respect their sovereign territory, and unfortunately none of this is 
happening.
  I recently had the honor of leading a delegation to Ukraine to 
oversee the Presidential election last month. I had the chance to sit 
down and meet with the now-elected President Boris Plushenko in 
Ukraine.
  I also had the chance to meet many people in Ukraine and see their 
elections firsthand. One of the events that was very inspiring to me 
was the first polling place I went to in Kiev. There was an older 
gentleman, probably in his seventies, who cast the first ballot of the 
day. As he cast his ballot, he said: ``For democracy.'' That was a very 
moving moment because that is what we saw throughout the polling places 
we observed in Ukraine. They had a very high turnout.
  The Ukrainian people came out to vote in their elections so they 
could choose their President, not a President chosen by Vladimir Putin. 
They came out to vote for a President chosen by the Ukrainian people, 
and they did it despite what was happening in Eastern Ukraine. They did 
it despite the threats Russia made against their sovereignty and their 
country.
  I think they did it in spite of Russia and to send a message, as a 
people, to say: We are going to determine our future. Vladimir Putin, 
you are not going to determine our future. I found it all inspiring.
  Why does Ukraine and what happens there matter to the United States 
of America? First of all, if Russia believes they can go in and invade 
the sovereign territory of another country without consequences, what 
does that mean for the rest of Europe and the security of Europe? 
Unfortunately, we have seen history such as this before, where 
countries are invaded and other countries act in an apathetic fashion; 
there are no consequences as a result of that invasion.
  The President gave a moving speech in Warsaw, Poland, on June 4 of 
this year, to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Freedom Day there. In 
that speech the President said:

       Ukraine must be free to choose its own future for itself 
     and by itself. We will not accept Russia's occupation of 
     Crimea or its violation of Ukraine sovereignty.

  It means increased support to help our friends such as Ukraine and 
Moldova and Georgia, all of which are watching what is happening in 
Ukraine and wondering: Will we be next if there are no consequences for 
the invasion of Ukraine? To help them provide for their own defense, 
our free nations will stand united so further Russian provocations will 
only mean more isolation and costs for Russia.
  In fact, as I went to Ukraine to oversee the elections, the President 
had said--with those impending Presidential elections in Ukraine--along

[[Page 10157]]

with Chancellor Merkel of Germany, that if the Ukrainian elections were 
interfered with, there would be more costs to Russia. Well, guess what. 
When I was there overseeing the elections in places such as Kiev, where 
we had a record turnout, the Russians continued to foment violence in 
the eastern province.
  In Donetsk and Luhansk, the people there did not have the free right 
to vote and exercise their decisionmaking for the future of their 
country. Where were the costs for that? There were none imposed. In 
fact, the economic sanctions imposed by this administration have not 
had an impact on Russia.
  In fact, their stock market is back to where it was before the 
sanctions, and at this point they feel they have gotten away with it 
because the economic sanctions we imposed prior to those elections were 
imposed on individuals and some minimal sanctions on sectoral, but very 
limited, and we have done nothing to actually support the Ukrainians in 
helping them to defend themselves.
  What has happened since the President talked about the costs they 
would endure if they interfered with the election? Nothing happened 
even though the Russians continue to foment violence in the east.
  Flash forward to the Warsaw speech in Poland, where the President 
said if there is further aggression by the Russians, there will be 
costs if they interfere with the sovereignty of Ukraine.
  Guess what happened since then. Since that time, the developments 
have been absolutely shocking, and I think the Russians are trying to 
take advantage of what is happening in Iraq and other things happening 
around the world. They are thinking we will lose sight of their illegal 
invasion of Ukraine and what they are doing in Eastern Ukraine.
  On June 12, Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine reportedly acquired 
T-64 tanks and BM-21 rocket launchers from Russia. These are the types 
of vehicles--rocket launchers--Russia is supplying to their agents, 
essentially, in Eastern Ukraine. There have been tanks sighted. This is 
no grassroots movement. Tanks and rockets have all been provided by 
Russia to kill Ukrainian people who are trying to defend their 
sovereignty. This has all happened since the elections, adding on to 
the violence that was committed in Eastern Ukraine during the 
elections.
  The President said there will be costs. There have been no costs for 
tanks and missile launchers in Eastern Ukraine. In fact, on June 14 
pro-Russian separatists shot down a Ukrainian military transport 
killing all 49 people on board in the deadliest unrest in months in 
Eastern Ukraine. This is the type of transport the Russians--the agents 
they backed--shot down.
  In order to shoot down a plane such as this, they have to have the 
technology to do it, and guess who is giving them that technology. 
Russia. Yet there have been no costs to that because at this point the 
President has just talked. He has not imposed tougher sanctions on the 
economy of Russia nor has he provided the Ukrainian military with 
support.
  This is what it looked like when they shot down those 49 people who 
were killed. The Russian agents and the separatists they are giving the 
arms to did this--shot down that plane, and this is the actual picture 
of that plane.
  At this point what is the State Department's response? What has our 
administration said? We are highly concerned about the new Russian 
efforts to support the separatists. We are very concerned. If they 
don't deescalate, there will be additional costs.
  How many times will our President and the State Department say there 
will be additional costs if the Russians do anything further? How many 
times will the Russians again shoot down Ukrainian planes by giving 
these arms to their agents and their separatists? How many more Russian 
tanks have to cross the Ukrainian border before we will impose such 
costs?
  Words don't mean anything to someone such as Vladimir Putin, and he 
knows we keep talking and not acting, so he can keep shooting down 
their planes. He can make sure the tanks roll over the border--the 
Russian tanks. This is not a grassroots movement. They have tanks and 
rocket launchers to shoot down aircraft. This is a subversion where the 
Russians are also trying to repeat the playbook of what happened in 
Crimea to further take over the rest of Ukraine, and it is time for us 
to back up our words with actions.
  What kind of actions are we talking about? We are talking about 
legislation we have offered in the Congress. I have worked with Senator 
Corker and others on legislation that will impose tougher economic 
sanctions on Russia and will make a difference to them and their 
economy. We have financial sector sanctions, energy sector sanctions, 
military sector sanctions--sanctions that will send the message that, 
yes, this will hurt your economy if you don't respect the sovereignty 
of another country or if you continue to escalate the violence by 
providing not only tanks but also rocket launchers and shooting down 
planes of the Ukrainian people.
  When I had the chance to meet with the new President of Ukraine, he 
had a request of us. First of all, he wants to make sure we are tougher 
than we have been on Russia in terms of economic sanctions so Russia 
doesn't continue to invade their territory and, not only that, so they 
don't go into other countries in the region. We need to use the 
economic tools at our disposal so we are forced to use military tools 
down the line. We have economic tools this administration is not using 
to impose costs on Russia and to back up the words of our President 
rather than continuing to look the other way when tanks roll in and 
airplanes are shot down.
  What else can we do? The President asked me about supporting their 
military. No one wants to send a U.S. troop to Ukraine. No one wants to 
send our people to fight their battle, but this is what he asked of us: 
The former Russian-backed President gutted our military. Can you help 
get us some basic things for our military--body armor, communication 
equipment, night vision goggles, in addition, antitank and anti-
aircraft capability.
  What would that do for them? They could defend themselves from the 
tanks. They could help push back against their planes from being shot 
down. So what they want is the ability and the help to defend 
themselves.
  Why should we give it to them? We should give it to them because not 
only is it the right thing to do so they can help defend themselves and 
we can push back against the Russian invasion in their country, but it 
is the right thing to do because we were a signatory to the Budapest 
memorandum.
  In 1994, Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. They gave up their 
nuclear weapons under the Budapest memorandum that the United States, 
the United Kingdom, and Russia signed. Russia has violated this 
agreement because the agreement required all parties to respect the 
sovereignty of Ukraine and the agreement required us to respect not 
only their sovereignty, but they expected some security assurance 
because they were giving up their nuclear weapons by signing this 
agreement.
  We haven't even given them antitank, anti-aircraft equipment so they 
can defend themselves after they gave up nuclear weapons. What other 
country in the world is ever going to give up their nuclear weapons 
when we are not even going to impose tough economic sanctions on a 
country that has been invaded. We have not even given them basic 
military equipment when they were invaded.
  I would argue, in looking at this playbook, no rational country is 
going to give up their nuclear weapons again in such an agreement if we 
don't actually follow through in what our President said, which is: 
There will be costs if the Russians continue to invade the territory of 
Ukraine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 1 
additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. AYOTTE. In summary, I do not expect us to go alone. I would ask 
our

[[Page 10158]]

European partners to step up too. It is a shame that the French will 
continue their recent sale to the Russians to give them further 
capability of the Mistral class amphibious assault ships. So shame on 
the French for that because Europe is threatened by the Russian 
aggression here, and I not only expect our country to follow through, 
but our allies should be held accountable to follow through as well.
  Ukraine matters. We cannot continue to look the other way as Russia 
thinks they can invade another country without consequences. We can 
make a difference in this Congress. I urge the President to follow 
through on his words; otherwise, do not say it if you were not willing 
to back it up, Mr. President.
  The Ukrainian people deserve our support. They love America. All they 
want is to determine their own future instead of Vladimir Putin 
determining their future for them.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                            Embassy Security

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an important 
topic, the topic of embassy security. The safety of American embassies 
abroad and especially our capital ``A'' Ambassadors and our small ``a'' 
ambassadors, who go to work every day in communities across the globe--
182 countries where we have embassies--to represent the United States.
  Embassy security has been in the news yesterday. The President 
announced the dispatch of 275 additional marines to Baghdad to protect 
the American Embassy and embassy personnel in Iraq. Today we received 
the news of the excellent law enforcement work that has been done by 
the United States to finally capture one of the leaders behind the raid 
on Benghazi in September of 2012. Obviously, embassy security is an 
important and very newsworthy and topical issue.
  Mr. President, I think you have noticed what I have, that in the 
aftermath of the tragic attack on the embassy compound in Benghazi that 
cost four Americans their lives, there has been much discussion in 
Congress about Benghazi. But too much of it, in my view, has been 
focused on trying to play the blame game than trying to talk about what 
we should do to minimize the chance of such an incident happening 
again.
  We have seen attacks on embassies. From the attack on the U.S. 
Embassy in Beirut in the 1980s, to attacks on embassies in Africa in 
the 1990s, we have seen this before. But what we ought to be talking 
about in this body and in the House is how to make our embassies safer 
instead of trying to play a blame game.
  I want to bring in this speech one fact about embassy security that 
should trouble us a lot, and especially us in the Senate. Of the 182 
countries in the world that have United States Ambassadors, 54 of the 
U.S. Ambassador posts are currently vacant. Nearly 30 percent of the 
ambassador posts in the world--where the U.S. Ambassador goes to 
represent us--are currently vacant. Ten of the posts are vacant because 
the White House has not forwarded a name to the Senate, which is 
responsible for the consent to those nominations. One of those 10--
Syria--has not been forwarded because of security reasons. Twenty-one 
posts are vacant because the White House has sent nominees but the 
nominees are pending in the Foreign Relations Committee, where I serve. 
The chairman of the committee, Senator Menendez, is doing all he can to 
move those through but is facing some pretty significant opposition, 
often from members of the committee. And 23 of the positions are vacant 
because they have gone through the Foreign Relations Committee, they 
have received overwhelming votes of support, but they are being held 
here on the Senate floor with no action on the Senate floor, often for 
a very long period of time.
  Let me tell you about those 23 nations. The ambassador to the nation 
of Djibouti, which is a critical partner in Africa for the United 
States in counterterrorism operations--his nomination has been pending 
in the Senate for 67 days; for the Czech Republic, the nomination has 
been pending for 95 days; for the Bahamas, the nomination has been 
pending for 122 days; for the State of Kuwait, in the Middle East--a 
critical area--the nomination has been pending for 179 days; for Bosnia 
and Herzegovina, 200 days; for Hungary, 215 days; for New Zealand, 223 
days; for Iceland, 223 days; for Zambia, 270 days; for the Gabonese 
Republic, 270 days; for the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, pending 
here in the Senate, 272 days; for the Kingdom of Norway, 272 days; for 
Jamaica, 272 days; for the Kingdom of Lesotho, 312 days; for the 
Republic of Palau, 313 days; for the Democratic Republic of Timor-
Leste, 313 days; for Cameroon, 314 days; for Namibia, 314 days; for 
Niger--Niger, critical in issues of terrorism and counterterrorism in 
Africa--the nomination on this floor, pending for 314 days; for 
Trinidad and Tobago, 314 days; for Albania, 319 days; for Sierra Leone, 
335 days; and topping the list, a strong ally of the United States, the 
Republic of Peru, the ambassadorial nomination has been pending on the 
floor of the Senate for 353 days--almost a year.
  Again, these vacancies represent nearly 30 percent of all of the in-
country ambassadorships that the United States sends around the globe--
essentially just hanging a sign out in front of the Embassy of the 
United States with a big ``vacant'' sign on it.
  I would submit that ``vacancies'' means an uncertainty about 
leadership and that hurts embassy security. Mr. President, you and I 
were both Governors. We know that our agencies ran a lot better when 
they knew who the leaders were. An interim, a part-time, a temporary, 
an acting--that is not the same as a leader. That is not the same as a 
confirmed ambassador. So our personnel, who are serving in these 54 
embassies around the world--often in very dangerous places in the 
world--are there waiting for their leader to come. Now they have a 
deputy in charge of the mission, and those people are usually fine, but 
even that deputy is waiting to find out: Who will our leader be? Times 
of uncertainty increase insecurity.
  So I would say to my colleagues, if you really care about Benghazi 
and embassy security, you should care about confirming ambassadors in 
these 54 nations that are waiting for American leadership.
  The ability to promptly nominate and confirm these ambassadors is 
directly connected to our security, and I would argue that individuals 
blocking or slowing down ambassadorial appointments are not being 
accurate when they claim to support embassy security.
  The effects of these vacancies are not just in the security of our 
embassies, obviously. I often hear colleagues on the floor of this body 
or see them on television criticizing America as retreating from global 
leadership. Well, if you care about America's global leadership, why 
allow 54 American embassies around the world to not have ambassadors? 
Why allow those vacancies to exist?
  The existence of these vacancies--some for nearly as long as a year--
sends a pretty powerful message to the nations where the vacancies 
exist. And the message could be interpreted one of two ways. Maybe the 
United States is retreating from global leadership because if the 
United States cared, the Senate would confirm ambassadors. Or in some 
countries the interpretation is a little bit different. It is not about 
global leadership. Some countries interpret it as: Maybe we are not 
that important to the United States. It is a sign of disrespect to 
nations as important as Niger, some of the nations in the Middle East I 
mentioned, France, to not have ambassadors for extended periods of 
time.
  This is a very important issue and I do not think this body, which is 
constitutionally charged with this responsibility, should be complicit 
in sending a message to the nations of the world that we are retreating 
or that we are uninterested in our relationships with them.
  Let me conclude by coming back to the subject of embassy security. 
Mr. President, I know you, like I, in this job have had the opportunity 
to travel around the world and meet some of our

[[Page 10159]]

embassy personnel. What I try to do when I travel--I imagine you try to 
do the same--is not just spend time with the capital ``A'' 
ambassadors--that is important--but I also try to spend time with the 
small ``a'' ambassadors: the Foreign Service officers on their first or 
second tour who have chosen--even though the salary is not great, even 
though the working conditions can be tough, even though security 
challenges can be significant--to serve the United States abroad.
  I was in Beirut, in Lebanon, in February with Senator Angus King of 
Maine. Let me tell you about our personnel in Lebanon. Because of the 
dangers in that country, they all have to live on the embassy compound. 
They live there in Beirut, which has been subject to some very 
difficult times. The U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed in the 
1980s. The U.S. Embassy was bombed. Hundreds were killed in those two 
bombings. The U.S. embassy annex was bombed. Other U.S. Embassy 
personnel were targeted and killed. Hundreds of Americans serving not 
just in the military but as Foreign Service officers lost their lives 
in Lebanon, representing us in the best way they could.
  For that reason our embassy personnel live on the embassy compound in 
Beirut. Guess what kind of personal life they have. They are allowed 6 
hours a week personal time to be off the embassy compound, and they 
have to be escorted by security. They described what it is like. They 
might want to go to the beach, and traffic is horrible, so in that 6 
hours a week, it is an hour and a half to get to where they want to go, 
and then it is an hour and a half to get back from where they want to 
go, so what they really get is about 3 hours a week of personal time. 
That is what these wonderful American public servants do.
  I then went to Egypt, and I had a visit with a young first-tour 
Foreign Service officer there who was talking about needing to finish a 
meeting we were having because of the Skype date with her husband. I 
was not familiar with that terminology. She serves in a capacity where, 
for safety and other reasons, it was not ideal for him to be there with 
her. So on Friday nights they both dress up, and with a glass of wine 
they then fire up the Skype and talk across thousands of miles to try 
to keep their marriage alive. This is a person who is thrilled to serve 
the United States in a dangerous part of the world. Again, it is not 
for the salary. It is not for the comfort. It is for the honor of 
representing this country.
  We owe them something. We owe them a secure operation that can make 
them feel--not completely safe because there is no guarantee of safety 
for our personnel in many of these countries but at least that we are 
doing all we can to try to keep them safe.
  I stand today because we are not doing all we can to keep these 
people safe. To the extent that we in the Senate are responsible for 
the vacancies of nearly 30 percent of the ambassadorial posts around 
the world--and the absence of ambassadors leads to additional 
insecurity--we are not honoring our obligation to the brave Americans 
who want to serve this Nation in very dangerous places.
  I urge my colleagues, if you are talking about Benghazi and the need 
for more embassy security, you should be promptly confirming 
ambassadors to represent the United States. If you are worried about 
the role of America in the world, and you are asserting, critically, 
that America is retreating from global leadership, you should be 
confirming promptly the ambassadorial nominees who are pending before 
the Senate.
  With that, Mr. President, I thank you and yield the floor.
  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. DONNELLY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       vote on kadzik nomination

  Under the previous order, the question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Peter Joseph Kadzik, of New York, to be an 
Assistant Attorney General.
  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 199 Ex.]

                                YEAS--55

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Casey
     Cochran
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________