[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10275-10305]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        2015--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 4660.
  The clerk will report the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 428, H.R. 4660, a bill 
     making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and 
     Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we bring to the floor our fiscal year 
2015 spending bill, but before the Republican leader leaves, as the 
Senator from Maryland, I too would like to join with great respect in 
condolences for Master Sergeant Torian's family. For all of us who are 
Senators who have constituent families where people have died, we have 
to be in this together.
  These are times when we are not the Republican Party or the 
Democratic Party. We are not red or blue. We have to be red, white, and 
blue. From this side of the aisle to that side of the aisle, Godspeed 
to his family, and I thank the Senator for bringing this wonderful 
young man to the attention of the Senate. Those remarks were quite 
poignant and moving.
  We have to stand by those families--the widow, the children who will 
need an education, and let's do it shoulder to shoulder.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maryland for 
her additional comments about this wonderful young man.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today we bring to the floor on a 
bipartisan basis the annual appropriation bills of the Commerce-
Justice-Science bill, the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and 
Urban Development, and also the Agriculture, Rural Development, and 
Food and Drug Administration. I wish to thank all of the members of the 
Appropriations Committee for their tremendous work on these bills. 
First, I wish to say a special word about my vice chairman Richard 
Shelby, who has done the hard work and the due diligence of helping 
move the entire process but also moving, in particular, our bill that 
funds the Commerce Department, Justice Department, and the science 
programs, such as our space program.
  In terms of transportation, we have the able leadership of Senator 
Murray, with her vice chairman Senator Collins; and on agriculture, 
chairman Mark Pryor and, again, his vice chairman Roy Blunt.
  This process is about moving America forward. This legislation we are 
putting before the Senate today puts America's middle-class families 
first, creating opportunity by creating jobs today.
  With investments in physical infrastructure in the transportation and 
housing bill, we are building roads and bridges, repairing them, and 
updating transit lines and rail lines, so we literally and figuratively 
can keep America on the move. At the same time we are also meeting 
America's compelling human needs with our investment in home ownership 
as well as in housing and in urban and economic development.
  We also create jobs tomorrow with investments in research and 
discovery. What we do in these important science agencies is drive 
innovation, leading to new products and new jobs. And guess what. 
Science saves lives.
  When we look at Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations, we see that 
we fund the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--a lot of 
words with a lot of alphabet, synonyms and acronyms and so on.
  At the end of the day, we fund the weather service. What does the 
weather service do? They predict weather. They predict immediate 
weather, such as is it going to rain this afternoon, and they predict 
weather emergencies, whether we are going to have a tornado.
  Our hearts go out, again, on the other side of the aisle, to the 
people of Kansas, where they were hit by a double tornado--an 
unprecedented weather event. They are calling it the twin sisters, 
referring to what happened in Nebraska. They were the ugly sisters, but 
they were made less ugly because of the way the weather service could 
help alert the people in that community. That is what we fund.
  We protect the American people by making sure we fight crime and 
terrorism by funding Federal law enforcement; by making sure our 
medicines and medical devices are safe by funding the Food and Drug 
Administration; and we meet compelling human needs, whether we are 
talking about affordable housing or affordable food.
  While we do it, we are also reforming the agencies. Sure, people talk 
about appropriators as spenders, but we have a sense in this committee 
on both sides of the aisle--and I must say that Senator Shelby has 
helped lead this--that we need to be a more frugal government. We need 
to get value for our dollar, demonstrating that we need to be able to 
save money or use money. We are going to spend very wisely.
  It has been 3 years since we were able to bring an appropriations 
bill to the floor. I am not going to go into all the reasons why. 
``Why'' doesn't get the job done. What we need to do is return to 
regular order. So what does that mean? Today we have these three bills 
pending. It means we want to enact all of our appropriations bills by 
October 1. We want to keep government operating not on autopilot, not 
on shutdown, nor on lavish spending. We have to reduce our Federal 
deficit, but we also have to reduce other deficits, particularly in the 
area of deficits related to innovation as well as the fact that our 
crime rates are on the rise in many cities and we need to reduce them. 
The American people today want to make sure we have a government they 
can count on. But they need to count on the fact that not only are we 
open and doing business but that when we are, we are smarter about it.
  Vice Chairman Shelby and I have been working on a bipartisan basis. 
We have been working on a bicameral basis. That means hands across the 
aisle, hands across the dome to restore regular order and civility in 
this process.
  I look forward to moving this bill. I would say to my colleagues who 
are listening, many of my colleagues saw a few months ago the way 
Senator Lamar Alexander, Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Richard Burr, and 
I moved a bipartisan bill on the child care and development block 
grant. That had not been reauthorized since 1996, but we showed we 
could do it. We cleared 18 amendments. We actually had votes on 
amendments. We had an open process where amendments could be offered, 
discussed, debated, and at the end of the day voted on because we had a 
process that worked. As Senators who worked together, we were able to 
pass that bill.
  Senator Shelby and I are providing leadership today to be able to do 
that. So we ask our colleagues to support us in coming to an agreement 
on the motion to proceed so that we can move ahead on this bill. We are 
making progress. There are several bills we have already moved out of 
the committee, and we will be moving more. But right now, today, we 
want to move these three bills and do it in a way that we are proud of 
what we do, we are proud of our process, we are proud of our conduct, 
and we are proud that we did it in the right way, with debate, 
discussion, and the votes that are required.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.

[[Page 10276]]


  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this morning I wish to join my longtime 
colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Maryland and chair of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Barbara Mikulski, in 
supporting the consideration of three bills before us today. All three 
bills received strong bipartisan support at the full Committee on 
Appropriations level.
  I am pleased we have begun to reestablish regular order in the 
appropriations process. We started that last year, and we need to 
continue it, and we are.
  After the uncertainty of sequestration and last year's disagreement 
over the Budget Control Act caps, this past December's Murray-Ryan 
budget deal provided the clarity needed to move us toward a regular 
budget and a regular appropriations process. The Murray-Ryan deal, 
which became the Bipartisan Budget Act, provided a compromise solution 
that ended the congressional deadlock over top-line discretionary 
spending.
  While I appreciate that the chairwoman was operating in a tight 
fiscal environment, we did not ultimately agree everywhere on how to 
allocate funds within the new caps. All 14 Republican members of the 
Appropriations Committee wrote to the chair on May 21 of this year 
expressing our concerns over the use of budgetary mechanisms in 
subcommittee allocations. In that letter we also stated and we continue 
to express our opposition to increasing the level of total CHIMPs in 
the Federal discretionary budget beyond current levels.
  While we continue to have concerns about how the majority reached 
total 302(b) allocations, the bills before us today for the most part 
reached their allocations by making tough choices; that is, shifting 
resources from lower to higher priority programs.
  The allocations for the CJS, transportation and housing, and 
Agriculture bills conform to the intent of the Murray-Ryan deal. Both 
the Commerce-Justice-Science bill and the Agriculture bill actually 
decrease spending compared to the current enacted levels, while still 
being sufficient to meet the needs of the agencies. I am pleased to 
have worked with the chairwoman to ensure that the CJS bill 
successfully balanced the important and competing interests of law 
enforcement, scientific advancement, and U.S. competitiveness. The 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill has a moderate 
increase of only 1.4 percent, after taking into account the 
scorekeeping difference between OMB and CBO on FHA loan receipts.
  I believe passing these funding measures will give Congress a voice 
in government spending that it was constitutionally intended to have. 
Instead of ceding spending discretion to the executive branch or simply 
locking in place priorities that have become outdated--as a continuing 
resolution would do--this bill includes hundreds of limits on how 
taxpayer dollars can be spent. While I might not agree with every item 
in each bill, I think we have found solid middle ground upon which both 
sides of the aisle can comfortably stand.
  Once again, I thank the chair, Senator Mikulski, for her willingness 
to work together, and I encourage my colleagues to come to the floor 
and offer their amendments so we can debate the merits of them.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the vice chairman for his 
remarks. I think he makes excellent points. We had a tough top line to 
meet. The CBO score--these budgets speak words that people are trying 
to follow. The Congressional Budget Office actually says how much 
things will cost, and when they took a look at what our FHA program and 
certain mortgage rates would cost, they found out we overestimated 
revenue by $4 billion. That is a lot of money even by Washington 
standards. So we had to adjust accordingly, and it has not been easy.
  I will tell my colleagues that we are now coming down to talk about 
where we really are now--what are the agencies we want to fund, why we 
want to fund them at the amount we do, and what problems they actually 
solve for the American people. The American people have a right to ask 
at the end of the day not ``did you spend money'' but ``what did you 
spend it on and what did we get for it? Are we a stronger country? Do 
we have a better economy? Do our children have a brighter future? Are 
we meeting compelling human needs?'' I think in these three bills the 
answer is yes.
  When we look at Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations, we want to 
tell our colleagues what we have done. It really funds several 
different agencies, and it comes to a total of $51.2 billion. It is 
consistent with the CJS allocation, and it is $398 million less--I want 
to say this clearly. What we are doing in the Commerce-Justice-Science 
bill, we are spending less money than we did last year, but we think we 
are getting more value for the dollar. We are $398 million below what 
we spent last year, but at the same time we have kept our communities 
safe, we have promoted jobs, and we have promoted innovation.
  We used our spending to guide Federal decisions from Federal law 
enforcement to space exploration. The CJS bill provides $28 billion for 
the Justice Department. This is $260 million more than 2014. We did 
this because we believe the Justice Department is an agency that people 
in local communities feel they need to be able to count on. It keeps 
America safe from crime and terrorism. It protects communities at the 
local level. It protects families against domestic violence and sexual 
predators. And the job of the Justice Department is to administer 
justice fairly.
  This bill funds key law enforcement and prosecution agencies. What do 
we mean by that? Federal law enforcement is made up of the FBI, the 
Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms and Explosives, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the U.S. 
attorneys who actually prosecute the bad guys or the bad gals for 
everything from mortgage fraud, to cyber terrorism, to drug dealing and 
drug cartels, so they can keep us safe from all of this, protecting us 
against gangs, drug dealers. Why is it important? Federal law 
enforcement goes after gang activity, fraudsters trying to be more 
predatory.
  What is the result in this funding? We have done a lot. In my own 
home State of Maryland, over the last year our Federal law enforcement 
has arrested 280 violent fugitives. Federal law enforcement brought 
down child pornographers and traffickers, bank robbers, and took a big 
whack at the heroin trafficking rings. I am really proud of them. I am 
proud of what they do in Maryland, and I am proud of what they do 
around the world.
  Look at how our FBI, working with our special operations, brought to 
heel and brought into our custody one of the men who killed our Embassy 
personnel in Benghazi. Let's do a big hurrah for the FBI and special 
ops, but let's do our hurrah not only with words but putting the money 
in the Federal checkbook so they get to be able to continue to do the 
job of keeping America safe.
  There are many other aspects of this bill that are important. This is 
why we look out for our State and local departments.
  We have also put in an important investment in the Violence Against 
Women Act. We are spending $430 million to give grants to prevent and 
prosecute domestic violence and also to be able to deal and help with 
rape victims.
  This bill puts money in the Federal checkbook to put more police 
officers on the beat. But I like the fact that we are actually 
protecting them with more bulletproof vests and being able to do other 
work.
  This bill also addresses the backlog of sexual assaults, making sure 
we test no matter where they are. We have seen time and time again that 
evidence is gathered and that somehow or another it is in some box in 
some lab or some police department. Rape victims cannot be dually 
assaulted--one by the predator who attacked them and then by a 
lackluster prosecutorial system. If you gather the evidence, test it 
and use it to make sure we have the right predator. Prosecute the 
predator. See if

[[Page 10277]]

they are a serial predator. Let's not doubly assault the victim by not 
only what happened to them on the street but also what happens to them 
in the criminal justice system.
  So we are doing a lot. I feel very strongly about this, but I also 
feel very strongly about the need to create jobs. This bill provides 
$8.6 billion for the Department of Commerce, which helps them protect 
our patents, promotes trade and economic development. It helps our 
coastal economies with sustainable fisheries and healthy oceans. It 
exports American goods and services and supports more than 11 million 
jobs.
  This bill does a lot by putting our Commercial Service officers--
those who actually work in embassies--to work, with business to be able 
to help them. And we make sure they are not only in Europe but they are 
in Asia and Africa, where the new opportunities are.
  Our dynamic Secretary of Commerce has focused on bringing foreign 
investments to the United States, and we have seen what they have meant 
to Maryland and what they have meant in Alabama and what they have 
meant in America.
  We also, through the Commerce Department, help with our weather 
bureau. I am going to say more about it, but what I want to talk about 
right now is the National Science Foundation--one of our other main 
agencies--because it does the basic research in science, technology, 
and engineering.
  Then there is NASA. I am going to say more about NASA later. I know 
we have others waiting to speak. For NASA, actually, we have done more 
than what the President wanted to do because we wanted to have a 
balanced space program. We have particularly emphasized human space 
flight, a reliable transportation system, and space science.
  We have here where we are creating jobs, we are protecting people in 
their communities, and we are laying the groundwork for jobs of the 
future. There are many other issues I will talk about as the bill 
unfolds.
  Senator Shelby and I have worked very closely with Senator Coburn. 
Everybody knows Senator Coburn prides himself on being a watchdog on 
Federal spending. And you know what. He has been. I love some of his 
ideas; some give me a little pause. But we actually met. We actually 
met to see what we could do to be able to reform our government so we 
could get more value for the dollar. I am going to have a separate 
speech just on that so the American people know, when they say ``Watch 
what you spend, Barb,'' I really am doing it. So is Senator Shelby. So 
are the members of our committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, again I rise today in support of, 
specifically, the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill, where I 
am the ranking member for the Republicans.
  I appreciate the leadership, as I have said earlier, of the chair on 
this particular bill. We have worked together for many years. I chaired 
this subcommittee at one time, and I believe the bill being considered 
today reflects a strong bipartisan effort.
  The competing interests of the Commerce-Justice-Science 
appropriations bill always prove challenging, but I believe this bill 
strikes the appropriate balance.
  The allocation for the CJS bill; that is, the Commerce-Justice-
Science bill; is $51.2 billion, which is just below the fiscal year 
2014 enacted level--yes, below. Working within this allocation, we 
sought to balance priorities, hold agencies accountable for their work, 
and demand efficiencies to stretch limited Federal dollars. Ultimately, 
these efforts ensure that Federal resources are spent efficiently and 
effectively.
  The bill before us provides robust funding for the Department of 
Justice and law enforcement grant programs totaling $28 billion. It 
focuses attention and resources on some of the most difficult issues 
plaguing the Nation, including human trafficking, gang violence, child 
predation, a growing heroin crisis, threats to cyber security, and 
domestic terrorism.
  Grant programs such as VALOR, Byrne, veterans courts, crime lab 
improvements, violence against women, and the COPS Program will receive 
funding to advance the important work being done at the State and local 
level in our Nation.
  Moreover, the bill ensures that the Department maintains its focus on 
evidence-based programs and activities that have a proven record of 
effectiveness. This requirement emphasizes the committee's commitment 
to ensuring that Federal dollars are not just spent but are spent 
wisely.
  The bill also includes $8.6 billion for the Department of Commerce, 
which is responsible for a range of issues, including weather 
forecasting, economic development, trade promotion, and fisheries 
conservation, among others.
  The bill prioritizes resources to support NOAA's next generation of 
weather satellites that will enable the National Weather Service to 
continue to provide timely warnings for dangerous weather outbreaks 
that we all experience. To ensure that these weather satellites stay on 
budget and are delivered on time, the bill continues and expands 
stringent oversight requirements involving the inspector general. I 
believe our Nation cannot afford cost increases and schedule delays in 
these programs, and we expect that these oversight requirements will 
help avoid such a scenario. These satellites are essential to weather 
forecasters across the country. Without them, forecasters would be 
unable to provide important warnings about devastating storms, tornado 
outbreaks, and hurricanes, putting the safety of the American people at 
risk.
  The bill also provides sufficient resources and direction to improve 
the management of the Nation's fisheries, including new approaches to 
manage red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. These new approaches should 
provide a more equitable system for commercial fishermen and increase 
the number of fishing days for recreational anglers.
  The bill also provides $18 billion for NASA, the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration. In order to preserve the planned launch 
schedule in 2017 for the heavy lift launch vehicle, or SLS, the bill 
includes $1.7 billion for SLS rocket development, which is very 
crucial. It also maintains focus on these efforts by requiring NASA to 
follow its own internal guidance regarding joint confidence levels in 
future funding requests.
  The bill also preserves important funding for ongoing activities of 
the International Space Station and other vital science research 
missions.
  In addition, the bill safeguards the advancement of efforts underway 
to develop a U.S. vehicle to transport our astronauts to the space 
station. I believe those efforts must continue in a transparent way to 
ensure that the government is not saddled with mounting bills and no 
recourse.
  I commend the chair for working with me to include language that 
requires certified cost and pricing data for the crew vehicle 
development contract. The goal of the language is not to up-end a 
fixed-price contract; rather, the goal is to make certain that the 
price NASA has agreed to pay for vehicle development matches actual 
development expenditures. NASA and its contractors have a history of 
cost overruns and schedule delays, whether the contract has a fixed 
price or not. With no other U.S.-based options to get to the space 
station, I believe we cannot find ourselves at the eleventh hour with 
an overburdened program that requires a bailout to succeed.
  Once again, these measures are included to ensure that the government 
is not just spending taxpayer money, but that it is doing so in a cost-
effective manner.
  I reiterate my belief that the bill reflects the Senate's priorities 
and the needs of our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I am pleased the Senate is now 
considering appropriations bills that fund important segments of our 
Federal Government. Those include the agencies responsible for 
scientific research, justice and nutrition programs, as well as the 
Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.

[[Page 10278]]

  It has been some time since we have been able to fund the operations 
of the government through regular order, so it is encouraging that 
leaders on both sides of the aisle have been able to work together now 
to pursue that goal.
  As we are here today considering these bills, I think it is helpful 
to remember where we were at this time last year. We were unable to 
start a budget conference. There was a government shutdown looming just 
a few months ahead, and businesses and families across the country had 
absolutely no certainty about whether their government could even keep 
the lights on.
  Today we have more certainty thanks to the 2-year budget agreement, 
and building on the bipartisan work we all did to reach that agreement, 
the members of our committee, Senator Collins and I, have been able to 
put together a transportation and housing bill that makes responsible 
investments in infrastructure and community development and helps 
protect the most vulnerable among us.
  Less than 2 weeks ago the Appropriations Committee approved the 
transportation and housing bill by a vote of 29 to 1--an extremely 
strong show of bipartisan support. This bill received such remarkable 
support because it helps families and communities, it gets workers back 
on the job, and it lays down a strong foundation for long-term and 
broad-based economic growth. It does this in a manner that is fiscally 
responsible, with growth of just a little more than 1 percent over the 
fiscal year 2014 level when looking at the program funding levels and 
factoring in FHA receipts, which do vary from year to year. After 
adjusting for inflation, the funding in this bill is actually 2.5 
percent less than what it was in fiscal year 2008, as a result of the 
spending cuts we have now applied to discretionary appropriations.
  This bill is timely. It makes critical, targeted investments to 
address concerns that have developed over the past year. In light of 
the dramatic growth in domestic energy production, it includes new 
resources to strengthen oversight of energy shipments by rail to keep 
our communities safe, including funding for additional rail safety and 
hazardous materials inspectors, training for first responders, more 
track inspections, research into the volatility of crude oil, and 
requirements for stronger tank car designs.
  This bill includes $10 million to improve vehicle safety defects 
analysis and investigation, to help ensure we do not see a repeat of 
the Department of Transportation's failure to detect unsafe parts in 
General Motors and other manufacturers' vehicles.
  This bill provides an additional 10,000 vouchers to move us closer to 
finally eliminating homelessness among our Nation's veterans. Due to 
these investments, we have been able to reduce the number of homeless 
vets on our Nation's streets by 24 percent since 2010. We are well on 
our way to eliminating it altogether.
  Our bill includes direction to help communities implement the 
Violence Against Women Act in Federal housing programs as well as 
resources to improve coordination between housing programs and domestic 
violence survivors services. It makes it possible for HUD to support 
youth aging out of foster care, giving them more time to find stability 
and save money, thereby helping to reduce the elevated risk of 
homelessness facing those vulnerable young people.
  This bill invests in our communities. It provides $3 billion for 
community development grants to State and local governments to help 
communities fund projects that meet their unique needs and support 
efforts to create jobs and $950 million for the HOME Program to help 
create affordable housing.
  It ensures the FAA has sufficient funding to continue rebuilding its 
workforce after the disruptive effects of last year's sequestration. It 
fully funds the FAA's airport grants and research programs as well as 
the contract towers and Essential Air Service Program that so many of 
our rural communities depend on.
  It includes sufficient funding for HUD's house and homeless 
assistance program, to preserve this vital piece of the Nation's safety 
net. More than half of the 5.4 million very low-income households that 
depend upon the housing assistance provided in this bill include 
someone elderly, disabled, or both. Without these programs, many of 
these individuals would be homeless.
  The bill includes $90 million for Choice Neighborhoods. That is a 
program that helps tear down and rebuild distressed public housing as 
well as language making it possible for more local authorities to 
access private capital through the Rental Assistance Demonstration to 
renovate our aging housing stock. Notably, it includes reforms to make 
the programs in this bill more accountable and more effective. These 
include provisions to make it easier for public housing authorities to 
manage their capital and operations needs as well as resources for HUD 
to use the lessons it has learned since Hurricane Katrina to develop 
templates that communities can quickly implement to speed recovery 
effectively following a disaster.
  The bill streamlines environmental reviews for Native American 
housing. It works to ensure accountability for property owners who do 
not maintain the quality of their HUD assisted housing. It increases 
accountability in the CDBG Program.
  That is our bill. We do make tough choices. To fund increases for 
inflation and other uncontrollable costs, we made the very difficult 
choice of trimming funding for programs that Members care about, 
including the TIGER and HOME Program. In short, this bill is a good 
bill.
  I note that most of the transportation funding, a total of just over 
$50 billion, comes from our highway trust fund. As we all know, right 
now, the highway trust fund is headed toward a crisis. The Department 
of Transportation expects the balances in this fund to reach critical 
levels later this summer. To deal with this uncertainty, States now are 
already bracing for the worst-case scenario. Some States such as 
Arkansas have already put their projects on hold. This crisis could 
also hurt workers in the construction industry who depend on jobs to 
repair our roads and bridges.
  If Congress does not act, a shortfall in the highway trust fund will 
put at risk the funding we have included here in our THUD bill. We need 
immediate action to solve that crisis well before October when the new 
fiscal year starts. We need to work together to avoid that unnecessary 
and preventable crisis. In the meantime, I am glad we are turning to 
the transportation and housing bill and getting the work of the 
Appropriations Committee done.
  Together with the Senator from Maine, Susan Collins, I encourage 
Members to bring their amendments to the floor and to work with us to 
make it even better. This bill enjoys broad bipartisan support, because 
it takes a practical approach to addressing the real needs we find in 
the transportation and housing sectors.
  The investments it makes would improve safety, increase efficiency, 
and help our communities, and lay down a strong foundation for long-
term and broad-based economic growth and help position our country and 
our economy to compete in winning the 21st century global economy. I 
urge our colleagues to support our bipartisan bill. I hope we can move 
rapidly to final passage.
  Before I yield, I do want to thank Chairman Mikulski for her support 
and leadership. As the former chair of the VA HUD subcommittee, she 
appreciates the importance of the investments in our bill. This bill 
includes priorities of Members on both sides of the aisle, reflecting 
the Appropriations Committee's bipartisan tradition.
  I thank our entire committee for their work. I especially want to 
take a moment to express my thanks to my ranking member Senator Collins 
and her staff for all of their hard work and cooperation throughout 
this process. I am proud that together we have written a bill that 
works for families and communities. Investing in families and 
communities and long-term economic growth should not be a partisan 
issue. I think the bipartisan work that went into this bill and the 
strong support it received in committee proves it does not have to be.

[[Page 10279]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am told the Senator from Washington 
State has a very brief statement she would like to make. I ask 
unanimous consent that she be allowed up to 3 minutes to make her 
statement before I reclaim the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maine. I will 
explain to her later how Maine continues to play a very interesting 
role in such an important issue.
  (The further remarks of Ms. Cantwell are printed in today's Record 
under ``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am pleased to join with Chairman 
Murray as we hope to begin floor consideration of the bipartisan fiscal 
year 2015 appropriations bill for Transportation, Housing and Urban 
Development, and Related Agencies.
  As usual, it has been a great pleasure to work with Chairman Murray. 
She is extremely fair-minded and bipartisan in the approach she has 
taken to this bill. I also thank her staff for working closely with my 
staff as we sought to craft a bill that I believe deserves the support 
of all of our colleagues.
  Let me also take this opportunity to thank Chairwoman Mikulski and 
Vice Chairman Shelby for their extraordinary leadership in advancing 
those three appropriations bills through what at times is turning out 
to be a daunting process. It is my hope and expectation that we can 
give Members of this body the opportunity to debate all three of these 
bills, to offer amendments, and ultimately to pass them, and that we 
have an open and transparent process.
  I would encourage cooperation on both sides of the aisle. It is in 
the best interests of this country for us to do our work in the regular 
order, in the normal process, and to pass these bills, and then to hold 
conferences with the House to iron out any differences.
  Last week the House did approve its own version of the THUD 
appropriations bill. This is an important step in the process which 
will eventually allow the two Chambers to meet in conference and 
produce a final bill to send to the President for his signature. I 
commend the leaders of the Appropriations Committee and also the floor 
leaders for making sure we have the time available to bring these bills 
to the floor.
  There is no reason we cannot pass each one of the appropriations 
bills, have a conference with the House, and get them to the President 
before the start of the fiscal year so we can avoid gigantic omnibus 
bills that are a poor way to legislate or, even worse, continuing 
resolutions that lock into law increased costs and priorities that may 
no longer reflect today's needs.
  The THUD bill before us today is essentially a jobs bill. It provides 
$54.4 billion in responsible investments in transportation and housing 
programs, and it includes input from Members on both sides of the 
aisle. Every Senator has unmet transportation and housing needs in his 
or her State, from crumbling roads and unsafe bridges to a growing 
population of vulnerable low-income families, seniors, and disabled 
individuals in need of housing assistance.
  Chairman Murray and I worked very hard to accommodate the input from 
many Members. This bill we bring before you received overwhelming 
support in the full Appropriations Committee. In fact, as Chairman 
Murray mentioned, the vote was 29 to 1 to report this bill to the full 
Senate. It is essential to acknowledge that this year's THUD bill is 
directly affected by nearly a $3 billion reduction in Federal Housing 
Authority receipts for fiscal year 2015. As a result, we were faced 
with making very difficult decisions to ensure that the Federal 
investments in this bill were prioritized to meet the most critical 
needs.
  One of the most pressing issues this bill addresses has not received 
a great deal of attention, so I want to spend a moment on it; that is, 
the safe transportation of crude oil and other hazardous materials by 
rail. I know the Presiding Officer is very familiar with this issue. I 
am pleased to say our transportation bill strengthens three components 
to help ensure the safe transportation of crude oil and other hazardous 
materials. It focuses on prevention, mitigation, and response. If you 
talk to any emergency responder, they will tell you those are the three 
critical components.
  We do so without adopting the President's poorly conceived proposal, 
which would have created yet another level of bureaucracy in the 
Secretary's office. Instead, we chose what I believe to be a wiser 
course. We provided funding directly to the agencies to support 
additional rail inspectors, advance research efforts, and to establish 
cooperative training programs.
  I know firsthand how horrific these disasters can be, because last 
year there was a terrible derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, 30 miles 
from the border of Maine, that cost 47 lives and essentially destroyed 
this picturesque village. I was very proud that 30 Maine firefighters 
responded to the call for help from their Canadian counterparts.
  Senator Murray and I held an oversight hearing to look at rail 
safety, and the fire chief from Rangeley, ME, Tim Pellerin, testified 
before our committee at our oversight hearing. He provided gripping 
testimony about this extraordinarily dangerous experience, as well as 
thoughtful recommendations about what should be done. I want to tell 
the chief that we listened to him, and a lot of our recommendations in 
the bill--particularly with regard to training--reflect the advice he 
gave us as a first responder on that very dangerous scene.
  Turning to another issue, this bill provides $550 million for the 
TIGER Program, an effective initiative that helps advance 
transportation infrastructure projects. We have seen firsthand how 
TIGER projects create good jobs and support economic growth in our home 
States.
  Turning now to air travel, the aviation investments included in our 
bill will continue to modernize our Nation's air traffic system. These 
investments are creating safer skies and a more efficient air space to 
move the flying public.
  In addition to transportation programs, our bill provides sufficient 
but not generous funding to keep pace with the rising cost of housing 
vulnerable families. More than 4 million families will continue to 
receive critical rental assistance for their housing. Without it, many 
of these families would otherwise become homeless.
  Chairman Murray and I continue to share a strong commitment--indeed, 
a passion--to reducing homelessness in this country. For that reason we 
have included more than $2 billion for homeless assistance grants. 
Since 2010 we have reduced overall chronic homelessness by 16 percent 
and veterans homelessness by 24 percent.
  These programs are working, and we have the data to prove it. That is 
why our bill builds on these successes and provides an additional 
10,000 HUD-VASH vouchers to serve our Nation's veterans.
  We have an obligation to our Nation's veterans. That has been very 
much on our minds recently, and we can point with pride to the 
reduction by 24 percent in homelessness among veterans, but we want to 
complete the job. We don't want any veteran to be homeless, and we are 
making progress through this well-conceived program.
  While our bill helps families in need and our Nation's veterans, it 
also invests in our communities. Boosting local economies is critical 
to job creation and helping families obtain financial security. Our 
legislation supports these local development efforts by providing more 
than $3 billion for Community Development Block Grants.
  I am sure the Presiding Officer has had the experience, as most 
Members have, of talking to State and local officials about the 
Community Development Block Grant Program. It is an extremely popular 
program with States and communities because it allows them to tailor 
the Federal funds to

[[Page 10280]]

support locally driven economic and job-creation projects. It isn't 
Washington telling them how this money should be spent but, rather, 
providing the flexibility so that they can meet local economic 
development needs and help to create new jobs.
  The bill before us does not solve all of the problems in either the 
Department of Transportation or in the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development; we don't have the money to do that.
  Most notably, the administration's budget does not come up with a 
realistic way to address the urgent need to prevent the highway trust 
fund from becoming insolvent in August.
  There should be no doubt in the mind of any Member of this body, if 
the administration and Congress do not take action before the August 
recess, State departments of transportation will not be reimbursed for 
work that has already been completed and new projects will likely grind 
to a halt and jobs, good construction jobs, will be lost.
  The administration must present an achievable plan to avoid this 
disruption, these lost jobs, these stalled transportation projects, and 
Congress must work in good faith to secure passage.
  Transportation is the lifeline of our economy, supporting millions of 
jobs and moving people and products. When coupled with the housing and 
economic development projects, the fiscal year 2015 transportation and 
housing appropriations bill will create jobs now when they are needed 
most and will establish the foundation for future growth.
  Just as important to our economic future, however, is reining in 
excessive Federal spending and getting our national debt under control, 
which must be a priority governmentwide.
  We have met the budget allocations that have been provided to us. In 
setting priorities for fiscal year 2015, I believe our T-HUD bill 
strikes the right balance between thoughtful investment and the 
necessary fiscal restraint.
  I appreciate the opportunity to present this legislation to the 
Members of this Chamber. As we continue the debate on these bills, I 
urge my colleagues to consider how important it is that we complete our 
work on time, and I hope they will support the efforts of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield to the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                              NFL Football

  Mr. REID. I appreciate the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
being so kind.
  There are 27 tribes in the State of Nevada, Native Americans. The 
issue regarding the name Redskins is very important to every one of 
those tribes. Every time they hear this name, it is a sad reminder of a 
long tradition of racism and bigotry.
  A month or so ago, Daniel Snyder, the owner of the team, had some 
people come to Nevada and agree to buy one of the Indian tribes a car 
if they would say nice things about the Redskins. They refused.
  This is extremely important to Native Americans all over the country, 
that they no longer use this name. It is racist.
  Daniel Snyder says it is about tradition. I ask: What tradition? The 
tradition of racism, that is all this name leaves in its wake.
  The writing is on the wall. The writing is on the wall in giant 
blinking neon lights. This name will change and justice will be done 
for the tribes in Nevada and across the Nation who care so deeply about 
this issue.
  The Patent and Trademark Office today took away all the trademarks. 
The Redskins no longer have trademarks. They are gone.
  So as I understand the law, if the Presiding Officer wants to use the 
name Redskins and sell them shirts, she can do that. There is no 
trademark anymore for the Redskins.
  Daniel Snyder may be the last person in the world to realize this, 
but it is only a matter of time before he is forced to do what is right 
and change the name.
  The leader on this issue is the junior Senator from the State of 
Washington. Senator Cantwell has been tireless in showing the American 
people how unfair it is for the Redskins' name to be used as it is. I 
think she is one of the leading causes that the U.S. Patent and 
Trademark Office said it is no longer--no longer--a trademark. They did 
that this morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I know Senator Collins and Senator 
Murray are leaving to go to the DOD to meet with Secretary Hagel, and 
we both look forward to their return this afternoon, but I want to 
acknowledge the great role they played in putting together the 
appropriations and transportation funding for the entire United States 
of America, as well as the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  We are going to talk more about transportation because it literally 
keeps America rolling, whether it is the kinds of problems we solved 
with the issues around safety, congestion--they are absolutely crucial. 
But also what they talked about in their bill is housing and urban 
development and how--it is also the famous HUD bill--it does not only 
do urban development.
  I know the Presiding Officer is from the State of North Dakota, whose 
terrain and challenges are very different than my State, a coastal 
State. But the Presiding Officer would be interested to know--because 
she has been hit by some bad weather--that when Hurricane Sandy hit, my 
State was hit by two things: a hurricane--a hurricane on my Eastern 
Shore, in which a whole town was underwater and literally people had to 
be rescued by Zodiacs, by boats, and so on.
  Then out in western Maryland, our mountain counties, people were hit 
by a blizzard. It was so bad that regular snowplows, local government, 
and the private sector weren't working. The Governor had to bring in 
the National Guard--and God bless our State troopers and first 
responders. They were bringing out senior citizens on snowmobiles and 
things strapped to their chests to get them to safety because the free 
zone was there.
  I tell that poignant story because while we looked to FEMA to rescue, 
it was really the Community Development Block Grant money that helped 
local communities come back. FEMA was there for readiness, so we were 
ready to respond. It was ready to respond. But the big job of 
rehabilitation always comes through CDBG. I am going to talk about it 
because it is a lot of letters--one more agency with a lot of letters--
but it is also a big impact. What we need to be able to focus on is 
this is Federal spending with local decisionmaking. It is money that 
comes to local communities to eliminate blight and to create jobs. 
Blight can come from a natural disaster or communities that are aging 
with that kind of impact.
  We hope we have support for the bill, but, gee, they did a good job 
and they did it with diligence, civility, collegiality and common 
sense, as is characteristic.
  I would point out we have tried to use common sense too. Working with 
Senator Shelby, as I have said, I am going to emphasize the word 
``frugality.'' How do we make sure we get value for the taxpayers' 
dollar.
  It is something in which I strongly believe. My colleague has been a 
Federal watchdog. He, like I, believes in the funding of these 
agencies. These watchdog agencies are absolutely crucial.
  The Appropriations Committee, under my chairmanship but with the 
strong concurrence of the vice chairman, believes in the inspectors 
general.
  Congress can hold an investigation and we can pound our chests and 
put glasses on our noses and ask tough questions, but we need the kind 
of truly drilling down to know what agencies are doing and are they 
making sure we avoid boondoggles, waste, stupidity, and at the same 
time terrible cost overruns.
  Thanks to working on a bipartisan basis, we have insisted that 
inspectors general be at every hearing. This has

[[Page 10281]]

been a new innovation of the leadership of Senator Shelby and me. We 
want the inspectors general to be part of our official record so we 
know the top 10 issues they brought to our attention to stand sentry, 
and we put money in the Federal checkbook to fund them.
  We funded the Commerce Department IG at $30.6 million, $600 million 
above 2014 for Justice to make sure grant programs were well 
administered for NASA, to avoid techno-boondoggles, and for the NSF, so 
they too keep an eye on it.
  We are going to talk more about the problems they identified and the 
problems we solved, but I note on the floor Senator Pryor from 
Arkansas, who has chaired the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, FDA, an important subcommittee that is part of our overall 
bill today.
  I yield the floor for Senator Pryor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2015 
Agriculture appropriations bill. I know Senator Blunt, the ranking 
member, is on his way over. We were just in another subcommittee 
hearing and we were asking questions.
  Before I say anything else, I thank Senator Blunt because he has been 
a great partner to work with. He has been outstanding. He knows this 
stuff. He works hard. He knows how to work the system. He has been 
great. He is one of those guys we can trust, and he is very bipartisan. 
If we had more folks like Senator Blunt around here, we would get a lot 
more done. He is doing great work for the country by doing what he is 
doing.
  This is a commonsense and bipartisan bill. It did pass unanimously 
coming out of the full Appropriations Committee last month, and I am 
confident my colleagues will support it. When they have a chance to see 
it, they will like it. I heartily encourage everyone to take a good 
look at it and support it for final passage.
  Agriculture, as we know very well, is something America does better 
than anybody else in the world. We are the envy of the world when it 
comes to agriculture. We do it right. We are the gold standard. We are 
what every other nation in the world wants to be. It is of course rural 
America's No. 1 industry. So when we talk about agriculture and rural 
America, it is doing something we can be extremely proud of in this 
body and in this country because they do it better than anybody else.
  I learned a lesson 1 or 2 years ago when Senator Stabenow took over 
as chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. She told me 
everybody thinks of Michigan and they think of automobile 
manufacturing--heavy industry--as the No. 1 industry, and it is in 
Michigan, but agriculture is No. 2.
  If we were to go around a map of the United States, that is what we 
would see pretty much in almost every State. Agriculture is either the 
No. 1 industry or No. 2. In a few cases it is the No. 3 industry. I 
could go around to all 50 States, but in Arkansas, as an example, 
agriculture equals a full 25 percent of our State's economy. So 25 
percent of our economy is agriculture or agra related.
  Again, if we look around the country, we will see numbers similar to 
that in many States. It contributes $17 billion in economic activity to 
Arkansas. It also supports thousands and thousands of jobs--in fact, 
about one in six jobs. We could put up a chart similar to this for any 
State in the Union. The numbers may change from State to State, but 
they will be generally the same.
  The Agriculture appropriations bill we are talking about builds on 
the strengths of our agricultural industry. It invests in the Farm 
Service Agency. It prohibits the closure of FSA offices, which provide 
vital services to our farmers and ranchers, and it provides funding for 
farm ownership loans. It also invests in the Agricultural Research 
Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service so America can 
continue to innovate and make our agricultural products more 
efficiently.
  This is another area America truly leads the world in, agricultural 
innovation. Agriculture is actually very science-based and very 
innovative. It doesn't always get credit for being high-tech, but it 
actually is. So much of that basic research and the things that make a 
difference out in the field happen in this legislation, but that is not 
all the bill does. It also makes smart investments to help improve job 
opportunities and quality of life for families in rural America.
  One thing we don't want to see is the old ``Tale of Two Americas,'' 
where urban and suburban get all the money, get the latest and the 
greatest and the best and the cutting edge and rural America is left 
behind. That can happen and it does happen in Washington, 
unfortunately, quite a bit--but not in this bill. This bill's primary 
emphasis is on rural America. It is one of the few bills we talk about 
in any given Congress that does focus on rural America. It makes smart 
investments there.
  It maintains funding for the Rural Development Water and Waste 
Disposal Program to help many of our very small communities obtain 
clean water and sanitary waste disposal systems. Here again, just 
because one lives in smalltown America doesn't mean they shouldn't have 
clean water. Everybody should have clean water. So this bill makes sure 
that happens.
  It increases funding for the Food and Drug Administration to ensure 
that our food and our drug supply remains the safest and the most 
reliable in the world. There again FDA is in this bill. Everybody in 
the world wants to be like FDA. Everybody wants the integrity we have 
in our system for our food and our drugs. We fund FDA here.
  It provides funding for the Food Safety and Inspection Service to 
keep our food supply safe, and it sustains the school meals equipment 
grants so our schools can continue to provide healthy meals for kids.
  We also included in this legislation money for disaster relief. Some 
people have asked me: Why? Why should we do that? I have a photograph 
recently taken in Arkansas. This is just one example of the devastating 
effects of a tornado.
  Here we look at what used to be someone's home. We have to remember 
these people worked all their lives to have this house, and in about 45 
seconds this is what was left of it. It may be hard to see on the 
television, but right here is a motorcycle, a pickup truck, a power 
line lying in the yard, a few appliances, a few people hugging, but one 
thing we see is their pride in America, where they put up their flag. 
Even in the most adverse circumstances they came together and pulled 
together to make that happen.
  So we put disaster money into this legislation because our country 
needs disaster money. We need to make sure disasters are fully funded 
and we have those resources when our neighbors need it the most.
  In this storm lives were lost, homes were completely wiped out, and 
many communities were left in ruins. Arkansas is not unique. I wish I 
could say this didn't happen, but it does happen periodically around 
the country. This bill provides funding to help States respond when 
natural disaster strikes.
  My view is that supporting this legislation is a no-brainer. It is 
bipartisan. It is a good, commonsense, solid piece of legislation. It 
sustains our agricultural producers, our communities and our families, 
and it strengthens our economy and secures the future of our Nation.
  Before I turn it over to my colleague from Missouri--and I know we 
are all anxious to hear what he says--there has been a question, as I 
have talked to many of my colleagues both on the Democratic and the 
Republican side, about whether we will allow amendments. The answer is: 
Absolutely, yes; we would like to see amendments.
  I cannot speak for everyone in the Chamber, but from the members of 
the Appropriations Committee who are involved in this legislation, 
including the chairwoman and the ranking member, yes, we want to talk 
to Senators about their amendments. It is a little bit like the Statue 
of Liberty: ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses 
yearning to breathe free.'' We want to see those amendments. We want to 
talk about them.
  We are hoping we will be able to put together managers' packages. We 
are

[[Page 10282]]

hoping we will be able to find common ground and make this bill better 
as it goes through the process. Certainly we don't want a lot of funny 
business on that. We want real amendments, good amendments, amendments 
that are important to moving this forward.
  I know many of my colleagues have been frustrated, but we would like 
to talk to as many Members as possible about their amendments. I will 
be on the floor on and off most of the day, either on the floor or near 
the floor all day. So if anyone's office wants to talk to me about 
amendments or any Member wants to talk about amendments, I will be glad 
to do that.
  I yield the floor for my colleague from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I am pleased to join the Senator from 
Arkansas in introducing this bill. He has been a great person to work 
with.
  I also fully associate myself with his comments about our colleagues' 
ability to amend these bills. Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby have 
been real advocates for us getting back to the process the way it 
essentially worked in the country for a couple hundred years. We got 
out of the habit of bringing these bills to the floor, letting Members 
come to the floor and offer better ways to spend this money or if they 
want to propose not to spend it at all, that is one of the proposals 
they can make.
  The Senator from Arkansas and I have worked to make the tough 
choices, but seldom is a bill so perfect that it can't be improved, and 
there is nothing wrong with defending the decisions we have made.
  I believe one of the real losses for the country and the Senate of 
these bills not coming to the floor in recent years is that Members of 
the Senate haven't had to hear the debate. Members who bring a bill to 
the floor haven't had to defend the bill. Before we know it, if we 
don't have to defend what we are for, we have a hard time remembering 
why we are for what we are for.
  This process makes sense if we do it the right way. Certainly, 
Senator Pryor has wanted to approach this in that way, and maybe, more 
importantly, from both our points of view, Senator Mikulski and Senator 
Shelby have been advocating that we bring these bills to the floor and 
we debate these priorities.
  I am particularly pleased to join with Senator Pryor in introducing 
this bill and bringing this bill to the floor, the fiscal year 2015 
Agriculture appropriations bill, for agriculture, for rural 
development, for the Food and Drug Administration, and the things that 
relate to those agencies. The Senator made a good point already about 
how important this industry is. In Missouri as in Arkansas, agriculture 
is the No. 1 industry. In my State it is responsible for 16 percent of 
the State's workforce. Frankly, as world food needs develop, I believe 
the percentage of our workforce that will have jobs because of 
agriculture--growing, producing, and processing it, figuring out how to 
get it to markets around the world--will be an even higher percentage 
in the future. I think agriculture is the No. 1 industry in most 
States. If it is not the No. 1 industry, it is right there at the top.
  For 150 years now the Federal Government, through what would become 
the Department of Agriculture after a bill President Lincoln signed in 
1862, has been doing many of the things we want to continue to do in 
this bill. This is not a newfound obligation on the part of the Federal 
Government. This is not something for which the Federal Government just 
decided it needed to have some responsibility. This is something that 
150 years ago the Federal Government said: You know, we don't need to 
have--as the land grant universities were founded, the Federal 
Government said: We need to help these universities manage the research 
they are doing so that what they are doing can be shared throughout our 
country, so it is not needlessly duplicated, so it is properly not only 
allocated but funded.
  So the activities in this bill include one of my priorities, which is 
agricultural research. It includes conservation activities, housing and 
business loans for rural communities, domestic and international 
nutrition programs, and food and drug safety. Certainly all of those 
have a top priority on the list of different individual Members of the 
Senate. It would be hard to find a Senator who didn't have near the top 
of their priority list one of the things this bill does.
  The Senator from Arkansas and I have made difficult decisions in 
drafting this bill. Aside from the disaster recovery efforts, the bill 
is $90 million below last year's bill. I think it represents a 
responsible approach to the funding of these priorities but at the same 
time tightening our belts as we work to live within our means.
  We have prioritized programs that protect public health and maintain 
the strength of our Nation's agricultural economy. Agriculture is one 
of the few sectors in our economy that consistently enjoy a trade 
surplus. Last year was our strongest export year in ag products in the 
history of the country. Recent information from the Department of 
Agriculture indicates that 2014 is going to set a new record. We need 
to continue to work through the U.S. Department of Agriculture to open 
new markets, and we are doing that--particularly markets in Asia and 
Europe that need to be more open to our products. Expanding 
agricultural exports is vital. Every $1 billion in agricultural exports 
supports an estimated 8,000 American jobs.
  If we need to have a domestic priority in the Congress today, it is 
more private sector jobs. One way to do that is to continue to do what 
we are doing in this bill and to do it even better.
  Opening export markets is only one piece of the puzzle that maintains 
our agricultural economy. The American farmer is the best in the world 
at producing products that are desired worldwide in the global 
marketplace. Smart investment in ag research has helped us get to that 
point. We have products with a quality, with a market sensitivity, and 
with a health and nutrition value that people all over the world want.
  This bill places significant emphasis on maintaining research at our 
land grant universities and our non-land grant university systems that 
have a commitment to agriculture and funding competitive research 
beyond that in things such as the Agriculture and Food Research 
Initiative.
  These programs are critical to our increased production. Every dollar 
spent in agricultural research results in around a $20 return to the 
U.S. economy. By the way, that comes year after year. Once you create 
that notch and work to try to improve it, it continues to come.
  This bill will also provide our rural communities with even more 
ability to compete both here and abroad.
  In a bill where many items didn't get the funding that was requested, 
we fully funded the Food and Drug Administration request. It is 
important to the chairman, important to our committee, and important as 
we look at the health and safety of the products for which the Food and 
Drug Administration is responsible.
  Again, I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his leadership. I thank 
our chairman and ranking member of the full committee for working so 
hard to see these bills debated on the floor. I look forward to working 
with our colleagues as they come up with ways to improve this bill. It 
is one of the three bills that are on the floor this week.
  I hope we can return to a day very quickly where all the 
appropriations bills are on the floor in as small a group as possible 
and where they are all open to amendment. We have to get back into the 
practice of remembering why we are for what we are for and why we have 
decided to propose that the hard-earned dollars of American families 
should be spent for these things as opposed to not spending them all or 
spending them on something else. It is a process that will work if the 
Senate shares the commitment of the chairman and Senator Shelby and I 
think everybody on the Appropriations Committee to try to get back into 
the business of doing this business publicly and openly and in the 
right way.
  Madam President, I will yield for Senator Pryor.

[[Page 10283]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. I have a few more comments after listening to my colleague 
from Missouri. I did want to mention a few.
  The first point is on exports. We all know we have a bad trade 
deficit. We all know that. But it would be horrendous if it were not 
for agriculture. Agriculture is really a huge net plus for us when it 
comes to exporters. You may ask yourself why that is. It is because we 
raise the safest, highest quality food in the world, and other people 
want it. There is no question that when that food shows up on shelves 
in foreign countries, if this says ``Made in the USA,'' sometimes they 
can charge a premium because they know the USDA seal of approval is of 
the highest quality you can find anywhere in the world. So exports are 
very important.
  We heard the President--not just this President but the previous 
President as well--talk about exports and how many jobs exports create. 
We need to get back in the exportation business, and agriculture is a 
great way to do that.
  Senator Blunt alluded to research. There are some tremendous numbers 
in research. For every dollar of research, you get a $20 return to the 
U.S. economy. That is a no-brainer. That is smart policy. That is the 
right thing to do. It is good for the economy.
  But also we both had an experience a few weeks ago where Bill Gates, 
who founded Microsoft, came in and talked to us about American 
agricultural research and how important it is in feeding the world. One 
aspect that struck me is here is a man--Bill Gates--who has been an 
economic revolutionary. He has changed the world with Microsoft and the 
digital revolution and the high-tech and all the efforts in which he 
has been involved. He has been at the cutting edge of so much of that 
change we have seen in our economy and the world's economy in the last 
20-, 30-plus years. It is phenomenal. But here he is in the autumn of 
his life, and what does he come back to? Agriculture--something that is 
so basic that we take for granted, but because he has seen the work in 
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, he has seen the work around the 
world, he has seen the abject poverty, and he has seen the starvation, 
he knows that when they get their hands on American products such as 
seed, fertilizer--all the things we take for granted--that would be a 
life-changer for those people around the world.
  I think it was Senator Blunt who said his experience is that when 
people have been eating bad food all their lives, once they get a 
chance to eat good food, they don't want to go back to bad food. That 
is what Bill Gates is talking about, and that is where ag research 
comes in. That is how this piece of the puzzle fits.
  There is another point I want to make about rural America. Generally 
in this legislation we have provisions for rural water, rural housing, 
rural broadband, rural electricity. Again, we have to understand the 
economics of that. If you wanted to add broadband somewhere, if you 
wanted to do it, say, in suburban Washington, DC, obviously you have in 
many cases relatively high income levels and you have population 
density. You have what makes it economically feasible. But if you are 
out in rural America, you want those people to have access to 
broadband, but you get so many fewer customers per mile. That is why we 
help. This is sort of the premise of the old Universal Service Fund we 
have had for a long time in telephone to help expand that network to 
every single home in America. Now, of course, we have a lot of wireless 
technologies and whatnot. So we want to make that readily available to 
rural America.
  The last bit of substance I wanted to add to what Senator Blunt 
mentioned is the funding for the Food and Drug Administration. I am not 
sure there is an agency that is responsible for more innovation than 
the FDA. We need to keep the FDA stable. We need to keep them well 
funded. They need to be able to approve drugs and do the testing they 
need to do.
  One of the new frontiers they are dealing with is nanotechnology. We 
are seeing nano products enter the marketplace all over this economy, 
and there has been very little testing on that for human safety. So the 
FDA is doing that. We need to continue to fund them so they can do the 
job. We don't want them to be an obstacle to innovation; we want them 
to be a partner in innovation. Let these companies that come in and 
have these great products, whatever they are--cosmetics, food, 
whatever--let them innovate and do that and again create American jobs 
and enhance the marketplace. But in order for the FDA to do that, we 
need to fund them.
  Senator Blunt is right. We have the best system of government in the 
world, bar none. And the U.S. Senate always has its moments where it 
gets a few rough edges. This is democracy at its finest. People don't 
always agree. They fuss and fight and things get balled up here and 
there. But our system works, and it works great if we let it work.
  I think what the chairwoman and the ranking member of the full 
committee are saying is: We want the process to work. We want it to 
work. We want to talk about amendments. We want to have amendments. We 
want to have votes. We want to get back to regular order, whatever that 
means in the Senate. But most of us know what that means. It means 
getting back to where Senators can participate in the process, but it 
is also done in good will and good faith.
  With that, Madam President, I would yield the floor, but I would 
encourage my colleagues to look closely at and support this 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I note that the distinguished Senator 
from Arizona is on the floor, and we want to be sure he has an 
opportunity to speak.
  I do have a housekeeping matter to take care of and just a few 
words--about three sentences--about ag, but I want the Senator from 
Arizona to be heard.
  Madam President, I wish to comment on the Agriculture bill, but I 
will keep that for later on in the day. I will be on the floor along 
with Senator Shelby trying to move this bill in a way that we could 
complete the motion to proceed and that we could move to amendments.
  Right now, I wish to compliment both the Senator from Arkansas and 
the Senator from Missouri, Senators Pryor and Blunt, for the excellent 
way they have moved the agriculture FDA bill. They have worked on a 
bipartisan basis. They have met compelling human needs--in other words, 
feed America first; see how we can feed others in need around the 
world; look out for everyone from the family farm to also food safety 
because now so much of our food is also imported. At the same time, 
they have supported the Food and Drug Administration. That is an agency 
located in Maryland that is responsible for oversight of the food 
supply but also our pharmaceuticals, biotech, and medical devices.
  My colleagues have spoken eloquently about exports, particularly with 
food. I will speak later today about the exports of pharmaceuticals, 
biotech, and medical devices because there are countries around the 
world that want to look out for their own people, but they don't have 
an FDA. So when we have products--life science products--that save 
lives or improve lives and they have been stamped by the FDA as safe 
and effective, then countries know they can buy them with confidence. 
This means those areas of endeavor are not only good for jobs in this 
country, great for improving the lives of people in our country, but 
they are also a major source of the new American export economy.
  I think they did a great job, and I will say more about it. But right 
now, unless Senator Shelby has something to say, we can go to our 
Senate colleague from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as if in morning business, and I wish to enter into a colloquy 
with the Senator from South Carolina when he arrives.

[[Page 10284]]

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


                                  Iraq

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning with my 
colleague, the Senator from South Carolina, to put to rest once and for 
all the claim we hear so often today: President Obama wanted to leave a 
residual force of U.S. troops in Iraq after 2011. He tried his hardest 
to do so, but Iraqi leaders prevented that from happening because they 
demanded that Iraq's parliament approve legislation to grant privileges 
and immunities for U.S. troops that would remain in the country.
  This is a very important item and aspect of the debate that is now 
going on, and it is a claim that was made in growing desperation these 
days as it becomes increasingly clear for all to see that the 
President's mishandling of Iraq for the past 5 years and his consistent 
inaction on Syria has now brought us to the verge of disaster.
  The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria--a more ambitious, more violent, 
and more radical offshoot of Al Qaeda--has now taken over a swath of 
territory in Iraq and Syria that is the size of the State of Indiana. 
It is the largest terrorist safe haven in history. The ISIS's offensive 
is now reigniting sectarian conflict in Iraq and threatening to erase 
the gains that nearly 4,500 brave young Americans gave their lives to 
secure and was largely secured when the President took office in 
January in 2009. In January 2009 the surge had succeeded. Iraq was not 
violent. The surge had succeeded. We had won the war. In the words of 
General Keane: We won the war and lost the peace. And that is a fact.
  The administration and its defenders are now scrambling to pin the 
blame for this catastrophic failure on anyone but themselves. They are 
trying to blame the Bush administration, and they are trying to blame 
people like myself and the Senator from South Carolina for voting to 
authorize the war while conveniently forgetting that Vice President 
Biden, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, his 
predecessor, Secretary Clinton, and many other Democrats still serving 
in this body voted for the war in Iraq as well.
  They also seem to have forgotten that the Senator from South Carolina 
and I began criticizing the Bush administration as early as 2003 for 
their mishandling of the war and calling for a change in strategy. In 
fact, in 2006 I called for the firing of the Secretary of Defense, 
Secretary Rumsfeld, because of the mishandling of the war. Indeed, the 
very strategy that was finally adopted with enormous success was thanks 
to a great leader named General David Petraeus and a great ambassador 
by the name of Ryan Crocker.
  Most of all, the administration and its defenders are trying to blame 
the failures of Iraq on Iraq's leaders. To be sure, the lion's share of 
the blame for Iraq's current problems lies squarely with Prime Minister 
Maliki and other Iraqi leaders. But the administration cannot escape 
its own responsibility for the current disaster. This is something that 
the Senator from South Carolina and I saw firsthand, and we stated that 
over and over. In order to set this debate to rest once and for all, we 
would like to review the record.
  We predicted that when all the troops were withdrawn there would be 
the events that are taking place today--not as rapidly, but we 
predicted that Iraq would fall into chaos if we withdrew all the troops 
and did not leave a residual force behind as we have in South Korea, 
Germany, Japan, Bosnia, and other countries after the conflict had 
ended.
  From its first day in office, the Obama administration signaled a 
hands-off approach to Iraq. It immediately pushed for a faster drawdown 
of U.S. forces than our commanders recommended. It appointed an 
ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, who had no experience working on 
Iraq or serving anywhere in the Arab world. I think he is a fine man, 
but he had no experience. It adopted a hands-off approach of shaping 
Iraqi politics, which was demonstrated most vividly as it refused for 
months and months to take a hands-on approach with Iraqi leaders and 
help them broker the necessary compromises about the country's future 
in the aftermath of the 2010 elections in Iraq.
  Nowhere was the Obama administration's failure more pronounced than 
during the debate over whether to maintain a limited number of U.S. 
troops in Iraq beyond the 2011 expiration of the 2008 Status of Forces 
Agreement or SOFA. The administration is quick to lay blame on others 
for the fact that they tried and failed to keep a limited presence of 
troops in Iraq. They blamed the Bush administration, of course, for 
mandating the withdrawal in the 2008 SOFA. This does not ring true, 
however, because as former Secretary of State Condolezza Rice has made 
clear, the plan all along was to renegotiate the agreement to allow for 
a continued presence of U.S. forces in Iraq. ``Everybody believed,'' 
she said in 2011, ``it would be better if there was some kind of 
residual force.''
  Most of all, the Obama administration blames Iraqis for failing to 
grant the necessary privileges and immunities for a U.S. force presence 
beyond 2011. This too is totally misleading because as we saw 
firsthand--Senator Graham and I traveled to Baghdad and Erbil. We met 
with Allawi and Maliki, and we met with Barzani. We met with all of the 
leaders of the main political blocs, and we heard a common message 
during all of these conversations: Iraqi leaders recognized that it was 
in their country's interest to maintain a limited number of U.S. troops 
to continue training and assisting Iraqi security forces beyond 2011. 
But when we asked Ambassador Jim Jeffrey and the commander of U.S. 
Forces in Iraq Lloyd Austin--in direct response to a question in a 
meeting with Maliki--what tasks U.S. troops remaining in Iraq would 
perform and what their missions were, the answer was they had still not 
made a decision.
  In Erbil, Barzani said he would fly to Baghdad. Allawi, the actual 
winner of the election, said that he would agree, and then after that, 
Prime Minister Maliki announced that if his partners agreed, which they 
did, he would agree to a residual force in Iraq. Those are just facts.
  Just days after the Senator from South Carolina and I left Baghdad, 
Prime Minister Maliki, as I said, signaled his willingness--and it is a 
matter of public record--to a residual presence of U.S. troops if 70 
percent of Iraqis agreed. The Kurds agreed, the Sunnis agreed, and 
Maliki himself signaled his support. Had the United States and our Iraq 
partners used our influence then and there, we could have lined up the 
remaining Shia support to enable Maliki to make this difficult 
decision. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
  Instead, months and months passed and the administration made no 
decision on what missions and troop levels it would be willing to 
maintain in Iraq. By August 2011 the leaders of Iraq's main political 
blocs joined together and stated that they were prepared to enter 
negotiations to keep some U.S. troops in Iraq.
  Another entire month passed and still the White House made no 
decision. During this long internal deliberation, as Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey later testified before the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, the size of a potential U.S. force presence 
kept ``cascading'' down from upwards of 16,000 to an eventual low of 
less than 3,000. By that point, the force would be able to do little 
more than protect itself, and Prime Minister Maliki, and other Iraq 
leaders, realized that the political cost of accepting this proposal 
was not worth the benefit. To blame this failure entirely on the Iraqis 
is convenient, but it misses the real point. The reason to keep about 
10,000 to 15,000 U.S. forces in Iraq was not for the sake of Iraq 
alone. It was first and foremost in our national security interest to 
continue training and advising Iraqi forces and to maintain greater 
U.S. influence in Iraq. That core principle should have driven a very 
different U.S. approach to the SOFA diplomacy. The Obama administration 
should have recognized that after years of brutal conflict, Iraqi 
leaders still lacked trust in one another, and a strong U.S. role was 
required to help Iraqis broker their most

[[Page 10285]]

politically sensitive decisions. For this reason the administration 
should have determined what tasks and troop numbers were in the 
national interest to maintain in Iraq and done so with ample time to 
engage with Iraqis at the highest level of the U.S. Government to shape 
political conditions in Baghdad to achieve our goal. I focus on this 
failure not because U.S. troops would have been engaging in unilateral 
large-scale combat operations to this day. In fact, they had won the 
conflict, and there was literally no further combat that the United 
States was engaged in. By 2011 U.S. forces were no longer in Iraqi 
cities or engaged in security operations. However, a residual U.S. 
troop presence could have assisted Iraqi forces in their continued 
fight against Al Qaeda. They could have provided a platform for greater 
diplomatic engagement and intelligence cooperation with our Iraqi 
partners. It could have made Iranian leaders think twice about using 
Iraqi airspace to transit military assistance to Assad and his forces 
in Syria. And most importantly, it could have maintained the 
significant diplomatic influence that the United States still possessed 
in Iraq--influence that had been and still was essential in 
guaranteeing Iraq's nascent political system, reassuring Iraqi leaders 
that they could resolve their differences peacefully and politically 
despite their mistrust of one another and checking the authoritarian 
and sectarian tendencies of Prime Minister Maliki.
  There is a need for immediate action. Every day that goes by, there 
is greater sectarian violence, and there is greater success by ISIS. I 
do not believe they can take Baghdad. But look at the places they have 
already taken. By the way, they are now threatening the major oil 
refinery in Iraq. I can assure you that will affect the world price of 
oil. There is a need because there is more polarization of Iraq, there 
is a return of the Iraqi Shia militias, there is wholesale killing and 
slaughter going on, and it will get worse every single day.
  Is there any good option now in Iraq? No, there is no good option. 
The worst option is to do nothing, and apparently, according to the 
Wall Street Journal this morning, that is basically the approach that 
has been taken.
  We need to recognize that taking military action now is difficult 
because our intelligence has been so severely degraded since 2011 
because ISIS is becoming so integrated with the Sunni tribes. We need 
to be careful about striking targets, even convoys in the open. There 
is a real risk of killing Sunni tribal elements and pushing the tribes 
closer to ISIS.
  We also have to recognize that political change in Baghdad has to 
take place. But the question is: Do we wait for political change? Every 
day we wait there is more and more Iranian influence. The chief--one of 
the most evil people in the world--of the Iranian Quds Force has been 
in Baghdad planning with Maliki. So what does Maliki do when he doesn't 
see us giving him any real assistance? He turns to the Iranians. There 
are published reports of Iranian combat troops now coming into Iraq as 
more and more of the radical ISIS people are flowing from Syria into 
Iraq.
  As I said, I admit that I was surprised at the rapidity of the 
success of the ISIS. But I also believe that the longer we wait to 
carry out some airstrikes--as difficult as it is--that we can identify 
with the few people we have on the ground--it sends a signal 
psychologically over these people who are traveling long distances in 
the desert--the ISIS--of an American aircraft flying overhead and 
perhaps taking some of them out if we have sufficient information. That 
is a psychological effect on any enemy. Air power alone does not win 
conflicts, but air power can have a significant effect on the morale of 
your people, on your capability, and of at least inflicting some damage 
and changing the enemy's plans.
  Obviously, political reconciliation is the key, and we must do 
everything in our power to make sure that Maliki appoints a government 
of reconciliation. But it can't be the prerequisite for U.S. military 
action because the events and time are not on our side.
  We also have to recognize this is not an Iraqi conflict. This is an 
Iraqi-Syrian conflict now. The most, the largest, and the richest 
center of terrorism in the history of the world is now in the Iraq-
Syria area. They have hundreds of millions of dollars from the banks in 
Mosul, and, obviously, they acquired a whole lot of equipment during 
their incredible progress across Iraq.
  I urge my colleagues to have a look at the maps of Iraq and Syria and 
look at the places that are now controlled by ISIS. As I say, I don't 
believe they can roll into Baghdad in their vehicles with their guns 
mounted on them, but they sure as heck can cause a lot of problems: 
bombings, assassinations, the radicalization of these Shiite militias. 
If one of these Shiite shrines is damaged by ISIS or by Sunni 
militants, we are going to see a bigger explosion which will bring us 
back to the days of 2003, '4, '5, and '6, before the Anbar awakening. 
The same Sunnis who were part of the Anbar awakening that joined us in 
putting down Al Qaeda are now being polarized by Maliki. The Shiites, 
as well as the chickens, are coming home to roost as far as Maliki is 
concerned because of the continued marginalization and persecution of 
Sunnis all over Iraq, much less in Anbar Province.
  So we have to act. We have to act. We must act. I know there are 
always people who will tell our leaders reasons why we can't, but I 
know of no military expert who believes that doing nothing is a recipe 
for anything but further chaos and eventually threats to the United 
States of America. Our Secretary of Homeland Security has stated it and 
our Director of National Intelligence has stated it: that people in 
this part of Iraq and Syria will be planning attacks on the United 
States of America. That is their view. It also is mine. But we can do 
some effective air strikes. We can. And it is more difficult because of 
our degraded intelligence. By the way, when we left Iraq, all of those 
intelligence capabilities were shut down.
  To make them more effective and mitigate the risks that could push 
Sunnis deeper into the arms of ISIS, they have to be accompanied, as I 
mentioned, with a limited presence of special forces on the ground. 
These forces could gather intelligence to improve our targeting by ISIS 
control, air strikes from the ground, and provide advice to Sunni 
tribes.
  I believe several other steps could be taken. No. 1, who are the most 
respected people in Iraq today? Probably David Petraeus and Ryan 
Crocker. Send them back. Send them back, those who worked so closely 
with the Sunnis such as General MacFarland--then Colonel MacFarland--
the people who built up these long relationships with the Sunnis. Send 
them back. Maliki will listen to David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker. Send 
them back. Send back a planning team, a group of smart people who can 
work with what is left of the Iraqi military leadership and identify 
tactics and a strategy that can reverse this tide of the ISIS which is 
about to engulf them.
  Send some air power. Send some air power with targets we can 
identify. I am fully aware of the risks associated with it. I wish to 
repeat over and over and over: There are no good options. Also, we need 
to make it very clear to Maliki that his time is up; that he must 
arrange for a transition.
  The Shia won the election, a majority of the votes--not a majority of 
any of the parties but an overall majority of the vote. This new 
government could be headed by a Shia, but it has to be a Shia who can 
reach out to the Sunni and bring them together in a government of 
national reconciliation.
  All of my colleagues have seen the pictures of the young Shia who are 
now joining up and are ready to die--the movement from Basra of the 
Shia militia organizations which had been put down before that are now 
rising from the ashes. We have seen the horrible pictures of the 
executions that are taking place and the incredible displacement--
500,000 people from Mosul alone. The Kurds have now taken Kirkuk. That 
is an ambition they have had for the last 50 years. We will see now a 
drive for total Kurdish autonomy from the government in Baghdad, and 
they

[[Page 10286]]

will be making their own deals as far as oil is concerned, and the 
Kurds will now be pursuing their centuries-old ambition for a Kurdish 
state, which will cause the Turks to be very concerned.
  I also wish to point out that if ISIS continues to succeed and they 
move back and forth to Syria, they will now pose a direct threat, first 
of all, to Jordan, and then to other gulf states, and finally, 
eventually, Saudi Arabia, but those right next to Iraq will be most 
under threat.
  So I urge the President and I urge my colleagues to understand the 
gravity and the seriousness of this situation; to understand that if 
ISIS succeeds, even without taking Baghdad, and they are able to 
establish what they call a caliphate in the Syria-Iraq area--larger 
than the State of Indiana--and are able to train, equip, and export 
terror not only throughout the region but throughout the world, it will 
pose a direct threat to the security of this Nation.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. I wish to thank the Senator from South Carolina for 
showing up.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I am sorry I was late. Actually, I had an exchange with 
General Dempsey about this very topic.
  Does the Senator from Arizona see any scenario where ISIS is 
militarily stopped and that the Iraqis can retake ground lost to ISIS 
without U.S. air power being involved?
  Mr. McCAIN. I know of no military expert who believes that without 
the use of U.S. air power they will be able to at anytime soon regain 
the lost territory, which is a sizable part of Iraq.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Did my colleague hear President Obama say it is 
unacceptable for Iraq or Islamists to have safe havens in Iraq and 
Syria? Did my colleague hear him say that?
  Mr. McCAIN. No, I did not, but I did hear him say on December 14, 
2011: ``We are leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant 
Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people,'' 
and other quotes throughout the campaign.
  Mr. GRAHAM. My point is, does my colleague agree he is right? It is 
not acceptable for our national security interests for ISIS to have a 
safe haven in Syria and Iraq that could run from Aleppo to Baghdad; 
that that is not a good thing for us?
  Mr. McCAIN. I totally agree.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Well, if it is not a good thing for us, how do we change 
it? Give me a scenario where we put these folks on the run in Syria and 
in Iraq without American air power. Give me a scenario of political 
reconciliation in Baghdad where that has a snowball's chance in hell of 
succeeding as long as they are losing on the battlefield. Give me a 
scenario where the battlefield turns our way without U.S. air power.
  I can give my colleagues a scenario where it begins to turn on the 
battlefield: Iran comes in with great numbers. The most likely scenario 
to stop ISIS is Iranians getting involved with Shia militia. Does that 
bother the Senator from Arizona?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would also like to point out what the Senator from 
South Carolina knows and I know: The air power has a psychological 
effect. When an aircraft flies over the enemy, they are going to do 
things differently if they fear they are going to be hit from the air, 
as we all know. Air power does not determine the outcome of conflicts, 
but it sure is important in the battlefield equation.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Is it fair to say the Air Force in Iraq is grounded for 
all practical purposes?
  Mr. McCAIN. Not only grounded but a lot of the air assets, I am to 
understand, such as Apache helicopters, are in the hands of ISIS.
  Mr. GRAHAM. So, to the President: We agree with you that Iraq 
matters. We agree with you that it is not in our national security 
interests to have ISIS occupy territory from Aleppo to Baghdad. But 
here is what is a mystery to me: How do we turn this around unless we 
stop their advance inside of Iraq and we go after them in Syria?
  As to political reconciliation, I completely agree that is the 
ultimate change that needs to occur, that air strikes alone will not 
get us to where we want to go, but it is a chicken-and-egg concept for 
me. Can my colleague from Arizona imagine a scenario where we can get 
all the parties together when ISIS is winning on the battlefield?
  Mr. McCAIN. That is why I was amused by various commentators who have 
been consistently wrong, including one in the New York Times today: All 
we need to do is have everybody sit down together--a total misreading 
of the situation.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Here is the problem with that: To go to a meeting in 
Baghdad, you are likely to get killed trying to get there. Who is going 
to sit down in Baghdad when everybody is getting killed based on 
sectarian differences? So my advice would be to use American air power 
before it is too late as part of a coordinated, diplomatic effort. That 
American air power is part of diplomacy. That may sound 
counterintuitive, but it makes perfect sense to me. Diplomacy cannot 
succeed unless we change momentum on the battlefield. But when you drop 
a bomb, you need to have a game plan beyond the bomb falling, and that 
would be a regional conversation.
  Can my colleague see how Maliki can put Humpty Dumpty back together 
again?
  Mr. McCAIN. I cannot. That is why he has to agree to a transition.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I would not send $1 to Iraq. I would not send one soldier 
to Iraq, one airman to Iraq until we understand that over the arc of 
time Maliki has to go. I have been there more times than I can count. 
Maliki did some good things on his watch, but he has become a political 
leader who cannot bring the country together. But that, to me, is a 
concern that is addressed after we stop the momentum on the 
battlefield.
  Does the Senator from Arizona believe it is still possible that the 
Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shias, that we know fairly well, can regroup 
and reconcile with themselves if we act decisively?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am totally confident that they can. That is how the 
country was held together for long periods of time.
  Could I ask my colleague--I began before the Senator from South 
Carolina arrived talking about this business of the allegations that 
somehow it is the Iraqis' fault that we didn't leave a residual force 
in Iraq. I went through our meetings with Maliki, with Barzani, with 
Allawi, how they were all committed to maintaining residual force.
  Could the Senator from South Carolina for the record recount the 
Senate Armed Services Committee hearing where he directly questioned 
General Dempsey about this entire issue, after we had withdrawn?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, I will be glad to. And to put it in context, in 2008 
we signed a strategic framework agreement. It was envisioned that we 
would negotiate a follow-on force with advisers and some special forces 
units to secure our Nation as well as to protect our gains. In the 
process of trying to get the Iraqis on board, Hillary Clinton called me 
to ask if my colleague, the Senator from Arizona, and I think Senator 
Lieberman--maybe he didn't go; I can't remember--would go over there 
and talk to Barzani, Allawi, and Maliki, and we said, Sure, we would be 
glad to.
  Here is what I found. I found in the meeting with Prime Minister 
Maliki, who was very openminded about a follow-on force--Barzani said, 
I will take 250,000 Americans; that was never in doubt about where the 
Kurds were--Allawi understood, the Sunnis understood the need for a 
follow-on force. It really was about the Shia politics.
  After we got back, Maliki said, If the other groups will do it, I 
will do it. But he says, What kind of force are you talking about, 
Senator Graham?
  Mr. McCAIN. This was in a meeting in Baghdad?
  Mr. GRAHAM. This was in a meeting in his office. He asked me, What 
kind of force are you talking about? I turned to General Austin and 
Ambassador Jeffries and I asked them, What is the number? Answer the 
Prime Minister's question. They said, We are still working on that. The 
Prime Minister looked

[[Page 10287]]

at me and said something to the effect, Well, I don't know what I am 
supposed to be agreeing to.
  We come back to Washington. We go to the Vice President's house. We 
talk to Mr. Donilon, saying they need a number--sometime--and they said 
they would get back to us about the number. I am still waiting on that 
phone call.
  During my questioning of General Dempsey about the follow-on force, I 
asked him--General Austin recommended somewhere in the 18,000 to 20,000 
range, the Pentagon got down to 10,000, and below that they felt very 
uncomfortable. I asked him directly, Did the number cascade down or did 
the number go down because the Iraqis said, That is too many Americans; 
we don't want that many Americans on our soil. He said, No, sir; the 
numbers kept cascading down because the White House kept changing the 
number.
  So I want the record to reflect that in a meeting with the Prime 
Minister of Iraq, when he asked me how many troops we are talking 
about, we could not give him an answer. I want the record to reflect 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said the numbers went down and down 
and down not because the Iraqis were saying no but because the White 
House kept lowering the number--to the point that it got to be absurd, 
and we will prove that over time.
  Mr. McCAIN. Finally, could I--I see our colleague from Florida is 
waiting. I think I would like to have the Senator from South Carolina 
summarize. The cost of inaction, of doing nothing, is the greatest cost 
we can incur. The situation on the battlefield is not only terrible, 
but the polarization of the different groups in Iraq is growing worse 
by the hour. We are seeing the resurgence of the old Shia militias 
that, thanks to David Petraeus, we had put down before. Iraq is largely 
under control, thanks to David Petraeus, Ryan Crocker, and the surge in 
2011. If we had left--and it is a fact--if we had left that residual 
force behind, history would be very different.
  I would add one other comment. We cannot ignore Syria in this 
situation. We have to understand Syria is now part of this huge area, 
the size of the State of Indiana, which is governed by ISIS.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I find there are a number of things I 
agree with the Senator from Arizona on. One of the things I agree with 
the senior Senator from Arizona on is that Maliki needs to go. 
Otherwise, I think Iraq is going to blow apart, and it is going to end 
up in three parts, just like the Vice President, when he was a Member 
of the Senate, as the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said 
was going to happen.
  I will address this subject later on.
  I came to thank Senator Shelby, who is here, and Senator Mikulski, 
who I hope is within earshot of my remarks, for the bill they have come 
forth with and specifically with regard to the part that has to do with 
a little agency that I have some familiarity with and to which I have a 
great deal of emotional attachment; that is, NASA.
  What they have done is continue to flush out in Appropriations the 
direction that was laid out--when there was no direction--4 years ago 
in the 2010 NASA authorization bill, for which I constantly give credit 
to our former colleague, Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas. I had the 
opportunity to help draw up a balanced plan for the space program--
balanced in all aspects: human, nonhuman space exploration, 
aeronautics, science, education, the whole works.
  Earlier this month the National Academies came out with a report that 
was required by that act 4 years ago that reaffirmed the need for a 
robust U.S. space program aimed at the goal. The goal is way down the 
line. We are going on a human mission to Mars. The Academies' study was 
cochaired by a former Republican Governor, a former head of the Office 
of Management and Budget, Gov. Mitch Daniels. What they concluded was 
that human space exploration remains vital to the national interest but 
it is only going to succeed if it is properly funded.
  So the increase in funding provided in this bill for human 
exploration is going to keep us on track in the coming year. We know 
that the Space Launch System and its spacecraft, a capsule called 
Orion--which is being built as we speak, assembled at the O&C building 
at the Kennedy Space Center--we know these are critical to human 
exploration. NASA has a very boring term for that. They call it 
``foundational capabilities.'' That is the capability of putting humans 
into deep space and eventually on Mars. While other countries are 
talking about a heavy lift rocket, we are actually building it, and it 
is being built today with its spacecraft.
  Now we are going to look to the first test of this spacecraft. It is 
going to come in just a few months. It is the Orion spacecraft on top 
of another rocket to do the deep space penetration and high-velocity 
reentry, pulling lots of Gs, to see how the instrumented spacecraft 
performs. It is on track and the space launch system is on track.
  However, the funding increases are going to have to be maintained in 
future years. If we go back to this, shall I say--I have other 
adjectives for it, but shall I say not the best idea of taking a meat 
ax to the budget called the sequester--if we go back to the sequester 
levels, NASA is not going to be able to achieve its exploration goals.
  So this funding bill that Senators Mikulski and Shelby have produced 
also reiterates the need to engage our international partners in 
science and exploration. It supports the international collaboration 
that is so important in our space program.
  There is another new NASA partnership with the German space agency 
for astronomy research. This same bill also continues the investment in 
NASA's Commercial Crew Program. It would allow the largest NASA 
investment in the program to date.
  The President requested $849 million to do a competition to make 
these rockets that are already proven to be safe for humans--put in all 
the redundancies and the escape systems. The President requested $849 
million. That was NASA's request. This bill gets it close. It gets it 
to $805 million.
  But we are going to need to work, to continue to work, with Senator 
Shelby and Senator Mikulski, as the bill goes to the conference 
committee, to make sure we have the right mix of oversight and 
innovation in how NASA contracts for this competition with the 
competitors--the private industry--as we are letting commercial 
companies provide this service not only of cargo to and from the 
International Space Station, but now we are going to provide this 
service of crew going to and from the ISS.
  I cannot overstate the importance of the commercial crew in the long-
term viability of the space station because, look, we are going to 
extend the ISS; that is, the International Space Station, to 2024. It 
ought to be extended beyond that. Certainly there is all the research 
that is being produced. We spent $100 billion putting it up there. We 
ought to keep it to the end of the decade of the 2020s at least, and we 
need to make sure there is sufficient funding to support the research 
on this orbiting outpost.
  It is a fantastic asset in low-Earth orbit. It is not only for 
research to improve life on Earth, but it is also a technology test bed 
and a stepping-stone for exploration.
  There is another reason. Because we have had the aggressiveness of 
Mr. Putin, and suddenly all the reverberations coming out of Ukraine, 
it is just another reminder that we want American rockets for Americans 
to fly on to get to our own space station. The commercial crew, if we 
can pour the juice into it, as to their target of 2017, they can 
actually move it back to 2016. So we have a geopolitical reason to keep 
this going.
  It is interesting that as of this day, with this bill on the floor of 
the Senate, scientists and engineers have gathered in Chicago for the 
third annual International Space Station Research and Development 
Conference. Research investments will help ensure the maximum 
scientific return for this one-of-

[[Page 10288]]

a-kind laboratory. By the way, because of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, 
it is designated as a national laboratory--a part of the ISS.
  I thank Senator Shelby and Senator Mikulski for their hard work in 
supporting the Nation's space program. I look forward to continuing to 
collaborate with them. At the end of the day, what we want to do is to 
get this bill out of conference and to the President's desk for 
signature.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, first of all, I thank the Senator from 
Florida for his remarks, especially in the area of NASA, the funding of 
NASA, the importance of NASA, which he knows very well. We have worked 
together a long time and of course some of us--the Presiding Officer 
might not remember--but he was an astronaut himself in another part of 
his life. We go back a long time to our House days. We came to the 
House at the same time. But we have worked together on NASA because we 
believe in science, we believe in space, we believe that it is great 
for America in many ways.
  I point out again that we have a bipartisan effort on the floor right 
now. We have three bills: the agriculture appropriations bill, which 
came out of the Appropriations Committee 30 to 0, with Republican and 
Democratic support; the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill--
where I serve as the ranking member of the subcommittee and Senator 
Mikulski serves as the chair of the subcommittee--which came out 30 to 
0; and the transportation, housing bill, which came out 29 to 1.
  We are talking about working together. We are working under the 
Murray-Ryan numbers. That is what we are trying to stay within. I would 
like to see us move these three bills. If we can do this, we are going 
to regular order, which we need. I think it shows--when we have this 
kind of bipartisan effort coming out of the Appropriations Committee to 
the floor--we are saying to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle: 
Look, we believe these are fair bills, we believe it is a bipartisan 
effort, and we want to fund these agencies because they are important 
to this country and also there is some certainty out there. We do not 
need to go back to uncertainty in this body or in this government.
  I thank Senator Nelson for his remarks.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam President.
  This morning the Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed 
legislation approving the Keystone XL Pipeline. I believe that Congress 
should do all it can to push the Obama administration to approve this 
project. This will, of course, help create American jobs; they will 
come along with the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  To me, this morning's committee vote was nothing more than a show 
vote. It is going to do nothing to advance the Keystone XL Pipeline. It 
will put no pressure on the White House. It will not put a single 
shovel in the ground building the pipeline because the Democratic 
majority leader has absolutely no intention of allowing this bill to 
get to a vote right here on the Senate floor. The majority leader knows 
that if Senators got the chance to vote on this bill, there is a very 
high likelihood it would pass. President Obama cannot afford that, and 
the majority leader will not do anything the President does not want. 
The majority leader will not do anything to anger the extremists who 
fund the Democratic Party and who oppose an ``all of the above'' energy 
strategy in a plan that includes oil.
  I know the last thing Americans and the people in the gallery want to 
hear about is Senate process and Senate procedures, but here is why it 
matters: There are issues that are important to this country, issues 
such as jobs, energy, and controlling government spending. There are 
problems we need to solve in this country, and they are not being voted 
on here in the Senate because the majority leader continues to block 
votes. He has blocked votes, he has blocked amendments, and he has even 
blocked debate on one issue after another.
  I believe the majority leader has abused every power at his disposal 
and even broken the rules of the Senate--rules that have been in place 
for over a century. He has done this to give himself new powers. Over 
the past 6\1/2\ years the majority leader has taken an unprecedented 
stand against action in the Senate. He has used tactics such as the so-
called filling the amendment tree on bills. That means he stops anyone 
else from offering amendments other than himself. He has used what is 
called rule XIV of the Standing Rules to bypass committees, so we are 
only able to talk about what he wants to talk about, not what our 
constituents want to talk about, what we hear about from home, or what 
other committee members want to talk about. These kinds of tactics may 
make it easier for Senator Reid to get what he wants, but they shut 
Senators--Republicans and Democrats--out of legislating and they shut 
out the American people whom all of us represent, Democrats as well as 
Republicans.
  Senator Reid has filled the amendment tree at least 85 times since he 
became majority leader. That is more than twice as many times as the 
previous six majority leaders combined.
  Between July 2013 and May of this year, Republicans in the Senate 
filed 810 amendments, but we only got a total of 9 votes--810 different 
ideas brought forward by Republicans, and Senator Reid has blocked vote 
after vote, to the point where we have gotten only 9 votes on 810 
amendments, and this is almost in a full year.
  If you want a comparison, take a look at the House of 
Representatives, where the Republicans are in the majority but the 
minority party, the Democrats, have an opportunity to offer amendments 
and have votes. Over that same time period in the House of 
Representatives, the Democrats have gotten 132 votes on their 
amendments. The Democratic minority on the House side has had 132 
votes, while the Republican minority on the Senate side has gotten a 
total of 9.
  In the Senate, it is not just the Republicans who are not getting 
their votes. The majority leader is blocking the Democrats as well. 
During that same time, from July of 2013 to May of 2014, Democrats 
introduced 676 amendments on legislation on the floor, and there were 
only 7 rollcall votes on 676 amendments. I guess it is not surprising 
that Republicans cannot get votes on their amendments, but it is very 
surprising that the Democrats cannot get votes because only the 
majority leader gets a vote.
  It is the same story on appropriations bills, and that is why I am 
here at this time--because we are dealing with appropriations bills. 
They are some of the most important bills we are supposed to consider 
in Congress. These are the bills which determine how much Washington 
spends every year on all the discretionary programs. We started 
debating the first of these yesterday, and we may do so over the next 
few weeks.
  It used to be that the Senate would take up these bills one by one, 
and Senators would get a chance to offer amendments and to represent 
the people who elected them to office. Not anymore. Under this 
Democratic majority leader, the amendment process on appropriations 
bills has been almost completely shut down. In the past 2 years 
Republicans have gotten just six amendments to appropriations bills. 
Senate Democrats only got one amendment during that same period. The 
Senate approved trillions--trillions--of dollars in Washington 
spending, but Harry Reid allowed action on just seven amendments total. 
In the 8 years before Senator Reid became majority leader, the Senate 
processed an average of almost 300 amendments to appropriations bills 
every year--every year

[[Page 10289]]

almost 300 amendments to appropriations bills.
  Senators from both parties have been shut out of the process, and the 
people we represent have been shut out of the process as well--all by 
Senator Reid. It is the same kind of power grab we saw last September 
when the majority leader used the so-called nuclear option to stop 
debate in the Senate. He radically changed the rules of the Senate to 
strip the rights of the minority party. Originally, it had to do with 
eliminating the filibuster on nominations, but it is the same effect. 
The majority leader grabbed more power for himself and took away the 
right of anyone else in the Senate to represent their constituents.
  This is not how it is supposed to be. The Senate was designed to be a 
place where we debate these issues and where political minorities get 
fair representation. The father of our Constitution James Madison 
explained that the Senate's role was ``first to protect the people 
against the rulers.'' James Madison, the father of the Constitution, 
stated that the Senate's role is ``first to protect the people against 
the rulers.'' That was the point of this body. That is why over its 
history the Senate has adopted rules that provide strong protections 
for political minorities. Well, the way the Senate has been run by 
Majority Leader Reid, it has been embarrassing, it has been unfair, and 
it has been insulting to the American people.
  Again, I know this isn't the most exciting topic of discussion for 
people to hear, but the damage that is being done by the Senate's 
failure to act is very real. Congress has important legislation to 
debate, such as approving the Keystone XL Pipeline, but the majority 
leader won't even allow a vote on the bill. Our Nation has a total debt 
of $17.5 trillion, but the majority leader of the Senate blocks 
amendments that could improve the appropriations bills and maybe start 
to control Washington's wasteful spending. We should have an open 
amendment process on these appropriations bills this year, as we should 
have had in previous years, and we should be starting with the bill 
that is on the floor today.
  It is time for Democrats to stop the show votes and allow real votes 
on issues important to American families.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the role.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded, and that I be recognized to speak as 
if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to come to 
the Senate to speak about the situation in Iraq. A moment ago I was 
joined by some very close friends from South Florida, including the 
former mayor of West Miami, and now the chair of the county commission 
in Miami-Dade County, Rebecca Sosa. She actually got me started in 
politics.
  When she was mayor of West Miami, I told her I was interested in 
public service. We walked door to door in the small city called West 
Miami which has 5,000 residents. She taught me how to campaign one on 
one with real people and their real lives.
  Now I return home every weekend--when we are done here and with my 
work throughout the State--to the same community that I still live in, 
and increasingly people there are asking me about the situation in 
Iraq. The question I get from many people is--and I want to be blunt 
about how they say it--I understand this is a problem, but why is it 
our business? Why do we care about what is happening in another country 
when it seems to be a fight among themselves?
  That is a very legitimate question. I know Americans are watching the 
issues that are happening abroad, and they ask themselves: Why does 
America need to be the world's policeman?
  I want to take a few moments to explain why this matters--why it 
matters to people not just in the Middle East but even people in the 
small city of West Miami where I still live. The situation in Iraq is, 
to some extent, a civil war between Sunni and Shia, as we see in other 
conflicts such as Syria and other places. That is a real aspect of it. 
I would say the current government of Iraq has contributed greatly to 
it--by the way, spurred on by Iranian influence--to further exacerbate 
that divide between Sunni and Shia.
  While it is fair to say that much of what is happening in Iraq is a 
civil war between two sects, it is not fair to say that is all it is, 
because what is happening in Iraq has a direct bearing on the future 
security of every American, even those Americans who live in the small 
city of West Miami where I live. Here is why.
  Imagine for a moment if we could go back in time to the year 1997 or 
1996 or 1998 or 1999 and had known about Al Qaeda then what we knew by 
September of 2001. We would have realized this is a dangerous group 
that had the capacity and the deep willingness to attack and kill 
Americans in order to terrorize so that we would leave the Middle East 
and turn it over to people such as them. If we had known that and taken 
that seriously--and I would say some did know this--if we had done 
something about it, it is fair to say that eventually there would have 
been some sort of terrorist attack, but maybe there wouldn't have been 
one on September 11, 2001. If we had actually targeted this group and 
degraded their capabilities while they were still in their safe haven 
in Afghanistan--or even before that--we potentially could have saved 
the lives of thousands of Americans and, more importantly, avoided the 
rise of Al Qaeda in the region and in the world. But we did not. While 
this is not a time to point fingers or throw blame around, I certainly 
think it is a time to learn the lessons of that history and apply them 
to the challenges of our time.
  What is happening today in Iraq and in portions of Syria is in many 
ways the exact same thing: A radical group--ISIL--which, by the way, 
rose through the ranks of Al Qaeda until they now have a split from Al 
Qaeda, believe it or not, because Al Qaeda thinks that ISIL is too 
brutal to their fellow Muslims. This group has been growing in strength 
ever since the United States left Iraq. This group has been fed and its 
strength has been given to them by foreign fighters who have spilled 
into the conflict in Syria where they have established a foothold and 
have used it as a staging and operational ground to take their brand of 
ruthlessness now into Iraq.
  We saw over the weekend images and photographs and videos of the mass 
assassinations, executions of Shia members of the Iraqi military. They 
have grown in strength over this time and they have begun to grow in 
their influence in Iraq. Their goal is simple: They want to establish 
the premier Islamic caliphate in all the world--the premier Sunni 
Islamic caliphate in the region. Caliphate basically means Islamic 
kingdom. They don't care about existing borders. The kingdom they 
envision is a vast safe haven that encompasses portions of Syria they 
already have under their control and portions of Iraq they are now 
gaining control of.
  What is their goal for this place they are trying to set up? Their 
first goal is to institute Sharia law, and they have a particularly 
brutal brand of Sharia they have forced upon people both in Syria and 
now increasingly in Iraq.
  Their second goal is to establish an Islamic caliphate state--a safe 
haven from where they can plan and train and ultimately carry out 
terrorist attacks against the United States and other countries, 
including attacks here in our homeland.
  We must learn the lessons of before 2001, and we must say to 
ourselves: Under no circumstances will we ever again allow a safe haven 
or for this kind of terrorist group to ever gain a safe haven anywhere 
in the world. We will never allow this to happen again.
  That is why it is so critical for us to be engaged here. The reason 
why we should care about this issue is not because we want to force 
upon Iraq democracy or force upon Iraq the type of

[[Page 10290]]

government we think they need. The reason why we care is because we 
cannot allow a safe haven to develop there, that can be used to carry 
out attacks that can kill Americans, including here in our homeland. 
This is why we should care. This is why it is so important that the 
Commander in Chief of the United States--the President--come as quickly 
as possible before the American people and before this Congress with a 
plan to address this risk.
  I know the President likes to go around saying the war is over, but 
no one told ISIL that. No one told Al Qaeda that. No one has told these 
terrorists that. They don't think the war is over. In fact, in their 
minds, this war will go on for hundreds of years. The only person who 
can rally this country behind a plan to address this is not a U.S. 
Senator or a Member of Congress, not the majority leader or the Speaker 
of the House, not the countless people who write very well-informed 
opinion pieces in our newspapers. The only person in this country who 
can rally us around a plan to address this is the President himself.
  So while I understand he doesn't want us engaged in another conflict, 
and neither do most Americans, he knows--he must know--that we are 
going to have to do something about this. That is not the issue before 
us. The issue before us is whether we do something about it now or we 
do something about this later when the problem will be much harder and 
more costly to address.
  I hope the President does bring us together to solve this problem. 
This doesn't need to be--and it should not be--a partisan issue. The 
national security of the United States should never be a partisan 
issue, for if terrorists carry out an attack on our homeland they will 
not attack Democratic sites but Republican sites; they will not target 
conservatives but leave liberals alone; they will target Americans. 
Americans from every political persuasion died on 9/11. I fear that may 
happen at some point again. So we should all care about this.
  The only person who can bring us together to do something about it is 
the President, and so far he has failed to do it. I don't know if it is 
because it runs counter to his political narrative that the war is over 
and he got us out of Iraq. I don't know why it is, but so far he has 
not done that, and he must.
  Mr. President: On this issue, you must lead. You must put aside all 
of these domestic, political debates that are going on in your office 
about how this is going to poll or whether this runs contrary to what 
you said on the campaign trail. This is too important, it is too vital, 
it is too serious, and it is too dangerous.
  I have my own ideas, as do others, about what that plan should look 
like, but we want there to be a plan. We are not asking the President 
to come forward with a plan to go looking for something to attack. We 
want him to come forward with a plan because only he can, and he must. 
In my opinion, that plan has to be we must do whatever we can and 
everything we can to prevent this group, ISIL, from gaining operational 
long-term control of these territories in Iraq. To me, that means going 
after their command-and-control structure, which involves their ability 
to transit fighters and weapons and fuel and food and ammunition from 
their safe havens in Syria to their increasingly new spaces they have 
now carved out for themselves in Iraq.
  I think all of us in this Chamber, when it comes to issues of 
national security, understand we should not be a part of the back-and-
forth of partisan politics.
  I guess my plea here today on the Senate floor is this: Mr. 
President, you must lead on this issue. You must come forward with a 
plan that we can rally this Congress and our people behind, because if 
we fail to do so, I fear our Nation will pay a terrible price down the 
road. Never again can we allow an Al Qaeda-style group to establish a 
safe haven where they can plot against us anywhere on this planet. The 
choice before you, Mr. President, is you either deal with it now or 
some future President and future Congresses and future Americans will 
deal with it later. I hope you will deal with it now. I hope we will 
remember the lessons of our recent history. The only one who can lead 
us in that direction is you, Mr. President. I hope you will, because 
the consequences of failing to do so would be dramatic and, in my 
opinion, will be condemned by history.
  I hope over the next few hours, the next few days, we will have the 
opportunity to come to this floor and advocate on behalf of a concrete 
plan of action that most, if not all, of us can support, so we can 
ensure we can say that during our time here we did everything we needed 
to do to keep America safe.
  Madam President, 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. SCHUMER. Madam 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. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the House's 
tragic and disconcerting failure to do anything to fix our broken 
immigration system, even though an entire year has passed since the 
Senate passed bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform with 68 
votes--an impressive bipartisan vote total in this increasingly 
partisan climate.
  The House Republicans' lack of action on immigration is almost 
completely inexplicable if you compare the most recent Republican Party 
platform to what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had to say 
about the Senate immigration reform bill.
  When you take the time to look at both of these documents, you 
realize that no other bill that we could pass during this or any other 
Congress would accomplish as many of the Republican Party's stated 
legislative objectives as passing immigration reform.
  Just so that everyone understands this, I want to take you through a 
step-by-step process where we look at the Republican Party platform and 
compare it to the CBO report.
  The first substantive sentence of the Republican Party platform says:

       The best jobs program is economic growth. Republicans will 
     pursue free market policies that are the surest way to boost 
     employment and create job growth and economic prosperity for 
     all.

  Well, what does the CBO report have to say about what the immigration 
bill does for economic growth, job growth, and economic prosperity?
  Page 3 of the CBO report says that ``the bill would increase real . . 
. GDP relative to the amount CBO projects under current law by 3.3 
percent in 2023 and by 5.4 percent in 2033. . . .''
  Think about what that means in a $16 trillion economy. If we pass 
this bill, we will be adding over $500 billion of annual economic 
growth to our economy than we otherwise would. This is a staggering 
number.
  Well, what does the immigration bill do for job growth? Page 4 of the 
CBO report says that the bill will increase the number of jobs in the 
U.S. economy by about 6 million.
  What about economic prosperity? On this front, page 3 of the CBO 
report says ``the rate of return on capital would be higher under the 
legislation than under current law. . . .'' That means Americans would 
have more savings and a more secure safety net.
  This means that passing immigration reform would accomplish the 
Republican Party's top priority far better than any piece of 
legislation the Republicans currently have before Congress.
  What about the second stated priority of the Republican platform? 
That priority says that ``small businesses are the leaders in the 
world's advances in technology and innovation, and we pledge to 
strengthen that role and foster small business entrepreneurship.''
  Do you know what the best way to foster small business 
entrepreneurship is? Immigration reform.
  According to a study from the Kauffman Foundation, immigrants were 
almost twice as likely to start small businesses in 2012 as native-born 
Americans. Madam President, 27.1 percent of new entrepreneurs in 2012 
were

[[Page 10291]]

immigrants. That is up from 13.7 percent in 1996.
  More than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by 
immigrants--90 companies--or by their children--an additional 114 
companies--because a lot of these small businesses become big 
businesses. The immigration bill has an entrepreneurship visa where 
immigrants who have raised money from legitimate investors will be 
given a green card to come here, open companies, and hire Americans.
  Why will this happen? Because immigrants have always provided the 
enthusiasm, hard work, and determination to reenergize America. They 
perform very important jobs at the lower end of the economic spectrum 
without complaint to make a better life for their families and they 
provide innovation and new ideas at the higher end of the economy to 
create the latest big inventions that fuel our growth.
  But that is only scratching the surface of what this immigration bill 
does. The next priority on page 3 of the Republican platform is 
``balancing the budget.'' What is the bill that Congress can pass this 
year that best balances the budget? Immigration reform.
  According to CBO, passing immigration reform would ``reduce budget 
deficits by $197 billion over the 2014-2023 period and by about $700 
billion over the 2024-2033 period.'' That is $1 trillion in savings 
that we can achieve by passing immigration reform.
  Finally, with regard to immigration itself, the Republican Party 
platform says ``our highest priority is to secure the rule of law at 
both our borders and at ports of entry.''
  Under the Senate immigration bill, anyone who wants to try and cross 
the border illegally will have to figure out a way to get over an 18-
foot steel pedestrian fence, get past the border agents standing every 
1,000 feet apart from Brownsville to San Diego 24 hours a day, and then 
evade the sensors, cameras, and drones that will track the crosser 
until they are caught by a border agent or local police.
  That is an amendment proposed by our Republican colleagues but we put 
into the bill. If you try to overstay your visa, your name will be 
placed on a list given to immigration enforcement officials to find 
you, detain you, and deport you. If you try to work here illegally, you 
will never be able to get a job because you will not have a name, a 
Social Security number, and a matching picture that will pop up on our 
new E-Verify system when you apply for a job. Future waves of illegal 
immigration will be prevented if this bill is passed.
  So for all of the railing from the hard right about stopping illegal 
immigration, no one--no one--can deny there have been huge improvements 
over current law.
  Let's take an inventory of what this bill does: Stimulate the 
economy. Check. Create jobs. Check. Help small businesses. Check. 
Reduce the debt. Check. Secure the border. Check. End visa overstays. 
Check. End illegal employment. Check.
  These are all of the things Republicans claim they want to do, all in 
one bill. So why is it that all of these positive benefits to passing 
reform and all of the costs we pay for doing nothing, why is it that 
with that the House of Representatives, and the House Republicans in 
particular, refuse to do anything to fix our broken immigration system? 
Why do House Republicans not pass our bill to fix our broken 
immigration system, not change it, not pass a good law? This question 
can be answered with one simple word: Fear. One simple word. Fear.
  Fear is what often causes people to do what is counter to their self-
interest. Fear makes people succumb to their basest instincts instead 
of rising to their noblest ambitions. Fear paralyzes us during times 
when we need to be taking action. House Republicans are afraid of 
immigration. They are not only afraid of voting on an immigration bill, 
they are even afraid of introducing legislation on immigration.
  Let me give you some examples. June 2013, Congressman Joe Heck says 
he was going to introduce immigration reform that would address our 
broken system. In December of 2013, Republican Congressman Heck 
announced he would not be introducing any immigration bill of any kind.
  April 2014. Congressman Joe Barton said he was going to introduce 
major immigration legislation. The bill was never introduced. Eric 
Cantor, who just this week claimed that his position on immigration 
never wavered, said last year he was going to introduce legislation to 
``deal with the kids who did not break any laws and themselves came 
into this country in many cases unbeknownst to them.'' This legislation 
was also never introduced.
  Finally, House Republican leadership has repeatedly announced they 
``think we finally have the policy right on immigration.'' But again, 
we have seen no bill even introduced, much less voted on. House 
Republicans are so afraid of immigration that they have handed the 
policy and leadership gavel to Steve King, who compares immigrants to 
dogs and livestock and who claims immigration is a slow-motion 
holocaust.
  Eric Cantor is actually right that his position on immigration reform 
never wavered. His rhetoric was often proreform, but his legislative 
and voting record was always antireform. Cantor never introduced or 
voted for a single immigration bill that would help a single immigrant. 
But he loved to vaguely reference the need for immigration reform when 
asked about it. That has been the real Republican Party position on 
immigration: pretending to be pro-immigration reform rhetorically, but 
never, never permit a Republican to actually introduce immigration 
reform legislation and definitely never allow immigration reform 
legislation to come to a vote. This is because House Republicans may 
claim to disagree with Steve King's words, but they certainly do not 
seem to disagree with Steve King's policy objectives. They do not want 
immigration reform that will rationalize our legal immigration system 
and create a path to legality for those who are already here. Instead, 
they support the failed and tragic policies of self-deportation for the 
people who are already here, and they want to reduce legal immigration 
to a trickle for the people who wish to come here and contribute to our 
society.
  Two nights ago, when I watched our gritty U.S. soccer team win an 
amazing game against Ghana, I saw an amazing team effort coached by an 
energetic German immigrant whose tactics and decisions helped the 
United States prevail in the final stages of an incredible, compelling 
game.
  Did Republicans watch the same game and ask: Why is an immigrant 
coaching our team? These last 2 weeks, I watched the San Antonio Spurs 
play some of the greatest team basketball anyone has ever seen with 
players from France, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, Italy, Canada, and, 
of course, the United States. Did Republicans watch those same games 
and ask: Who cares about the quality of the basketball being played? 
Why are immigrants allowed in the NBA?
  This is the problem the Republicans face. Republicans have a very 
important choice to make the next few days. If they continue on the 
same path they are on now, where they feign sympathy for immigration in 
their rhetoric but do not vote on or even introduce legislation to fix 
our broken system, it will be impossible for the average voters to 
distinguish between any Republican and Steve King. Republican words of 
sympathy will not matter to people whose families are suffering, whose 
businesses cannot find the workers they need or whose churches are 
seeing their members deported. They will know that Republicans are to 
blame for doing nothing on immigration reform. Even worse, Republicans 
will get the worst of both worlds in this scenario. Their most strident 
rightwing voters will actually punish them for their Machiavellian 
efforts to feign sympathy for immigration reform.
  So what is the real answer for Republicans? Well, Lindsey Graham 
showed us the way by being a man of principle. This weekend he said it 
best. He said:

       I don't think Eric got beat because of his stand on 
     immigration, I think he got beat because of his lack of 
     defining himself on immigration. Republicans nationally will 
     accept an earned pathway to citizenship if you secure the 
     border. For our party to let the 35

[[Page 10292]]

     percent tell us how to engage on immigration, we will lose a 
     natural ally in the Hispanic community.

  That is from Senator Graham who just won his election with 59 percent 
of the vote, while defending back at home in a conservative Republican 
State, South Carolina, immigration reform.
  In conclusion, to Speaker Boehner, Majority Whip McCarthy, and others 
in the new House leadership, the choice is yours. Join with us, the 
evangelical community, the Catholic Church, American farmers, American 
police chiefs, America's business community, and 65 percent of American 
voters in supporting tough, fair, practical immigration reform 
legislation or, alternatively, you can ignore the benefits of 
immigration reform and continue to fail to address our broken 
immigration system because of your fear, and you can eventually watch 
your party go into the dustbin of history. Those are your two choices, 
Republicans.
  There is no doubt that at the moment Steve King is winning. 
Republicans are implementing his policy objective of inaction to 
perfection because they are so fearful. But hopefully, just like the 
U.S. team, House Republicans can overcome their fears, appeal to their 
more noble aspirations, and we can pull victory from the jaws of defeat 
at the very end here and pass the immigration reform legislation our 
country so desperately needs.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we have been on the motion to proceed to 
our three appropriations bills since 10 a.m. this morning. It has 
almost been 4 hours, and it is true, under the cloture, there is 30 
hours of debate. We could let this go on until 11 p.m. tonight--we 
could. Actually, Members have had an interesting day speaking about 
issues related to Iraq and to immigration, but we would like to focus 
on the bills beforehand: agriculture, FDA--how do we feed people in our 
own country, save the family farm, and be able to export food.
  We would like to bring up a bill that funds FDA, the Food and Drug 
Administration, that looks out for food safety, but also the safety and 
efficacy of life-science products such as medical devices, biotech 
products, and pharmaceuticals, which I know are important to the State 
of the Presiding Officer.
  We want to be able to bring up Transportation, Housing, and Urban 
Development. The highway trust fund is going to run out.
  In my own home State we need the transportation money. We need it for 
the formula funding that will be important to roads, but we also need 
the money in there that looks out for small airports, such as the 
Hagerstown airport, the Frederick airport, which the President's plane 
needs to get to Camp David.
  Right up the road is the Hagerstown airport, for which there is a 
growing manufacturing hub, of which there is small manufacturing 
employing 300 to 400 people. Some make trucks, some make the heavy-duty 
equipment to be sold, that are also export products. One company 
actually puts in the avionics to the airplanes guarding our border.
  If we put all that together, it is close to 900 to 1,200 jobs. Hello, 
this is what we are talking about--public investment that creates 
private sector jobs and does public safety.
  So we are saying to those who are considering how we could move 
ahead, we encourage them now. I suggest we follow the model when we 
were on the floor 3 years ago. That was the last time we had these 
appropriations on the floor. We had an amendment process.
  The managers of the bill, such as my vice chairman Senator Shelby and 
I, worked with Members on a defined list, some we could actually take. 
There were some excellent ideas where Members wanted to improve on what 
we had done.
  For those who have concern about spending, they can actually come and 
offer cuts or they can offer replacements. This is the place where if 
you want government to work your way, it is your day and you do it 
through the amendment process.
  Most Americans don't understand that in order to debate a bill on the 
Senate floor, you have to first file a motion to proceed. That is 
asking permission to come to the floor to take up the bill. So we had 
to have a cloture vote on it. OK, it passed 95 to 3. I think it is the 
will of the Senate to get it going, and let's get these amendments--get 
it on with the amendments.
  Are there anxieties on both sides about the nature of those 
amendments? Sure. But that is what amendments are. Some we can take, 
some we need to debate.
  We are the greatest deliberative body in the world. We have to start 
deliberating.
  I say to my friends who are pondering how to proceed, the best way to 
proceed is look at the agreement we had in 2011 that allowed for 
amendments, a regular order, a methodical process for considering those 
amendments, and then we would be able to get on them, be able to debate 
them. My suggestion would be that we would alternate sides, a 
Democratic amendment, a Republican amendment--hey, maybe even a 
bipartisan amendment.
  I hope we do not spin our wheels and spin the clock for 8\1/2\ more 
hours, because the American people know that after all is said and 
done, more gets said than gets done.
  I am suggesting--really--let's follow the regular order. The process 
I am recommending is not new. There are no surprises, there are no 
stunts. It is a process we have followed in the past. I am suggesting, 
along with Senator Shelby, the exact model we used 3 years ago, the 
last time appropriations were on the floor.
  There are those who say in this country we have a spending problem. 
If you think we have a spending problem, this is the time to come to 
the floor and debate. If you think we have a spending problem and we 
are spending too much on the Justice Department--if you think it is too 
much money on bulletproof vests for cops or shelters for battered 
women, come on. If you think there is too much money in the space 
program, you don't like this rocket ship or that satellite, this is the 
place to come. Offer amendments. We are ready to debate.
  I speak for my two other subcommittee chairs, Senator Murray on 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies, and 
Senator Pryor on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies. We are already in consultation 
with the other side of the aisle. Senator Collins on transportation and 
Senator Blunt on agriculture are also ready to debate.
  I would hope we could move forward, have a method for moving forward 
that promotes regular order. If we do that, I think Members who haven't 
experienced too much--because of our gridlock and deadlock and the lock 
on amendments that we actually--I think they are going to like it 
because they like democracy. If you like the Constitution, if you like 
democracy, this is the place where we can put it into place today.
  Before I yield the floor, I note that the leadership from the 
Republican side is in conference with Senator Shelby. I hope that is 
good news.
  Then for those on both sides of the aisle watching the process on the 
floor, if you have amendments, start to gear up and get ready to bring 
them over. Senator Shelby and I are here. We are ready to receive them. 
We are ready to get ready to do them, we are ready to talk about them, 
and set the stage for hearing them.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 10293]]

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


                              Immigration

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, with what is happening in Iraq, what is 
happening with the claim of lost IRS emails from Lois Lerner, what is 
happening in the developments of the Benghazi investigation, what is 
happening in Ukraine, and what could happen in Afghanistan, it is 
easy--perhaps too easy--to overlook a crisis occurring right here in 
America on our southern border. That crisis is easily described as a 
wave of humanity coming across our southern border from Central 
America.
  Tragically, tens of thousands of the people coming across our borders 
seeking refuge in the United States are children--unaccompanied 
minors--from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The question we 
should ask ourselves is, Why are we seeing this unprecedented increase 
in the number of unaccompanied minors coming across our southwestern 
border?
  As we can see, in 2011 there were 6,560 detained. But that number has 
grown steadily, from 2012, 2013, and now 2014. So far 47,000 minors--
unaccompanied children--have been detained coming across our border, 
primarily from Central America. It is estimated that this 60,000 number 
will likely double next year unless something is done.
  These children--and their parents are enabling this--are crossing the 
border because of a widespread perception that they will be allowed to 
stay here. The reason for that perception is a series of events--a 
series of stated changes in policy--which have given the impression 
that President Obama does not have a commitment to enforce our 
immigration laws.
  None of us denies that Central America's Northern Triangle is plagued 
by drug cartels, street gangs, rampant violence, and deeply entrenched 
poverty. There is no doubt about it. The fact is that the majority of 
people coming across the southwestern border these days are not from 
Mexico; they are from Central America. They are coming through a 500-
mile strip of border between Guatemala and Mexico, making their way up 
the Mexican coast in areas largely controlled by the Zetas--a criminal 
organization, a drug cartel which has basically figured this is another 
way to make money. In other words, they not only traffic in drugs, they 
traffic in people, and now, quite honestly, they are trafficking in 
tens of thousands of children.
  The massive spike in unaccompanied minors, of course, seemed to start 
to take off when President Obama announced in 2012 his so-called 
deferred action plan. To be clear and to be fair, this deferred action 
announcement where the President said he would not deport certain 
categories or classes of children would not apply to the children 
coming across the border today. So we might wonder, why in the world do 
they keep coming?
  Well, that was not an isolated event in 2012. Just to remind my 
colleagues, this deferred action announcement came 2 years after John 
Morton, who was the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or 
ICE, circulated a memo declaring that the enforcement of U.S. 
immigration laws against most illegal aliens was now a lower priority. 
That memo went out in June of 2010.
  A few months later several colleagues and I sent a letter to then-
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano expressing 
our concern that the administration's selective enforcement of our 
immigration statutes was jeopardizing public safety and breeding 
contempt for the rule of law. That letter read, in part:

       Numerous criminal aliens are being released into society 
     and are having proceedings terminated simply because ICE has 
     decided that such cases do not fit within the Department's 
     chosen enforcement priorities. It appears that ICE is 
     enforcing the law based on criteria it arbitrarily chose with 
     complete disregard for the enforcement laws created by 
     Congress.

  Then, in the second Morton memo the following June, then-Director 
Morton sent around another memo which further advised U.S. immigration 
authorities to systemically reconsider hundreds of thousands of 
immigration cases and to make them low priorities to enforce 
immigration laws against millions of people illegally present in the 
United States. That second Morton memo went even further than the first 
in looking at everyone--all the undocumented population here in the 
United States--and saying: We are going to reconsider our priorities in 
terms of repatriation of those individuals should they be detained by 
ICE. That June 2011 memo laid the groundwork for the deferred action 
program the President announced a year later, which was 2012, and these 
programs were extended earlier this month.
  The average was about 6,500; then it doubled in 2012; and then it 
doubled again in 2013; and then it is scheduled to double again in 
2014.
  The administration has continued to treat the vast majority of 
illegal immigrants as low-priority offenders, thereby creating perverse 
incentives for people to cross the border. If people don't believe 
there is any consequence associated with entering the country in 
violation of our immigration laws, they are going to continue to do it. 
As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, law enforcement has more 
than just what I would call a goal-line defense priority. In other 
words, deterrence is very important. Obviously, people are not being 
deterred.
  Perversely, people are being encouraged by this series of events to 
show up at the border--and, of course, in huge numbers--overwhelming 
Border Patrol, which is now no longer looking uniformly at drug dealers 
and human smuggling operations. Now they are trying to take care of 
children and trying to get them to a safe place to live and to take 
care of them.
  John Sandweg, who served as the ICE Director from 2013 to 2014, 
recently told the Los Angeles Times:

       If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your 
     odds of getting deported are close to zero.

  It is just unlikely to happen. That message has obviously gotten 
through to folks in Central America, who, admittedly, are living in a 
very tough neighborhood, and it has encouraged many of them to risk 
their lives and their children's lives on an extremely dangerous 
journey through this region of Mexico covered by the drug cartels.
  Actually, it is part of the business model of the drug cartels to 
encourage this flow of illegal migration from Central America through 
Mexico because they effectively get paid a tax by the coyotes and human 
smugglers who smuggle people through this dangerous region. One of the 
ways they come is on the top of one of these trains.
  This is a shot of a train they call The Beast. It has been well 
documented and written about by a Salvadoran journalist, Oscar 
Martinez, in a book he wrote in 2013 which is chilling, but it 
describes the journey from Central America through Mexico on the top of 
one of these trains and the risk of accident, the likelihood of sexual 
assault--6 to 8 out of 10 migrant women are sexually assaulted--people 
who are kidnapped for ransom, and people who are killed who don't 
comply with the dictates of the drug cartels.
  Don't take just my word for it.
  Last week the Washington Post confirmed that the influx of 
unaccompanied minors:

       . . . is being driven in large part by the perception that 
     they will be allowed to stay under the Obama administration's 
     immigration policies.

  The New York Times recently told the story of a 13-year-old Honduran 
boy who was detained in Mexico while trying to reach the United States. 
Like so many others across Central America, the Times reported this boy

       . . . said his mother believed that the Obama 
     administration had quietly changed its policy regarding 
     unaccompanied minors and that if he made it across he would 
     have a better shot at staying.

  The distinguished Senator from Maryland is here.
  Not only is this affecting States such as Texas, but these children, 
1,000 of them, are being effectively warehoused in Lackland Air Force 
base in San Antonio, TX, some are being shipped to Arizona and 
California, and some are being sent--or at least the plan is to send 
them--to Virginia and Maryland, because these 47,000 children who have

[[Page 10294]]

been detained since October of last year are overwhelming the capacity 
of local communities and State and Federal authorities to deal with 
them. As I said, The Beast, which transports people 1,000 miles or so 
on a trip from southern Mexico up to the southern border of Texas, is a 
horrific way to transit that huge expanse.
  Migrant women are preyed upon by drug cartels such as the Zetas. 
Officials from the mayor's office in Ciudad Hidalgo told Oscar 
Martinez, the author of the book ``The Beast,'' in Ciudad Hidalgo the 
Zetas control all trafficking, sending men to recruit women in Central 
America, and sometimes even kidnapping migrant women riding the buses. 
They sell the women to truckdrivers for a night, and then throw them 
away like unwanted scraps.
  My point is, there is nothing humane about encouraging people to 
travel through cartel-dominated smuggling routes in the hopes of 
reaching the United States. Yet that has been the effect of the 
perception that the President and his administration are not committed 
to enforcing our immigration laws. I know that wasn't their intention 
but that has been the consequence. Even before the ongoing border 
crisis erupted, people were taking notice of the President's disregard 
for the rule of law.
  Last December, for example, a Federal district court judge in 
Brownsville, TX, absolutely excoriated the Obama administration for 
making a mockery of enforcement, noting that the President's policies 
were incentivizing human traffickers and endangering the lives of 
children. Here is what Federal Judge Andrew Hanen said:

       By fostering an atmosphere whereby illegal aliens are 
     encouraged to pay human smugglers for further services, the 
     government is not only allowing them to fund the illegal and 
     evil activities of these cartels, but is also inspiring them 
     to do so.

  That is a Federal district judge in Brownsville, TX.
  One final point. Some of my friends across the aisle have argued that 
if only Congress would pass President Obama's preferred immigration 
reforms, the current border crisis would never have happened. That 
ignores the fact that none of these children qualify for any of the 
deferred action policies either ordered in 2012 or any of the others I 
mentioned. But there is the perception caused by the first Morton memo, 
the second Morton memo, then the deferred action announcement, and now 
the widely publicized news that the President has instructed Jeh 
Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security, to reconsider the entire 
repatriation and deportation policy, and it is clear this is related to 
the upcoming midterm election and the President's desire to try to make 
a point.
  The problem is his point is backfiring. It is victimizing the very 
same people the President believes, I think, that he is trying to help. 
That is what happens when the rule of law is no longer your priority--
unintended consequences. As I explained today, the President's actions 
have helped cause this humanitarian crisis.
  I know the Finance Committee has in subcommittee appropriated I think 
roughly $2 billion to help the Federal authorities to deal with this 
humanitarian crisis. Unfortunately, unless we are able to process 
appropriations bills across the floor of the Senate, I don't know when 
that money is going to be available, and that is another problem.
  But the most fundamental problem is the American people's confidence 
that the Federal Government will enforce the laws, until such time as 
those laws are changed, has been undermined. Passing new legislation 
will do nothing to fix that unless the President is willing to enforce 
laws that have already been passed by Congress. This isn't a problem of 
passing some more laws; this is a problem of the President and his 
administration effectively conveying the message that they are not 
going to enforce the laws they don't want to enforce. Unless we send a 
clear, unambiguous message that our border is secure and our 
immigration laws are being enforced, we can expect more and more 
Central American migrants to embark on the harrowing journey from 
Central America up through Mexico, which means more of them will be 
robbed, kidnapped, raped, and killed. We don't know how many start out 
on this journey. All we know is how many show up on the border. We 
ought to be concerned about that.
  To be clear, I remain personally committed to fixing all aspects of 
our broken immigration system, but I cannot and will not support any 
policy that effectively empowers human traffickers and endangers the 
lives of these children.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, before the Senator from Texas leaves--
and I know we have other matters to discuss--first I want to make a 
comment and then I have a question.
  I want to thank the Senator from Texas for that very compelling 
presentation. I might not agree with every sentence, but I think the 
Senator painted a picture of what is happening at the border. We do 
have a humanitarian crisis.
  As chair of the Appropriations Committee, I was made aware of this 
last year by Secretary Sebelius when they asked for more money to help. 
I said, yes, more money to help, but we needed to plan. What were we 
going to do with this? So now these numbers have surged, and what it 
has become is these children effectively function as refugees.
  This portrait the Senator has portrayed--the horrific sense of The 
Beast, and human beings, women and children, and boys, as well, being 
sold as if they were commodities? Commodities. It gives you goosebumps. 
The Senator has painted a very compassionate and compelling picture.
  My question, though, is we have to deal with the immediate crisis 
now. But as the Senator talks about the enforcement on the border, what 
would the Senator recommend we do?
  In other words, the pictures I have seen--and I hope I will go down 
and see this for myself--is the children come up to the border control 
guy, some as young as 4 and 5 years old and some go up to the early 
teens. Some teens carry their younger siblings. Is the Senator saying 
we should turn them away? These are not provocative questions. We have 
to work across the aisle to deal with this issue constructively, 
humanely, and effectively.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I may respond to the distinguished 
Senator's question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
  Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate the Senator's leadership and big heart. This 
is not a political issue. The first and most important thing we need to 
do is to pursue the best interests of these children, but we cannot 
simply deal with our immigration problem, illegal immigration problem, 
at the border. It has to start back in Central America. That is one 
reason I am glad Vice President Joe Biden is traveling to Guatemala, as 
I know Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security has, to try to 
see what they can do.
  We then need to try to persuade our friends in Mexico to commit more 
resources. Perhaps we can persuade them to deal with the 500-mile 
southern border that is basically controlled by the cartels. But the 
cartels are making money. So this is a governance issue in Central 
America and Mexico as well.
  I might point out that perhaps with the same reservations the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland made about not agreeing with 
everything I said, but much of what I said, what I have said has I 
think pretty much been echoed by my friend Representative Henry Cuellar 
from Laredo, TX, who obviously by virtue of where he lives and was 
raised is very knowledgeable about the border around Laredo and Mexico 
and Central America.
  I saw an interview with our former First Lady Hillary Clinton, that 
unless we send a very clear and loud message to people in Central 
America that you should not come, you should not risk your children 
making this long, harrowing journey because they will not be able to 
stay, then they are going to keep coming, because right now when these 
children come here, as the Senator knows, our capacity to deal

[[Page 10295]]

with them is overwhelmed at the local level, at the State level, and at 
the Federal level, and they are essentially being treated like refugees 
and warehoused in places such as Lackland Air Force Base and other 
places around the country.
  You can imagine the impact in the long run not only on the health 
care system, on education, and other services that would be required to 
take care of these children until they can be repatriated. But I would 
align myself with what former Senator Clinton, the former Secretary of 
State, said: The President and the administration need to send a very 
clear and loud message that anyone who comes to the United States will 
be returned to their country of origin once a safe family member can be 
identified to repatriate these children. But right now the system is so 
overwhelmed that we don't even know who these children are being placed 
with in America. They may be some claimed family member, but I am not 
sure whether there are background checks being done for criminal 
history or perhaps sex offense.
  This is overwhelming the whole system. I am sure working together we 
can come up with an improvement over where we are now, and I would 
point out this is not a partisan issue, but it is a very harsh reality 
and my concern is it is being overwhelmed by the news out of the Middle 
East and other concerns here in Washington when it is very much front 
and center back home in Texas.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the senior Senator from Texas, a former 
attorney general, as I recall. The Senator knows the law, he knows the 
border, and he knows what is going on.
  This Senator looks at this too as not only the chair of the 
Appropriations Committee but as a social worker. The care of the 
children even in our own country gives me pause.
  They were originally looking at a closed Social Security building to 
house these children, with no bathrooms except down the hall, putting 
them in little office cubicles. So we have a very serious problem.
  I want the Senator from Texas to know I agree with the holding that 
we need to have the strong and clear message in Central America, first 
of all, that these rumors are false.
  Today is not the day to do this. I thank the Senator for his 
compelling comments. I would like to work with the Senator from Texas 
and also continue to work with the administration to focus on this. But 
the message does have to go to Central America. I think we are fair 
game in Central America. From what I have heard, there are all these 
radio ads and so on that are truly exploiting this. There is violence, 
there is ghoulish, grim violence against children in Central America. 
Desperate mothers and grandmothers are trying to look for a way out. 
They are being exploited. I am going to work with the Senator in any 
way I can to stem the flow, deal with the humanitarian crisis, and get 
a long-range solution. I appreciate this conversation going forward.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator and look forward to 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. President, I rise today not only as a Senator from 
Montana, but as a veteran of the long and difficult war in Iraq. Like 
most Americans, the increasing instability in Iraq and the 
disintegration of the country along sectarian boundaries has me deeply 
concerned. This past weekend when I was home in Montana and talking to 
Montanans, they were very concerned about what was going on in Iraq; 
they express their interest to me about Iraq on a regular basis.
  The heinous advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, their 
systematic execution of Iraqi soldiers, and the murder of innocent 
civilians gives pause to people everywhere.
  I stand here today as a veteran and as a father whose son has been 
deployed multiple times. I wish to recognize my son today, who is with 
me today. I ask that my son Michael stand and be recognized.
  We fought in the war that Washington began based on false 
information--a war that ended and from which we must move on.
  I led an infantry battalion--the 1st Battalion, 163rd Infantry--into 
combat, which was made up of more than 100 of Montana's finest. Our 
area of operation was from just north of Tikrit--from Baiji--to Kirkuk, 
which is the very same area being fought over today.
  It was late 2004 and the country had fallen into a bitter sectarian 
conflict--a conflict that unfolded after the dismantling of the 
Baathist-led army and fueled by ancient divides between the Shias and 
Sunnis. Those same disputes are again boiling over in Iraq today.
  From the end of 2004 to late 2005, my unit fought to hold ground, 
secure roads, and build infrastructure. We worked with local sheiks and 
key leaders to forge a path to peace. We helped return Iraq's 
government to its people. While there we oversaw two successful 
elections and watched with hope and great satisfaction as the Iraqis 
ratified their constitution. It was during this time that I also 
dispatched a team from the battalion to focus solely on training and 
assisting members of the newly formed Iraqi army.
  During our unit's entire deployment in Iraq while fighting the 
insurgency, we faced rocket attacks, snipers, and improvised explosive 
devices on a daily basis. Four of my men were killed in action, and 
there is not a day that goes by that I don't think of those men and 
their families: MSG Robbie D. McNary of Lewistown, MT, died on March 
31, 2005; SSG Kevin Davis of Lebanon, OR, died on April 8, 2005; SGT 
Timothy Kiser of Tehama, CA, died on April 28, 2005; and SGT Travis 
Arndt, died on September 21, 2005. Travis was from Bozeman, MT. Scores 
of other soldiers were injured.
  One of my soldiers died by suicide after returning home to Montana. 
He was a victim of the invisible wounds of war.
  Nearly 4,500 Americans have been killed in Iraq, among them 28 
Montana heroes. Some 32,000 Americans have been wounded. The war cost 
us more than $2 trillion--I say more than $2 trillion--most of which 
Congress put on a credit card so our grandchildren can pay the debt.
  Because this Nation has failed to prepare for new veterans returning 
home, we now have a crisis of care within our VA health care system--a 
system that is overwhelmed after more than a decade of war.
  Today we are seeing 22 veterans die by suicide each and every single 
day across this country. These are the true costs of war. Montanans 
understand this, and Americans understand this.
  Because I work for Montanans, and I am listening to them, I call on 
President Obama to use extreme caution when considering options to deal 
with the sectarian violence that we are seeing take place in Iraq 
today. America cannot afford another Iraq financially or the human 
costs that are associated with war. We did our job there, and we did it 
with honor and integrity. Our men and women should be very proud of 
their success, and the citizens of this country should be proud of the 
accomplishments of the men and women who served in our armed forces.
  Today some are suggesting we make an open-ended commitment to Iraq 
and keep American troops on the ground indefinitely. Sending thousands 
of America's young men and women back into Iraq to step into the middle 
of a civil war is not a solution.
  To my fellow Members of Congress, I urge temperance as we navigate 
this difficult terrain because I know that foreign policy failures made 
in Washington fall disproportionately on the backs of young men and 
women from the small towns across Montana and the country.
  I have seen war up close and, like too many American families, I have 
seen the cost of war up close on families and on communities all across 
this country.
  I believe it is now time for the Iraqis to secure and defend their 
own nation. The embrace of their own self-determination is the only 
path to a true and everlasting peace in Iraq.
  I wish to remind the American people of the costs that have been 
associated with the war in Iraq. We are dealing with a crisis within 
the VA health care

[[Page 10296]]

system. At one time over a year ago, we had over 450,000 men and women 
on a backlog list trying to get in to see a health care provider.
  Today that backlog has been significantly reduced, but we still have 
a problem within the VA health care system. We put over 2 million 
American veterans into that health care system without making sure that 
the system was ready for them when they came home. Can you imagine 
sending over 2 million American servicemembers into Iraq or 
Afghanistan--or anywhere else in the world--whom we didn't train, 
equip, or provide the resources for them to go into Iraq?
  When people talk to me about the cost of war, I think this is a cost 
that we sometimes overlook because when our men and women return from 
Iraq, the war is not over. We will be dealing with this cost for many 
years.
  As we talk about the men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan and 
contemplating our extension of deployment in Afghanistan, a figure has 
been thrown around as to the costs. Today it costs approximately $1.2 
million for a soldier in Afghanistan. When we reduce the number of 
soldiers in Afghanistan from 32,000 to less than 10,000, that cost goes 
up to $2.3 million. Again, we are planning to put that cost on the 
credit card.
  We have a responsibility, and that responsibility lies on the 
citizens of this Nation and on the citizens of Montana. We must 
continue to look out for these people.
  I don't want to be an isolationist. I understand there are problems 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we have to take care of our problems here 
in Washington, DC.
  As I travel back to Montana and talk to Montanans, they are concerned 
about our debt. They know we have a spending problem, and we have to 
take care of that spending problem. But sending our soldiers to Iraq or 
extending their stay in Afghanistan is not going to solve the problems 
we are dealing with there.
  Again, America cannot afford another Iraq financially or the human 
costs that are associated with Iraq. We owe it to the citizens of this 
Nation.
  The Members of the Senate need to ask themselves: If it were my son 
or daughter who was going to be sent into Iraq to fight in a sectarian 
conflict, would I be as willing to do that as I am today without having 
someone I care for sent over there?
  We hear about suggestions on a daily basis about what we should be 
doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I know we are dealing with a 
difficult situation there, but we have to make the right decision. We 
have to look out for the United States of America and what is happening 
here in America.
  I think that too many of my fellow Members of Congress are too abrupt 
and think too quickly about what we should do in Iraq. I believe they 
need to take a step back and think about the impacts--the second and 
third order of effects of continuing to send our men and women back 
over to Iraq.
  As I said, I know that foreign policy failures made in Washington 
will fall disproportionately on the backs of smalltown America--towns 
like Culbertson, MT, Livingston, MT, and Boulder, MT. It is not the 
large cities that will bear the burden of sending men and women back 
into Iraq.
  I have also mentioned I have seen war up close. I still recall the 
ramp ceremonies we held shortly after the deaths of the men and women 
in Iraq. We had to have those men and women out of there within a 12-
hour period. Those were very difficult times to deal with not only for 
me but for the other 700-plus men and women who were deployed with me 
to Iraq.
  Again, I cannot overemphasize how important I think it is that we 
really step back, take a look at what is happening in Iraq and 
determine if this is really the best thing for the United States of 
America. Is it the best thing for our military to have to deal with?
  We have been at war for over 13 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our 
military will do whatever we ask of it, but we also have to think about 
the families of our service men and women, the impacts that the wars of 
Iraq and Afghanistan have had on them with the number of divorces, 
broken marriages, and broken families. Those are also the costs of war 
we are having to deal with.
  There are no easy answers to what is happening in Iraq, and I know we 
will come together and come up with a solution, and I hope it is the 
right solution because these are very important times. Who knows what 
will happen next? Will it happen in the Middle East? Will it happen in 
Europe? I don't think that anyone knows, and we have to be prepared.
  Again, I have said it once and I wish to emphasize this point again: 
I believe it is time for the Iraqis to secure and defend their own 
nation. We heard they have over 17 divisions. Think about the size of 
those divisions. A division of the United States is nearly 20,000 
soldiers, and I am sure that an Iraqi division is somewhere in that 
same capacity. They have 17 divisions--4 of which we hear have dropped 
their weapons and fallen back, but that still leaves 13 divisions they 
would have to fight, and so they can make a stance to protect their 
country.
  I am calling on the Members of this Senate to ask the Iraqi people to 
stand up and fight for their country.
  I thank the Chair.
  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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to make an 
objection, if necessary, to an effort to submarine the President's 
climate change initiative, which two-thirds of all Americans support 
and which a huge number of major name-brand American corporations 
supported and which is supported by those whom we trust to lead our 
national defense and our national security interests. But something 
about this building, something about this place makes it a place where 
the polluting interests have wildly disproportionate sway, so we keep 
seeing these attacks on environmental regulations. So it is actually 
kind of fortunate timing that I am here because it gives me a chance, 
for the 71st time, to try to wake this body up to the harm carbon 
pollution is causing to our oceans, to our economy, to our wildlife, 
and to our health.
  I traveled recently to New Hampshire. I have been traveling around 
the country, going to States that are facing the carbon predicament and 
seeing how they are doing it.
  I can tell my colleagues that Granite Staters are facing up to the 
daunting challenges of climate change. Rhode Islanders understand that 
New Hampshire's challenges are like our own. We see similar threats in 
our own State. At the Newport, RI, tide gauge, right at our naval 
station, sea level is up almost 10 inches since the 1930s. In the 
winter, we are three to four degrees warmer in Narragansett Bay. The 
recent ``National Climate Assessment'' report concludes that Rhode 
Island will see even more rising sea level, warmer temperatures, and 
extreme weather.
  New Hampshire showed that there is plenty of Yankee good sense up 
there as well. The people of New Hampshire get it, and they are taking 
steps to tackle climate change. Let me first say that no one pretended 
it isn't real. The first line of defense on the other side of the aisle 
is that climate change isn't real. No one I spoke to in New Hampshire 
is pretending it isn't real.
  University of New Hampshire expert Cameron Wake told me that New 
Hampshire is ``getting wetter and getting warmer,'' and they pointed 
out that it is happening fast. The ``National Climate Assessment'' 
shows that due to climate change, the Northeast already has seen 70 
percent more extreme precipitation in recent years--dramatic downpours 
that increase the risk of flooding. This University of New Hampshire 
data shows an even more severe problem for New Hampshire. Dr. Wake told 
me that he and his University of New Hampshire colleagues have 
collected data from southern New

[[Page 10297]]

Hampshire on what they call ``extreme precipitation events''--what we 
might call a rain burst, where over 4 inches of rain falls in just 48 
hours. The data show these rain bursts have increased 4 to 10 times 
since 1960, and they will only grow more frequent through the rest of 
the century, Wake and his University of New Hampshire colleagues 
report.
  That brings us to the warmer part of the wetter-and-warmer equation. 
The University of New Hampshire's recent studies show the State's 
temperature has increased by twice the global average, happening in 
large part due to what Dr. Wake calls ``snow dynamics'': Warmer 
temperatures during New Hampshire's winter mean less snow. Less snow 
exposes more dark ground underneath. The dark ground absorbs more heat, 
and it warms faster than if it were covered in reflective snow--what 
scientists call high albedo snow. So the ground then warms the air--and 
on goes the cycle.
  At Plymouth State University, the Appalachian Mountain Club has data 
which show temperature increases in Pinkham Notch in New Hampshire's 
White Mountains. The average increase in temperature has climbed over 
75 years. Then, if we look at the average over 50 years, we see that 
the line has steepened and it is accelerating, and if we look at the 
line for the last 25 years, it has steepened again and the increase is 
accelerating further. So New Hampshire's temperatures aren't just 
rising, they are rising faster.
  What do these temperatures mean for Granite Staters? Well, big 
changes to their winter industries, such as skiing. Six years ago Ben 
Wilcox, who is the general manager of the ski resort Mount Cranmore in 
North Conway, NH, was using 40 to 50 snow guns to cover his ski 
mountain. Now he is using 150. In the last 5 years, Wilcox reports, ski 
mountains in his region have invested in over 1,700 new top-of-the-line 
snow guns, capable of making three to four times the amount of snow of 
previous models, so they can offset the snowpack loss from the shorter 
winters. That makes them lucky. But when people down the mountain don't 
see snow, they don't think about skiing, so they don't go.
  Stefan Hausmann is the owner of Zimmermann's Ski and Snowboard Shop 
in Nashua, NH. He told me his business sees this in fewer new skiers 
and snowboarders buying their equipment at his store. He is still 
selling the higher end skis to established skiers at a pretty good 
clip, but he is selling less equipment to beginners. Those lower end 
customers just aren't coming in the door, says Hausmann.
  Of course, New Hampshire's winter tourism industry goes far beyond 
skiing. The New Hampshire Department of Travel and Economic Development 
says 34 million visitors travel to the Granite State and spend roughly 
$4.6 billion. This makes tourism the State's second largest industry, 
and climate change hits a lot of it.
  For instance, snowmobilers and Nordic skiers come to New Hampshire's 
backcountry for more than 7,000 miles of trails. If you are a ski 
mountain, you can crank snow out onto your busy ski slopes. It is not 
so easy when you are talking about snowmobile trails or Nordic skiing 
trails. So the ski business of trail skiing and the snowmobile business 
is taking a hit.
  The Hubbard Brook Research Foundation, based in North Woodstock, NH, 
has found that snow cover has decreased by 22 days since I was born in 
1955, and the frozen lakes included in those trail systems that 
snowmobilers and Nordic skiers use are covered in ice less of the 
year--33 less days on Mirror Lake just since 1967, for example. As one 
Granite Stater told me, this hit not just the trails but the hotels, 
restaurants, snowmobile shops, and outdoor outfitters who depend on 
that market.
  Of course, it is not just sports. Jamey French of Portsmouth, the CEO 
and president of Northland Forest Products, told me how climate change 
is affecting two of New Hampshire's most valuable hardwoods--the sugar 
maple and the yellow birch.
  Sugar maples, of course, support New Hampshire's maple sugar 
industry, but they also draw leaf peepers who travel to view the 
spectacular foliage that blankets the New Hampshire landscape in the 
autumn. As New Hampshire and neighboring States get warmer, the trees' 
geographic range moves north. Scientists predict that future warming 
will exacerbate this trend, meaning more production of maple syrup in 
Canada and less in the United States--bad news for New Hampshire's 
maple sugar houses.
  As for the yellow Birch, Mr. French points out that in the 1940s and 
1950s, most of the furniture in New England was made out of yellow 
birch, and yellow birch remains a valuable hardwood, drawing good 
prices for New Hampshire's timber business.
  French fears the consequences for his industry if yellow birch and 
sugar maples are pushed northwards and out by warmer-weather trees. 
``Will there be a wood product industry?'' he asks. ``Will there be a 
maple sugar industry in a climate-changed New England? There is going 
to be a lot less of one,'' he concludes.
  New Hampshire biologist Eric Orrf is witnessing one of the most 
dramatic changes. He studies the moose--an animal that is bred to 
survive harsh northern winters. But what Orrf sees is a catastrophic 
decline in moose population mostly due to the success of moose ticks. 
This is going to get a little bit gross, so forgive me. Moose ticks 
breed more easily and they survive longer in milder winters. Orrf 
explains--these are his words:

       What happens when we have an early spring, when winter 
     ticks fall off on bare ground, is they thrive. They lay their 
     eggs. They are successful at reproducing. Then, in the fall, 
     in November, when the baby moose ticks are hanging together, 
     if there is no snow, then by the thousands, tens of 
     thousands, they get on the calves. Now for these calves, 
     they'd literally have to resupply their blood supply two 
     times over to survive the winter. They suck them dry.

  I think one tick is pretty revolting. The idea of tens of thousands 
of ticks on a moose calf, sucking the blood out of the calf so fast 
that it can't keep up, is a truly grisly thought. They literally ``suck 
them dry,'' according to Orrf.
  Mike Bartlett of the New Hampshire Audubon Society told me how 
climate change is affecting the State's bird. New Hampshire's State 
bird is the purple finch. It is the official bird of New Hampshire. It 
is a cold-weather bird with a range up to Canada. He said this:

       The purple finch is at the southern end of its range, and, 
     in all likelihood, our state bird isn't going to be found in 
     the State of New Hampshire anymore.

  So while we dawdle and delay in Congress thanks to the influence of 
big polluters, there is work to be done out there. Thankfully, States 
across the country, knowing the risks of doing nothing and knowing the 
costs of doing nothing, are starting to act.
  I have been to the Southeast coast. I have been to the Midwest. I 
have seen wind parks in Iowa with 500 wind turbines generating more 
than a quarter of the State's electricity. I went South. I saw 
Republican mayors and county officials in the Southeast putting climate 
and energy policy at the center of their government's plans.
  I saw it again in New Hampshire, Granite Staters who understand the 
risks all too well. The University of New Hampshire recently released 
two--not one but two--comprehensive reports about climate change, one 
for northern New Hampshire and one for southern New Hampshire. I have 
them with me. New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan has played a pivotal 
role in making sure this work gets done and in developing and operating 
New England's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which we call 
``Reggi,'' which is already at work reducing our region's carbon 
pollution and providing a model for how other States can succeed under 
the powerplant regulations.
  We are already seeing our States--our laboratories of democracy--
taking sensible steps down the path to reducing carbon emissions. The 
EPA rule for carbon pollution from powerplants will encourage that 
State role. Just this morning the Wall Street Journal and NBC News 
released polling saying two-thirds of Americans support President 
Obama's new climate rule, and more than half say the United States 
should

[[Page 10298]]

go for it and deal with global warming even if it means higher 
electricity bills for them. People in America get it. It is only this 
building that is isolated by polluter influence.
  It is time for Congress to wake up, and we will if the American 
people will give us a good shake. It is time to wake up.
  I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                        Tribute to Brianna Vance

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise to recognize a remarkably brave, 
very young West Virginian, 10-year-old Brianna Vance, who helped save 
her father's life just last week--truly amazing. It was on Twitter, all 
over the pages.
  On June 10, as a severe storm--and with all of the severe storms we 
have been having all over the country--tore through her neighborhood in 
Henlawson, WV, Brianna's father Gregory and two of his friends were 
sitting on the porch when lightning struck a nearby very large tree 
that crashed down on top of them and their home.
  Brianna tried to use her phone to call for help, but the storm had 
knocked out all of the cell services. She had nothing. She could not do 
a thing. Remarkably, she was still able to access the Internet and 
quickly logged onto Facebook--just by a miracle.
  In an extraordinary demonstration of courage and resourcefulness, 
Brianna posted a video, and I have seen this video. If you haven't, 
please go to Brianna's Facebook page, ``Brianna Vance,'' and look at 
it. She asked anyone who had cell phone service or access to a phone to 
please call 911 and send an ambulance to her yellow house to save her 
daddy.
  She thought, had enough presence about her during this very trying 
and emotional time. When people see the video, I think it will explain 
and speak for itself.
  Thankfully, someone saw her post and a rescue team was able to save 
the three victims, including her father, because of that Facebook post.
  When all other options failed, Brianna did not give up. She still had 
the presence of thought and her desire to help her father and his 
friends.
  Because of her sharp wit and resourcefulness, her father is alive and 
recovering today--just in time to celebrate Father's Day together, as 
we just finished up this past weekend.
  I am so proud of Brianna, and I know her family and community are as 
well, as can be expected when we have situations not just in West 
Virginia but in the Presiding Officer's own State of Ohio and all over 
this great country, where we have family bonds such as this and we have 
family stories that have good outcomes that we do not hear enough of.
  I thank Brianna for her heroism that helped save the lives of her 
father and his friends. She should be recognized for her bravery.
  So I say, Brianna, on behalf of the grateful State of West Virginia, 
thank you for what you have done for your father and his friends and 
showing the courage you have as a young West Virginian.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon because 
this week the Senate has a chance to take another crucial step away 
from the political cliffs and manufactured crises of previous years and 
to get back to the regular order--to get back to the considered, 
measured, orderly process on this floor that for so long was 
characteristic of this body, in the past considered the greatest 
deliberative body on Earth, but in recent years it has ground to a 
halt.
  It is critical that we return to regular order and that we return to 
the steady consideration of appropriations bills in a way that will 
move not just the Senate and this Congress but this country forward.
  I thank the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, 
Senators Mikulski and Shelby, for their leadership and their steadfast 
determination to work in a bipartisan manner and bring us back to 
regular order.
  We are considering today a collection--or what is called today a 
``minibus'' instead of an omnibus--of three appropriations bills: 
Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration; 
Commerce, Justice, and Science; and Transportation and Housing and 
Urban Development--an unbelievable scope across these three 
appropriations bills that could in combination make a real and 
significant difference for our communities, our States, and our 
country. This is an opportunity for this Congress to carry out its 
duties to provide oversight and direction and to help all the different 
agencies I just named move forward and address some of our most 
important priorities.
  As a member myself of the Appropriations Committee, I have advocated 
for some of what are our Nation's top priorities embedded in these 
three important bills. So I wish to speak for a few minutes about how 
these bills will, first, help my home State of Delaware; second, help 
our country; and then, third, the important obligation we have as 
Senators to return to regular order and to use the appropriations 
process for oversight and for management of this whole Federal project.
  For Delaware, these three bills invest in a number of areas. I could 
talk about literally dozens of matters critical to my home State, but 
let me focus on two--public safety and infrastructure.
  When we think about it at the local level--where I served for a 
decade in county government--these are the foundation of what 
government does and does well: Keep our people, homes, communities, and 
families safe, and provide for the sewer water, drinking water, and the 
highways and tollways and bridges and ports that are critical to moving 
commerce and our country forward.
  This bill extends children's advocacy centers. Let me talk for a few 
minutes about what children's advocacy centers are and why it is so 
vital to public safety.
  Children's advocacy centers allow communities to bring child abusers 
to justice without retraumatizing their victims. Children's advocacy 
centers are unique because it is a model that brings together, under 
one roof in one place, law enforcement, prosecutors, counselors, and 
child service professionals--all focusing on how to best care for and 
move forward with a child who has been a victim of abuse.
  In Delaware we have three centers--one in each of our three counties. 
And although I wish we didn't need them, the fact is they are 
indispensable. In my experience in a decade of local government, I was 
exposed over and over to the critical role they play in helping law 
enforcement secure critical evidence and move forward to conviction 
against the monsters who commit abuse against our children.
  Since the creation of these centers, they have transformed our 
Nation's response to child abuse, giving families hope and guidance in 
their darkest moments and delivering justice to those who have endured 
the worst.
  As we work together to continue to try our best to keep our children 
safe, this bill allows us to continue to fund child advocacy centers so 
we can have a more efficient, more effective, more federally sponsored 
and coordinated way to deliver at a very modest cost this vital 
resource for our children.
  Second, as we work to keep our children safe, this bill also allows 
us to protect those who protect us. Every

[[Page 10299]]

day more than 1 million law enforcement officers across this country 
accept risks to their personal safety. As they leave their families at 
dawn and head off to their jobs, they know that what they accept as 
part of their mission is the risk they may not come home that night. 
That is why it is so important this bill also funds the bulletproof 
vest partnership.
  In Delaware we know its value all too well. Last February at the New 
Castle County Courthouse in my hometown of Wilmington, DE, a gunman 
unleashed a hail of bullets into a courthouse lobby, tragically killing 
two. On what was a difficult morning in Wilmington, two lives were also 
saved--those of Sergeant Michael Manley and Corporal Steve Rinehart--
members of the Delaware Capitol Police--officers who were wearing 
bulletproof vests funded by the Federal Bulletproof Vest Partnership. 
This is a partnership launched by my predecessor, now-Vice President 
Biden. It has been sustained on a bipartisan basis for many years, but 
without this appropriation, this vital Federal-State-law enforcement 
partnership would grind to a halt.
  Vests work. They save lives. They save officers' lives, and with this 
bill we will be able to ensure even more officers all across this 
country have lifesaving bulletproof vests.
  Those are two areas where in law enforcement and public safety this 
bill continues critical investments in partnership from the Federal 
Government to State and local governments.
  In recent weeks in Delaware we have also been reminded of just how 
critical our infrastructure is--our bridges, our roads, and highways.
  There is a bridge on I-495 that goes across the Christina River. This 
is a vital highway for Wilmington and for the whole mid-Atlantic 
region. It carries 90,000 drivers a day, but 2 weeks ago it was closed 
indefinitely when workers nearby noticed four of its pillars were off 
plumb, were slanted, and then upon further investigation discovered 
there were cracks in the very foundation holding this bridge 50 feet in 
the air. Its closure is hurting families, businesses, and commuters, 
and it is just one in a string of recent emergencies all across our 
country that demonstrate the need for investment in fixing America's 
roads and bridges.
  The funding we are considering this week in this bill recognizes that 
and takes steps to address some of our most urgent needs across this 
country. It continues to invest in two innovative funding vehicles: One 
called TIGER grants and another called TIFIA loans. These are acronyms, 
but they are inventive ways to mobilize private capital in partnership 
with States and the Federal Government, to get us moving again in 
repairing and upgrading the roads and bridges of America. They help 
State and local governments pay for new highways and bridges, public 
transit projects, railways, and ports.
  In Delaware, the Port of Wilmington--a critical economic engine for 
our State and region--secured a $10 million TIGER grant last year to 
renovate facilities built in 1922. On U.S. 301, a little south and west 
of Wilmington but still in Delaware, TIFIA grants are helping us to do 
critical work to relieve congestion.
  In southernmost Delaware at Georgetown, at the Sussex County Airport, 
we have also seen the vital role and the value of Federal investment. 
Since 2012, the Sussex County Airport has received $4 million in 
airport improvement grants to expand its runway and improve safety and 
to help grow manufacturing jobs at that Georgetown Airport. With this 
week's bill, we will be able to continue making these kinds of critical 
improvements at airports in Delaware and across our country.
  I relatively rarely get to fly, but I commute virtually every day 
back and forth from Wilmington, DE, to Washington, and I ride on Amtrak 
when I do so. Today, ridership levels are at a record high, and 
Delaware's region in the Northeast corridor brings in $300 million in 
profits alone. So it is good this bill maintains Amtrak's national 
operations and investments in its capital needs, but I believe we need 
to do more. We need to step up and do more federally to invest if we 
want to keep these results, not just in the Northeast but across the 
country.
  We have a more than $6 billion backlog to reach a state of good 
repair for Amtrak. As our bridges, tunnels, and rail lines get older 
and older, fixing them will only become more expensive. That is why I 
intend to offer an amendment to this bill to further increase our 
investment in the capital needs of Amtrak. This is critical. It is 
something we need, and we need to start chipping away at this long 
overdue debt we have, this unaddressed infrastructure debt, if we are 
going to continue to serve our communities.
  There are many other great provisions in these incredibly broad bills 
that are of national and international importance. Let me just briefly 
reference a few.
  At home manufacturing continues to be critical to our economy and our 
future, and biomanufacturing plays an increasingly important role; the 
manufacturing of products and materials from renewable sources, from 
plant-based sources rather than petrochemicals. For the first time, 
through this bill, we will dedicate $15 million to the National Science 
Foundation's budget for new biomanufacturing initiatives that will 
allow us to deploy in the marketplace new inventions and innovations.
  Our competitors aren't holding back on doing so. Countries from the 
United Kingdom to China are ramping up their investments in new 
biomanufacturing. In my view it is time for the United States to 
refocus our research, to reprioritize our investments, and to stay 
competitive in this vital field.
  Finally, I am proud these appropriations bills also support in the 
housing area funding for Community Development Block Grant--CDBG--
Programs. We used them when I was in county government in Delaware to 
help rehabilitate homes, to help provide for affordable homes, and to 
help strengthen and sustain jobs in our communities.
  In 2013, so-called CDBG, or Community Development Block Grants, 
helped 225 families. Some in this body have tried to cut CDBG, but I am 
thrilled we have been able to successfully move forward and sustain its 
support in this bill.
  While we invest at home, these appropriations bills also make 
important investments abroad. One I would like to briefly highlight is 
in our international food aid program, where we feed millions but can 
do more. This bill provides for flexibility of our food aid that will 
allow it to be delivered more efficiently, more quickly, and to feed 
more who hunger around the world.
  As businesses also look abroad from the United States, we are doing 
more to open new markets for them. One of the investments I most value 
that is in this bill in this regard is the expansion of the Foreign 
Commercial Service at the Department of Commerce--in particular, its 
expansion in Africa, where 7 out of 10 of the fastest growing economies 
in the world are currently growing but where the United States isn't 
doing enough to take advantage of these burgeoning export markets for 
our products.
  As chair of the African Affairs Subcommittee, I have had a chance to 
see up close the great opportunities for growth and partnership that 
Africa offers. There will be four new Foreign Commercial Service 
offices in Angola, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Mozambique, as well as 
expansion in Kenya, Ghana, Morocco, and Libya. Now we can make 
investments in them jointly so our growing partnerships in the Sub-
Saharan countries I listed can thrive.
  As I close, I also make one brief point about why this whole process 
is important--why we need to pass these appropriations bills rather 
than just continuing resolutions, which go on from year after year, 
that sustain funding but do not engage the minds and skills of the 
Members of this body in doing oversight of the Federal Government.
  As the Federal Government changes, as our Nation's needs change, we 
need to be able to ensure that our spending and our focus adapts as 
well. A great example from this particular minibus bill that is on the 
floor today is the Crude By Rail Safety Initiative. Within the last 
year there have been a number

[[Page 10300]]

of accidents on our rail networks that demand our action. America is 
moving more and more oil and hazardous products by rail every year, so 
we are putting in place an approach to do it safely.
  The Department of Transportation and Transportation Secretary Foxx 
have done a great job responding with the resources and tools they 
have, but Congress needs to do more. That is why this bill adds 20 new 
rail and hazardous materials inspectors, adds $3 million to ensure that 
oil routes are safe and sound, creates a new short-line safety 
institute, improves classifications, and extends training for first 
responders.
  Without this appropriations bill and regular order, new and timely 
investments such as these that are responsive to conditions of the 
world wouldn't happen. Thus, if I might say in closing, while our 
economy changes, we need to change, and we need regular order and 
regular appropriations bills to be able to do that.
  I again thank the chair and vice chair of the Appropriations 
Committee, Senators Mikulski and Shelby, for their leadership and their 
efforts to shepherd a bipartisan process forward. It is critical to our 
country, our economy, and our future.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to deliver my remarks in full.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished Senator Brown be permitted to speak immediately following 
my remarks for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Thank you, Mr. President.


                          Guantanamo Releases

  I rise today out of serious concern about the release of the five 
senior Taliban commanders detained at Guantanamo and the way in which 
the Obama administration has accomplished it.
  These individuals that the Taliban successfully demanded the release 
of in exchange for SGT Bowe Bergdahl were some of the most dangerous 
terrorists in our custody. Some had close operational ties to Al Qaeda. 
Others perpetrated horrifying war crimes. All were senior leaders in 
the Taliban--a group with whom we remain at war.
  These former detainees, the Taliban five, are only subject to a 1-
year international travel ban. It seems shockingly unrealistic to 
expect that they will not seek to undo everything our brave men and 
women in uniform have fought and died for in Afghanistan.
  However foolish, the prospect that we might release the most 
dangerous Guantanamo detainees has been a matter of national debate for 
some time. President Obama and his subordinates have long espoused a 
singular devotion to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. Many 
of us in Congress have remained decidedly less sanguine about this 
longtime leftwing fantasy. We are wary of the dangers, 
inappropriateness, and oftentimes the impossibility of prosecuting 
battle-hardened terrorists in civilian court as if they were common 
criminals. We are frustrated by the procedural roadblocks to pursuing 
justice through military commissions. Above all else we are alarmed by 
the more than one in four released detainees who have apparently 
rejoined the fight. And unlike the administration, we have long been 
disabused of the notion that our enemies and perennial critics would 
somehow fall in love with America if we simply close Guantanamo.
  With these concerns in mind, we exercised our rightful legislative 
authority under the Constitution to prevent the transfer of any further 
detainees out of Guantanamo. Nevertheless, the Obama administration 
bitterly opposed any release restrictions. Facing incessant and intense 
pressure from the administration to repeal our ban, Congress acted on a 
bipartisan basis to reach a compromise--a compromise that was 
extraordinarily generous to the administration's position.
  Under the new law in effect--section 1035 of last year's National 
Defense Authorization Act--Congress must be notified 30 days before any 
detainee transfer. The notification must contain a detailed statement 
of the basis of transfer, an explanation of why the transfer is in the 
national security interests of the United States, and a description of 
the actions taken to mitigate the risks of detainees returning to the 
fight. Our subsequent funding legislation also banned the Obama 
administration from using any of the appropriated money to transfer 
detainees except in accordance with these agreed-upon procedures.
  Despite this good-faith effort on the part of Congress to find common 
ground with the President, he chose to simply disregard his statutory 
obligations to inform Congress of this highly controversial release of 
the Taliban five. While we should celebrate the return of any American 
from Taliban captivity, the President's actions carry very troubling 
consequences.
  When a lawmaker animatedly denounces the President's violation of a 
technical provision so wonky and seemingly unimportant as a statutory 
notification requirement, many Americans might understandably dismiss 
such a concern as a petty turf war--if their eyes don't glaze over 
first. Although perhaps intuitive, such an impression couldn't be more 
wrong.
  First, notification requirements such as this one have proven 
critically beneficial to national security decisionmaking, particularly 
in the national security context. The most prominent example is our 
oversight of the intelligence community. For more than 30 years, prior 
congressional consultation has been a key foundation of ensuring 
effective policymaking on intelligence-gathering activities and covert 
operations.
  On these incredibly sensitive and weighty issues, the executive 
branch is required to brief certain members of the legislative branch 
on all such proposed activities before they happen. The discussion of 
such highly classified information necessitates a strict observance of 
secrecy, which Congress has a long tradition of respecting. Discussions 
behind these closed doors provide the benefits of deliberation outside 
of the fishbowl of the ordinary policy process. In this setting concern 
about national security and the wisdom of the contemplated action 
dominate. Politics takes a back seat. The administration can modify or 
cancel proposed actions without the costs that attach to public policy 
pronouncements. And by assuaging our concerns before execution, the 
administration gets the congressional buy-in that is so necessary when 
these sorts of difficult decisions are taken.
  Although the system certainly has its critics on all sides, I remain 
a passionate believer in its overall effectiveness. I should know: I 
served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence longer than any 
other Republican ever has. For years I was intimately involved in this 
process and witnessed up close just how well it works to produce good 
policy. In the context of national security--an area in which our 
Nation regularly faces so many critical and difficult decisions--we 
need a well-functioning congressional oversight process to ensure our 
safety and security, now more than ever.
  But even beyond improving an administration's national security 
decisionmaking, we should genuinely concern ourselves as a nation that 
formal restraints on power be observed by the coordinate branches of 
our government. Whether the administration agrees with the restrictions 
on its power to release Guantanamo detainees, those restrictions remain 
enshrined in a duly-enacted Federal statute, and the President remains 
obligated to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
  To ignore the law and the President's constitutional obligation to 
see that the law is enforced may seem enticing in an instance of 
apparent pressing need, but our Constitution provides no such 
authority.
  Consider the wisdom of Justice Jackson in his seminal concurrence in 
the Steel Seizure case:


[[Page 10301]]

       The appeal . . . that we declare the existence of inherent 
     powers [out of necessity] to meet an emergency asks us to do 
     what many think would be wise, although it is something the 
     forefathers omitted. They knew what emergencies were. . . . 
     [T]hey made no express provision for exercise of 
     extraordinary authority because of a crisis. I do not think 
     we rightfully may so amend their work, and, if we could, I am 
     not convinced it would be wise to do so. . . .

  Indeed, the central organizing principle of the Federal Government is 
the division of powers and authorities between the different branches. 
As a 21st-century American, it is far too easy to treat the separation 
of powers as a cliche confined to the civics classroom rather than a 
meaningful cornerstone of our liberty. But we should recall Madison's 
warning in Federalist 47 that ``[t]he accumulation of all powers, 
legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of 
one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or 
elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.''
  To disregard these central precepts of constitutional government is 
to vitiate the barriers protecting us from arbitrary government action 
and to undermine the rule of law.
  We in the Congress should make no apology for zealously guarding the 
legal prerogatives of the body in which we serve, for, as Madison also 
warned in Federalist 51, ``[T]he great security against a gradual 
concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in 
giving to those who administer each department the necessary 
constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of 
the others.''
  Nevertheless, out of respect for a coordinate branch of government, 
the Obama administration's arguments excusing its action in releasing 
these five dangerous Taliban detainees merits thoughtful consideration 
and analysis. I have never been shy about defending the powers of the 
President when exercised lawfully, no matter how unpopular. 
Nevertheless, such an examination of the Obama administration's 
explanations reveals not only the ridiculousness of its arguments but 
also demonstrates deeply concerning attitudes and priorities that 
guided the administration's action.
  The Obama administration has advanced multiple distinct arguments 
about the legality of its move to release these senior Taliban leaders. 
Advancing multiple, sometimes contradictory arguments does not exactly 
instill confidence in the administration's commitment to its legal 
obligations. Some have been patently absurd, such as the suggestion 
from the White House Press Secretary that briefing Members of Congress 
more than 2 years ago about the potential for the detainee exchange 
constituted sufficient compliance with the detailed statutory 
notification requirements for an actual decision to transfer.
  I want to examine the two more sophisticated rationales advanced by 
the administration because it is in the details of these arguments that 
my gravest concerns arise.
  First, I want to consider the National Security Council spokeswoman's 
written statement to the press asserting that ``Congress did not intend 
that the Administration would be barred from taking the action it did 
in these circumstances.''
  Trying to read Congress's mind when interpreting the law, as the 
administration purports to do, has always struck me as absolutely 
absurd. Article I of our Constitution creates a legislative process 
that today includes 536 different individuals. To assume the existence 
of a single intent among so many different minds--all with different 
interests, different purposes, different philosophies, and different 
methods--runs counter to basic logic, not to mention the theory of 
representative government at the foundation of our Constitution. This 
notion that we should be governed by easily manipulated arguments about 
what Congress supposedly would have wanted long justified the hijacking 
of the law to undermine the clear meaning of the text.
  Fighting this abuse of the law and the Constitution has animated so 
much of my work over the past 38 years. We have made enormous progress 
in reestablishing the bedrock principle that we are governed not by 
vague claims about intent but, rather, by the words themselves--words 
that have a fixed and discernible meaning, with the power to bind us 
all--including the President. I will continue to fight for this 
principle as long as I have the honor to serve our people in this 
country.
  In this light, a proper reading of the detainee transfer and release 
notification requirements includes no such exception that the Obama 
administration imagines exists. We should always be skeptical of 
arguments assuming unwritten exceptions to laws, and here the relevant 
factors counsel strongly against assuming such an exception into 
existence.
  The statute uses strong universally applicable language: ``the 
Secretary of Defense shall notify''; ``each notification shall include, 
at a minimum''; ``the Secretary of Defense may transfer . . . only if'' 
and the like.
  The text of the provision is particularly detailed. This detail, 
especially when read in conjunction with the numerous other incredibly 
detailed provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act and its 
many predecessors--many of which contained detailed exceptions--
demonstrates that Congress is quite capable of creating exceptions to a 
provision like this one but instead actively chose not to include one 
here.
  Finally, as had been clearly established, lawmakers were aware of the 
administration's desire to conduct exactly this sort of a transaction 
before the beginning of the legislative process. To assume such an 
exception, when the Congress was aware of the administration's desire 
and proffered need for such a provision but chose not to provide one, 
would completely undermine the notion that Congress has the power to 
choose its preferred policies by legislation.
  Put another way, how could Congress have been clearer that no 
detainee transfers could be accomplished outside its established 
process? If Congress's bright-line rule can be wished away by the Obama 
administration in this case, when can the Congress act to establish a 
policy to which the administration cannot carve out exceptions--
exceptions that destroy the very core of the law?
  In advancing this rather ridiculous attempt to misconstrue the 
transfer and release notification requirements, the Obama 
administration is simply avoiding making their more controversial 
argument explicit. The administration's Pentagon General Counsel 
admitted as much last week.
  This argument centers on the President's contention that ``in certain 
circumstances'' the transfer and release notification requirements 
``would violate constitutional separation of powers principles.''
  Other senior administration officials have made statements, albeit 
hesitantly, invoking the President's authority under the Constitution 
to disregard the statute. Although the administration attempts to cloak 
it in the complex obscurity of statutory construction, this is the real 
issue at hand.
  As a threshold matter, the rule of law and the separation of powers 
both depend on the longstanding notion that an unconstitutional statute 
is no law at all. We should take the Obama administration's arguments 
about the constitutionality of the notification requirement as applied 
to the Taliban five trade very seriously.
  When appropriate, I have defended the President's authority to act in 
contravention of certain statutes. And I absolutely stand by the 
positions I have taken before--no matter how unpopular they have 
sometimes been.
  I feel it is incumbent upon me to lay out my case of why I am so 
disturbed by the administration's actions here not to deflect any 
charge of hypocrisy for personal benefit but because I feel so 
passionately about the Obama administration's overreach in this and so 
many other cases. To risk having these arguments dismissed without 
serious consideration of their merits would be unbearable. I feel 
compelled to lay out my case in some detail.
  Here, the Obama administration's arguments fail on the 
administration's

[[Page 10302]]

own terms and in so doing demonstrate some disturbing trends at work 
within this administration.
  Now, the Obama administration has not advanced the notion that the 
transfer and release notification requirements are always 
unconstitutional. Instead, the administration has been very careful to 
suggest that the notification requirements unconstitutionally 
encumbered the executive branch because of the specific circumstances 
at issue in the Taliban five trade. The general terms of the Obama 
administration's rationale initially seemed potentially reasonable: 
that it feared Sergeant Bergdahl would be endangered unless the 
administration moved swiftly and secretly to make the trade, and 
compliance with the notification requirement would have prevented the 
President from exercising his lawful authority to order the detainee 
swap.
  However, the logic of the administration's rationale falls apart 
under closer inspection of the two key factors that were cited as 
creating the specific circumstances in disregarding the statute: the 
need for swiftness and the need for secrecy.
  First, the need for swift action. The Obama administration has--at 
various times--suggested that Sergeant Bergdahl's health was in rapid 
and accelerating decline to the point of necessitating immediate 
rescue, and that the Taliban would refuse to agree to Bergdahl's 
release unless the administration executed the trade quickly. After 
examining what evidence the administration provided us, a number of my 
colleagues from both parties, including the senior Senator from 
California, the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 
have expressed significant doubt about these claims.
  But even if we accept the Obama administration's claims that there 
existed a need for swift action, that when faced with this realization, 
compliance with the 30-day notification requirement would have 
endangered the potential for recovering Sergeant Bergdahl, and that 
these are the sort of circumstances where the Constitution authorizes 
the executive branch to act in defiance of a notification requirement--
even if we accept everything the administration suggests, their 
argument doesn't totally nullify the administration's obligations under 
the statutory notification requirement.
  Under the administration's own logic that the notification 
requirement is not unconstitutional per se but, rather, only under 
certain circumstances, the executive branch still has a duty to take 
care that the laws be faithfully executed. Thus, even if it is 
authorized to order a transfer or release of detainees in less than the 
30 days mandated by the statute, the President remains obligated to 
comply as substantially and faithfully as possible, mitigating any 
anticipated breach by keeping Congress abreast of negotiations and 
complying with the notification requirements as soon as any transfer 
decision is made or undertaken.
  But that clearly is not the case here. Instead, we know from the 
statements of senior administration officials that the administration 
deliberately withheld notification from Congress until after the trade 
occurred--months after negotiations to make this trade resumed and 
intensified, weeks after the detainee transfer agreement with Qatar was 
signed, and days after the final decision itself was taken. Given that 
the administration accepts the constitutionality of the legality of the 
notification requirement generally, its actions represent a direct 
effort to undermine the obvious core purpose of the law: giving 
Congress the opportunity to raise its objections and lobby against an 
ill-advised release or transfer before it happens.
  This is not maximally faithful compliance. This is outright flouting 
of the statute.
  The administration, though, has also claimed a need for secrecy--
specifically, that informing Congress would endanger the prospects for 
Sergeant Bergdahl's safe return. I take this concern for secrecy 
extraordinarily seriously, and I know that every one of my colleagues 
does as well. Preserving secrecy as not to endanger ongoing operations 
remains an absolutely vital cornerstone of congressional oversight of 
national security issues, and my long service on the intelligence 
committee engendered in me a particular appreciation for how necessary 
it is.
  But administrations have for decades briefed Congress on 
extraordinarily sensitive matters. Take the Bin Laden raid. It is hard 
to think of an operation more sensitive than that. In both the Taliban 
five swap and the Bin Laden operation, the mission objectives as well 
as the safety of our troops would have both been completely 
unattainable if details leaked. Yet, even before the Bin Laden 
operation, the administration kept Congress regularly briefed as 
required by law, which is, to me, testament to the extraordinary 
resiliency of our oversight structure.
  Even those of us who have long defended robust executive powers in 
the national security context have long asserted that:

       The constitutional basis for withholding notification can 
     only be invoked credibly, by its own terms, in very rare 
     circumstances. A generalized fear that Congress might leak 
     would not by itself suffice, because the same fear could be 
     invoked equally from all [secret operations].

  In the case at hand, the Obama administration accepts the 
constitutionality of congressional notification requirements in most 
circumstances. Yet it has also failed to articulate any particular 
reason why notifying Congress would impose a particular problem when 
compared to other sensitive operations. But the implication that it did 
not notify Congress just because of a generalized fear of leaks not 
only disregards decades of successful congressional oversight of 
intelligence collection and covert operations but also makes an 
exceedingly radical argument that would give the President essentially 
arbitrary power to ignore what he acknowledges is a valid law.
  In this case, though, the administration's actions wholly undermine 
the notion that there was an unusual secrecy concern at issue here. 
First, consider that the administration itself estimated that between 
80 and 90 executive branch officials were told of the decision to 
release the Taliban five ahead of time--in an administration that leaks 
sensitive national security information like a sieve, but zero--zero--
Members of Congress were informed.
  The Secretary of Defense and his General Counsel even admitted that 
Justice Department lawyers were told of the upcoming trade for the very 
purpose of keeping even a few key Members of Congress in the dark. In 
light of the statutory requirement to notify just a key handful of 
Members of Congress, this situation appears flatly absurd and certainly 
inconsistent with maximally faithful compliance with the statute.
  Furthermore, the administration had already discussed with Congress 
the potential for such a deal. They ran into bipartisan opposition, as 
expressed in the bipartisan letter of early 2012 signed by the top 
Democrat and top Republican on both the House and Senate intelligence 
committees. In response to that letter, media reports indicate that the 
then-Secretary of State and former Senator from New York promised the 
administration would pursue further congressional consultations before 
making the exchange. And in 2013 the White House Press Secretary 
responded to a question about trading Sergeant Bergdahl for Taliban 
detainees in stark terms promising: ``We would not make any decisions 
about transfer of any detainees without consulting Congress.''
  So why the more than 2 years of radio silence from the Obama 
administration? Why the disregard of the Federal statute when the 
administration's arguments for doing so in this case are so 
disturbingly unconvincing? Why wait until after the decision could not 
be challenged before telling Congress?
  After reviewing these events, the answer seems obvious. President 
Obama and his subordinates illegitimately chose not to inform Congress 
until after the decision was irrevocable because they knew that 
Congress would object. Two administration officials told Bloomberg News 
as much: The

[[Page 10303]]

failure to notify key Members of Congress in advance was a deliberate 
move to skirt opposition to releasing the five Taliban prisoners.
  While the vigor of the Obama administration's defense of the deal has 
shocked many, it has not shocked me. To this President, this deal 
represents the apex of responsible winding down of the conflict in 
Afghanistan--not only in returning Sergeant Bergdahl but also in 
releasing the Taliban five, whom the administration has eagerly sought 
to release so often before.
  Just take it from the majority leader who said he was ``glad to get 
rid of these five people.'' And for a President and an administration 
that have demonstrated endless reservoirs of faith in the goodwill of 
hostile forces abroad, there is also surely hope--no matter how 
ridiculous--that giving into the Taliban's demands will somehow inspire 
a renewed interest on the part of the Taliban in peace talks, as if 
that did anything but demonstrate how the Taliban's current tactics 
will get them concessions from the Obama administration.
  President Obama has on many occasions annunciated very clear beliefs 
of our detention operations at Guantanamo, articulating a nearly 
religious conviction that detention of Taliban, Al Qaeda, and 
associated forces under the law of armed conflict is a beacon of this 
nation's evils to the world. And although the administration has faced 
immense political pressure to reconsider from many of us, I have 
absolutely no doubt President Obama intends on following through with 
his long-time, recently repeated promise to make every effort to close 
Guantanamo during his remaining time in office.
  Many of my colleagues and I share a diametrically opposed view from 
the President's--one that is more focused on securing the stability of 
the Afghan Government that our men and women in uniform fought so hard 
to establish. But in our honest disagreements, President Obama only 
sees reflexive intransigence. On Guantanamo and on so many other 
matters, President Obama has proven himself unable to accept good-faith 
differences with those of us elected to a coordinate and coequal branch 
of government. This frustration has motivated the President to enact 
his agenda unilaterally. In doing so, he not only poisons the well of 
congressional oversight of sensitive national security matters, as 
troubling as that is, but also by arrogating power with casual 
disregard for the structural restraints of the Constitution, he 
stretches our longstanding laws and norms past the breaking point.
  My allegiance to constitutional government and the rule of law 
compels me to stand up to this overreach by President Obama and the 
executive branch. I will continue to speak out against what I strongly 
believe are serious instances of overreach by this administration--as I 
have already done on immigration, sentencing, education, Benghazi, and, 
of course, ObamaCare. I urge all of my colleagues to join me, for what 
is at stake is not just our rightful authority to get done what our 
constituents sent us here to do but also the very precepts at the core 
of our Constitution.
  That is why I have joined my colleague, the junior Senator from Ohio, 
to cosponsor a resolution declaring that the Obama administration 
violated the statute and calling for an investigation into the matter. 
With all that is at stake, registering our objection in this way could 
not be more important.
  Additionally, in light of these troubling events--which also involve 
the Justice Department, which should hold the separation of powers in 
the highest regard--I should note I found myself now unable to support 
the nomination of Peter Kadzik to be Assistant Attorney General for 
Legislative Affairs. My deference to the administration's choice of 
appointees can only go so far, and I cannot support a nominee who has 
so persistently refused to share the Department's memos on the release 
of the Taliban five. Absent a real commitment from Mr. Kadzik and the 
Justice Department to respect Congress's role under the Constitution, I 
felt compelled to oppose his nomination.
  On their own terms, the Obama administration violated the law by 
releasing the Taliban five--dangerous men who are sure to return to the 
fight. In doing so, he not only endangered the lives of our men and 
women in uniform but also jeopardized everything they fought and died 
for in Afghanistan. My commitment is to them and to the Constitution's 
division of powers and authorities amongst the coordinate and coequal 
branches of government which they fight to protect. These loyalties are 
what have compelled me to stand up to the Obama administration.
  I urge all of my colleagues, regardless of party, to join me in this 
fight. Too much is at stake to let petty partisan concerns and blind 
political loyalty to the President take precedence over the weighty 
matters of national security and constitutional authority that are at 
stake, and especially when one considers how much this branch of 
government is being ignored on almost a daily basis by this out-of-
control White House.
  Democrats and Republicans have to put a stop to this, and they have 
to start standing up on these issues or we are in danger of losing the 
Constitution itself.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, yesterday I chaired, along with Congressman 
Smith, a Republican from New Jersey, the Congressional-Executive 
Committee on China. At this hearing, Terry Sefranek, a Clevelander 
actually from Brooklyn Heights, OH, a suburb of my city, submitted 
written testimony. The hearing was to address the concerns that 
American consumers, pet owners, farmers, and parents have about the 
safety of pet food, pet treats, processed chicken, and animal feed from 
China. Ms. Sefranek joined me then today on a call with some national 
press to talk about this issue. I wish to share briefly the actual 
words of Ms. Sefranek's testimony. She said:

       In December of 2011, my little Sampson, a healthy, lively 
     and hilarious fox terrier mutt was showing signs that he was 
     not well. He seemed withdrawn, and his appetite was 
     decreasing, and all he wanted was to drink water and urinate. 
     His health rapidly decreased.
       We took him to the veterinarian 3 times in the next two 
     weeks. Finally, blood tests revealed horrible results. 
     Sampson was in acute renal failure.
       The Doc gave him intravenous fluids for six long, 
     tormenting days. And then, the agonizing decision, the 
     hardest, most heartbreaking decision. With my husband and 
     children around us, I held my little buddy in my arms for the 
     last time, as he was euthanized.

  Ms. Sefranek continues:

       One day during this time, I saw a local family on the news, 
     holding up a bag of Waggin' Train Chicken Jerky Treats. Their 
     dog had eaten them and died of renal failure a few weeks 
     earlier. Their new little puppy was fed leftovers from the 
     same bag--and became ill right away. As soon as they stopped 
     the treats, he recovered.
       I was floored. It was the exact same treat that Sampson had 
     eaten; it has been his new favorite, and I was giving him 
     them as a treat for about a month. I'm sure that was the only 
     major change in his diet.

  Sixty-two million households in this country have a pet. Americans 
raise 83 million dogs and 96 million cats whom, as is the case with my 
wife's and my dog Franklin, we treat, in many ways, as members of the 
family. That is why it is alarming that since 2007, the FDA has been 
aware of the deaths and illnesses of thousands of pets, but we still 
don't know what is causing it.
  Last month the FDA said that reports of illnesses had increased to 
5,600 pets, including 1,000 dog deaths, and now three human illnesses.
  Pet owners shouldn't have to worry about the safety of the food they 
give their pets. When we go to a pet store, go to a grocery store and 
buy pet food, we shouldn't have to worry that pet food could actually 
endanger that dog's, that cat's health.
  While no cause has been identified, the illnesses many think are 
linked to pet treats from China, which raises questions. If something 
says it is made in China, can we be assured that it is safe? If it says 
``made in the USA,'' what exactly does that mean? Is everything being 
done to keep these pet treats safe?

[[Page 10304]]

  Last year the USDA declared that China can export processed, cooked 
chicken into the United States. This paves the way for chicken sourced 
in the United States to be shipped to China for processing and then 
sold back to American consumers. While no such chicken has yet entered 
our shores, it is possible that very soon this processed chicken could 
end up on our dinner tables and in our school lunchrooms.
  Researchers are exploring a possible link also between animal feed 
from China and the PEDv that has wiped out 10 percent of piglets--10 
percent of our young pig population. It has been a year already and no 
definitive cause has been identified.
  Americans want and require better answers. We want and require 
clearer labels and the peace of mind that the foods we import from the 
People's Republic of China are safe.
  This is why I am introducing an amendment to the agriculture 
appropriations bill to ask the Food and Drug Administration and the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture about the status of inspectors' visas to 
China and how many are currently inspecting there.
  We heard in testimony yesterday an uncertainty from FDA and USDA 
about our ability to get the number of inspectors we need into China to 
inspect the processing of chickens in China. I urged the FDA to 
investigate and determine the cause of these pet illnesses and PEDv, 
and the companies to ensure the highest safety standards.
  When we buy something that says ``made in the United States of 
America,'' whether it is food for human consumption or whether it is 
processed food for human consumption or whether it is processed food 
for our pets, we should be confident that food is actually made, 
processed, and put together in the United States of America. In our 
testimony yesterday, we couldn't quite be 100 percent sure that is the 
case.
  A couple of things need to go on there. One, the packaging and the 
labeling needs to be believable and credible and it needs to be true. 
Second, those companies that import--it used to be that companies would 
produce in the United States with food safety rules we have in the 
United States--drug safety, food safety--customers, buyers, and 
supermarkets that buy this food with ``made in the USA'' labels knew 
that because we have a good FDA, because we have a good U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, because we have good food safety rules in our country--
we knew that ``made in the USA'' was a label we could trust.
  Then companies in this country began to do something in the last 20 
years--especially since Congress passed Permanent Normal Trade 
Relations with China. Companies began to shut down production in places 
such as Rocky River and Maple Heights and Garfield Heights and Brooklyn 
Heights, OH, and move that production to Wahan or Shihan or Beijing, or 
Shanghai, China, and then sell those products back to the United 
States. If companies are going to do that, costing our communities jobs 
in far too many cases, hurting families and workers who lose those 
jobs--if companies are going to do that, they need to be responsible in 
the production in those countries. They need to be responsible when 
pharmaceuticals are made in China by U.S. companies and then shipped 
back to the United States. Those pharmaceuticals need to be safe.
  We know in the case of a drug called Heparin which people in Toledo, 
OH, took, and a number of people died from it. All over the country 
they took this drug. It was a blood thinner made in China by a company 
that, frankly, didn't know--couldn't reach back and determine and find 
out where all the ingredients for these drugs were made.
  So there are a couple of points. One is whether it is dog treats, 
whether it is food that humans consume in our country or whether it is 
pharmaceuticals, our regulatory structure needs to make sure these are 
safe. If they are made in the United States, we are much more confident 
they are safe, because government rules and regulations in the United 
States--despite what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
always like to say about government regulation--we know our food supply 
is pretty darn good. But if companies are going to outsource that 
production, move it to China and then sell it back to the United 
States, we need these rules in place. We need these companies to be 
reliable and liable ultimately in what they are doing. So if a company 
is going to bring a drug into the United States--an American company 
producing in China and bringing it back to the United States--they are 
responsible for the contents, and they are responsible for the safety 
of those drugs. Their executives, those companies, should be liable if 
they are producing that food. Whether it is for human consumption or 
whether it is for pets or whether it is pharmaceuticals, all of that 
matters.
  Americans, again, should not be worried about the safety of the food 
they put on the dinner table nor the safety of the pet food they give 
to their dogs and cats.
  Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Children's Health Insurance

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about children's health 
insurance, an issue we hear about periodically but not nearly enough 
and an issue that will fast become a critically important question 
before both bodies, the Senate especially, because of what could happen 
to the Children's Health Insurance Program, which we call at the State 
level the CHIP program, known more commonly in Washington as S-CHIP, 
one of the great advancements in health care in recent American 
history.
  We can go back 25 or 50 years, and other than Medicare and Medicaid 
and maybe a few other examples, VA health care, children's health care 
has been a great success and I would say forthrightly a bipartisan 
success, but we need to keep it that way. I have a particular interest 
in this program because of the experience we have in Pennsylvania, as 
tens of thousands of families have benefited from the Children's Health 
Insurance Program that was signed into law and advocated strongly by my 
father when he served as the Governor of Pennsylvania. At the time 
Pennsylvania was a model for the country. This was the early 1990s I am 
talking about.
  When he signed that bill into law, Pennsylvania became one of the 
largest States with a new Children's Health Insurance Program which 
then became a model for the Nation. Here is how that happened. In 1997, 
Congress passed the bipartisan Children's Health Insurance Program 
signed into law in August of 1997 by President Clinton. The original 
bill was cosponsored by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, from 
Massachusetts of course, and the Senator from Utah, still serving, Mr. 
Hatch.
  They worked together, along with many others in a bipartisan fashion 
to produce important legislation for our children. Since that time this 
program has worked as a remarkable public-private partnership to 
deliver critical health care to children. So in addition to being 
bipartisan, it was public and private together.
  Care such as well child visits, immunizations, physical and 
occupational therapy, home health care and medical equipment and more 
were all available for the first time for many families. So it helps 
children not only have health insurance and health coverage, but it 
helps them be well and to stay well over a long period of time, 
providing them with care they need and giving their parents something 
government does not do enough; it provides a measure of peace of mind 
to parents and to families.
  In 2009, the President signed into law a bipartisan reauthorization 
of the

[[Page 10305]]

Children's Health Insurance Program. The most recent year of data 
indicates that CHIP covered over 8.1 million children over the course 
of a year. Consider that. With this program more than 8.1 million 
children have health care that would not have it any other way in the 
absence of this program.
  Even with the progress we have made in providing new health insurance 
options in the last couple of years as a result of the Affordable Care 
Act, the rate of uninsured Americans overall is still over 13 percent. 
That is the lowest rate since 2008 but still too high. The rate of 
uninsured children is 9 percent, a much lower rate obviously than the 
overall rate but still too high.
  CHIP has played an important role in increasing access to insurance 
for children. The Web site for the Pennsylvania program, which is 
www.chipcoverspakids.com, discusses several stories from Pennsylvania 
parents about how this Children's Health Insurance Program in the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has helped one particular family, in this 
case, and many others. As you read the stories--here is one story. I 
will sum it up briefly. The CHIP program has been great.
  So said one family member:

       We know that this is quality insurance and we are finally 
     able to sleep at night knowing that our kids can be seen by 
     excellent pediatricians. I do not know what we would have 
     done without CHIP. Now my children can play sports and go 
     away to camp like other kids and if they get hurt, CHIP is 
     there for them.

  So said a parent. That is probably the best summation or the best 
recitation of all of the reasons it is so important to make sure we 
preserve the Children's Health Insurance Program and preserve the 
funding for it and preserve any strategy that will ensure that children 
have the health care they need.
  So CHIP is always going to be there for those kids. That is what we 
need to make sure that we hold on to. I, similar to so many here and 
many in both parties, have consistently advocated for the Children's 
Health Insurance Program. I am pleased it has been authorized through 
fiscal year 2019. However--this is why I am standing here today. 
However, we were able only to secure funding through 2015. So the 
program is reauthorized to 2019 but funded only through fiscal year 
2015.
  That deadline is approaching. Now is the time to act, again in the 
right bipartisan way, to preserve the Children's Health Insurance 
Program. It is time to make sure we ensure that CHIP will continue to 
be funded through the authorization, at a minimum, through fiscal year 
2019.
  Senator Rockefeller, one of the great champions of this program over 
many years now, decades literally, introduced legislation last week 
that I wholeheartedly support. That is an understatement. There is not 
a Senator in this Chamber who should not support his legislation, the 
CHIP Extension Act of 2014, S. 2461.
  The legislation extends funding for CHIP through fiscal year 2019, 
bringing the funding in line with the authorization. I cannot stress 
enough the need to pass this legislation this year, pass this 2014 
legislation that deals with this 2015 problem. State budget cycles are 
such that if we wait until next year, when the funding is about to 
expire, we will be jeopardizing health insurance for millions of 
American children.
  States need time to plan their budgets and cannot operate under the 
uncertainty of a funding threat to such an important program. I thank 
Senator Rockefeller for his tireless commitment to the Children's 
Health Insurance Program over many years--as I said, over several 
decades. I thank him for his work in introducing this legislation.
  I urge all of my colleagues in both parties to support Senator 
Rockefeller's legislation, the CHIP Extension Act of 2014, S. 2461, to 
make sure children's health insurance will always be there for the 
children who are covered by that program.
  In conclusion, this is very simple. We have people in both parties 
who have spent a lot of their careers saying how much they care about 
children. They give speeches, they campaign, they talk about kids. We 
all talk about kids in very positive ways. That is wonderful. But the 
test is how we act and what actions we take. That usually means how we 
vote. So if someone votes for this bill, they can stand and say they 
have taken a substantial step in the direction of ensuring that 
children will have the health care they need. If they do not, and they 
vote against it, I do not think they can say that.
  If someone votes against it, I think they have to have a substitute 
for it, some measure that will provide the same coverage for the same 
number of children by a different method. If they cannot come up with 
that, they cannot stand and say they are for kids. They cannot stand 
and say they care about our children and their future.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________