[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11572-11600]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  Mr. REID. I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 438, S. 2244.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 438, S. 2244, a bill to 
     extend the termination date of the Terrorism Insurance 
     Program established under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 
     2002, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                       BIPARTISAN SPORTSMEN'S ACT

  Mr. REID. I want the record to reflect how much I appreciate the hard 
work of the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Hagan, working on this 
bipartisan bill. She did it with the ranking member of the Energy and

[[Page 11573]]

Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski, and they have done good 
work coming up with this bill.
  But the Senator from Alaska spoke this morning about her desire for 
consideration of amendments. Typical, typical, typical of the last 6 
years here. This bill has 26 Republican cosponsors. This bill was 
brought up 2 years ago. They have worked hard to improve the bill since 
then, and you would think with 26 Republican cosponsors to this bill we 
could move forward on it. But, as usual, they come down here and they 
say, well, a good bill, but we want to have a bunch of amendments.
  I am all for consideration of amendments on this bill. We all are. 
But the Republicans can't agree on what amendments they want.
  I just met with a number of people earlier today about this and 
explained to them how we used to do things. There wasn't on virtually 
every piece of legislation a necessity to get cloture on a bill and now 
even to get on a bill we need cloture, as we find on the bill we just 
finished some procedural work on, the sportsmen's bill. It affects 
millions and millions of Americans, but they want amendments. They want 
amendments because they want to kill the bill as they have tried to 
kill everything in the last 6 years.
  So I repeat, I am all for consideration of amendments. But as we have 
repeatedly done, we need to have a list of amendments from which to 
work. Senators have for decades and decades started with a list of 
amendments and worked through those lists. So I ask Republicans, if you 
want an amendment process, bring me a reasonable list that leads to 
passage of the bill.
  They can't do that because they can't agree on what amendments they 
want, and there are so many examples. Energy efficiency is something 
similar to this, where the senior Senator from New Hampshire worked on 
a bill with--it doesn't matter if it was the senior or junior Senator--
Senator Portman. They worked together on this legislation for months 
and months--in fact, about a year--and we had a bill on the floor and 
we were moving forward. I was told before the bill, by the Republicans, 
let's get this done; it is a great bill.
  So I am again reflecting on what happened with the history here.
  They said before recess, we need a sense-of-the-Senate on Keystone. I 
said we have an agreement. Why do we need to do that? But I said OK, a 
few hours later, you want that, let's do it, because this bill is 
important.
  We need to do that. The recess was a week. We came back. They said: 
Well, we want to change things a little bit. We want an up-or-down vote 
on Keystone. They keep changing things. That is not right.
  I said: OK, we will vote on Keystone.
  They couldn't take yes for an answer. We agreed for an up-or-down 
vote for Keystone. They wouldn't take it. It is the same thing on this, 
a bill the Republicans support. They oppose their own legislation. So 
we are going to move forward.
  Now we have the terrorism insurance legislation that I just moved to 
proceed to. This is an important piece of legislation. Let's hope we 
can get this done. If we can't, construction in America--whether it is 
in Indiana, Nevada, Maryland, Iowa, Oregon or Mississippi; it doesn't 
matter where it is--won't go forward because people won't be able to 
get insurance.
  So I would hope we can get this bill done, but we will see. There are 
discussions going on, and we will get the same: Yes, I think we can 
work something out. But when it comes right down to it, Republicans 
can't agree on what they want. I hope on that important piece of 
legislation we can get a list of amendments from the Republicans. I am 
told they are willing to do that. I hope that in fact is the case, 
because it would be a shame for our country if we couldn't get this 
done.
  The economy is doing better. We added almost 300,000 jobs last 
reporting period. But if we can't get this done and we can't get the 
highway bill done, it is going to be a slam to our economy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues Senator Wicker 
and Senator Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        U.S. Helsinki Commission

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have the honor of being the Senate chair 
of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, and the ranking Republican Member is 
Senator Wicker. We join with our House colleagues in the work of the 
Helsinki Commission.
  I mention that because this past week, from June 28 through July 2, 
the 23rd Annual Parliamentary Assembly was held in Baku, Azerbaijan, in 
which over 300 parliamentarians participated. We had a very strong 
representation from the Senate and the House of Representatives 
representing the United States. I was proud to join with Senator Wicker 
and Senator Harkin as well as Congressman Smith, Congressman Aderholt, 
Congressman Gingrey, Congressman Schweikert, and Congressman Schiff in 
representing U.S. interests.
  By way of background for some of my colleagues who may not be 
familiar, the Helsinki Commission is a U.S. participant in the 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This followed up 
on the Helsinki Accords which took place in 1975, when all the 
countries of Europe--including the Soviet Union--joined the United 
States and Canada and agreed to principles that recognized the 
importance of good governance, human rights, and economic 
opportunities, as well as territorial security, in order to have 
stability within the OSCE participating States. The United States has 
been an active participant in this process.
  I think we saw the value of the OSCE directly when Russia invaded 
Crimea, and the OSCE mission there was our eyes and ears on the ground 
and helped restore some semblance of order in Ukraine as it now is 
moving forward.
  In our work in Baku, we were representing the United States on some 
extremely important issues, and I will talk about some of those issues 
and my colleagues on the floor are going to talk about issues they 
championed.
  But I must say, Russia sent a very strong delegation to Baku to 
represent their country. On behalf of the U.S. delegation, I brought 
forward a resolution in regard to violations entitled: ``Clear, Gross 
and Uncorrected Violations of Helsinki Principles by the Russian 
Federation.'' This resolution became the principal debate of the 23rd 
Parliamentary Assembly.
  We held a plenary debate. We don't normally do that. We normally 
debate issues in different committees, but the entire assembly debated 
the issues concerning Russia's activities within Ukraine because of the 
seriousness of this matter.
  Russia violated all 10 core principles of OSCE. We had that in the 
resolution. We were very clear about that. We believe that the best way 
to bring about compliance with these universal values is to put a 
spotlight on those who are violating them.
  In Russia's invasion into Ukraine and taking over Crimea and in their 
interference in Eastern Ukraine, they have violated each of the 10 core 
principles including: sovereign equality, refraining from the use of 
force, inviolability of frontiers, territorial integrity of states, 
peaceful settlement of disputes, nonintervention in internal affairs, 
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, equal rights and 
self-determination of peoples, cooperation among states, and 
fulfillment in good faith of obligations under international law.
  Our delegation brought that forward. Russia countered with 
justifications we found totally unacceptable, but it was a very 
spirited debate. Many amendments were offered to our resolution because 
by the time we debated the resolution and the time we filed it, there 
had been some changes in Russia's behavior. So the resolution was 
actually made stronger through the amendment process, which is what we 
intended at the time.

[[Page 11574]]

  Russia made various pleas to try to delete various sections of our 
resolution. By an overwhelming vote of the parliamentarians of Europe, 
Central Asia, the United States, and Canada, we passed this resolution 
that the United States brought forward pointing out the clear violation 
of Russia's commitments under the OSCE in its activities in Ukraine. It 
passed by over a 3-to-1 vote among the parliamentarians. We were very 
proud of the work we had done to bring forward that clear statement on 
behalf of the parliamentarians of the OSCE.
  I am extremely proud of the role my colleagues played. We were 
involved in many other issues. Senator Wicker was one of the key 
spokesmen on several issues relating to our involvement within the 
OSCE. He was involved in bringing out our involvement in Afghanistan, 
which is of continued interest.
  In addition to the 57 participating countries of the OSCE, we have 
partners of cooperation. These are countries not located within our 
geographical bounds but which have interests in the OSCE. Afghanistan 
is one of our partners for cooperation.
  We just finished a hearing of the Helsinki Commission on our 
Mediterranean partners, which includes Tunisia, Algeria, Israel, 
Jordan, and Egypt, and we worked with Morocco--all partners for 
cooperation. So the reach of Helsinki is far beyond just Europe and 
Central Asia. In this parliamentary assembly, we took up issues that 
involved many of these other matters.
  Mr. President, I yield for my colleague Senator Wicker for comments 
he might wish to make with regard to the work we did in Baku.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I thank my two colleagues from the other 
side of the aisle for joining with us today in this colloquy.
  Let me say how proud I was as a Republican Senator from Mississippi 
to stand shoulder to shoulder with my colleague from Maryland Ben 
Cardin. There are probably many places in Maryland he would rather have 
been at the beginning of July 2014, but he is someone who year after 
year has taken the time to travel to sometimes some rather unknown 
capital cities such as Baku or Chisinau, Moldova, and represent the 
United States in our partnership with the OSCE on the Helsinki 
Commission.
  As Senator Cardin said, the 1975 Final Act of the Helsinki Commission 
recognized 10 principles that 57 countries in Europe and Eurasia said 
we believe we can stand by and live with and live under, issues such as 
territorial integrity, sovereignty, refraining from the use of force--
very important cornerstones of peace, democracy, self-determination and 
the rule of law in Europe.
  It is certainly a fact well known within the OSCE and the delegations 
that come from far and wide to attend these that Ben Cardin is 
respected internationally, that his word carries weight, that he speaks 
on behalf of the United States of America, and on behalf of the OSCE 
countries with authority, evenhandedness, and fairness. So I think it 
meant a lot for someone of Senator Cardin's stature to come forward and 
present these.
  Indeed, we did have overwhelming support for the supplemental item 
authored by Senator Cardin. The amendments to water it down by the 
Russian delegation were rejected time and again by overwhelming votes. 
In the end the final resolution was adopted by over 90 votes in favor 
of the Cardin resolution and only 30 votes against it. Of course, the 
delegates from the Russian Federation and several of their closest 
allies and neighbors voted against it. But country after country, 
delegation after delegation, small brave nation after small brave 
nation voted in favor of it because internationally we realized that 
the words of the resolution were correct.
  The action of Russia in Crimea--invading this defenseless peninsula 
and annexing it illegally--that action violated all 10 principles of 
the Helsinki Final Act, and it needed to be said. It needed to be said 
not only by the United Nations, which has in effect said this in the 
General Assembly, and it needed not only to be said by a major power 
like the United States of America, through our State Department and 
through the Congress, but it also needed to be said by the collective 
body that represents these 57 countries from Europe and Eurasia.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the final supplemental 
item as adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Baku Declaration and Resolutions Adopted by the OSCE Parliamentary 
              Assembly at the Twenty-Third Annual Session

                     [Baku, 28 June to 2 July 2014]


   resolution on clear, gross and uncorrected violations of helsinki 
                  principles by the russian federation

       1. Noting that the Russian Federation is a participating 
     State of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in 
     Europe and has therefore committed itself to respect the 
     Principles guiding relations between participating States as 
     contained in the Helsinki Final Act,
       2. Recalling that those principles include (1) Sovereign 
     equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty; (2) 
     Refraining from the threat or use of force; (3) Inviolability 
     of frontiers; (4) Territorial integrity of States; (5) 
     Peaceful settlement of disputes; (6) Non intervention in 
     internal affairs; (7) Respect for human rights and 
     fundamental freedoms; (8) Equal rights and self-determination 
     of peoples; (9) Co-operation among States; and (10) 
     Fulfilment in good faith of obligations under international 
     law,
       3. Recalling also that the Russian Federation is a 
     signatory, along with the United States of America and the 
     United Kingdom, of the December 1994 Budapest Memorandum on 
     Security Assurances, which was made in connection with 
     Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of 
     Nuclear Weapons,
       4. Concluding that the Russian Federation has, since 
     February 2014, violated every one of the ten Helsinki 
     principles in its relations with Ukraine, some in a clear, 
     gross and thus far uncorrected manner, and is in violation 
     with the commitments it undertook in the Budapest Memorandum, 
     as well as other international obligations,
       5. Emphasizing in particular that the 16 March 2014 
     referendum in Crimea was held in clear violation of the 
     Constitution of Ukraine and the Constitution of Crimea as an 
     autonomous republic within Ukraine, and was further conducted 
     in an environment that could not be considered remotely free 
     and fair,
       6. Expressing concern that the Russian Federation continues 
     to violate its international commitments in order to make 
     similarly illegitimate claims in the eastern part of Ukraine, 
     as it has done, and threatens to continue to do, in regard to 
     other participating States,
       7. Asserting that improved democratic practices regarding 
     free and fair elections, adherence to the rule of law and 
     respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the 
     Russian Federation would benefit the citizens of that State 
     but also contribute significantly to stability and confidence 
     among its neighbours, as well as enhance security and co-
     operation among all the participating States,
       8. Noting the particular vulnerability of Crimean Tatars, 
     Roma, Jews and other minority groups, along with those 
     Ukrainian citizens opposed to the actions undertaken or 
     supported by the Russian Federation, to attacks, harassment 
     and intimidation by Russian supported separatist forces,
       9. Welcoming the efforts and initiatives of the OSCE to 
     develop a presence in Ukraine, including Crimea, that would 
     support de-escalation of the current situation and monitor 
     and encourage respect for the Helsinki principles, including 
     the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Ukrainian 
     citizens, as well as the work of the OSCE High Commissioner 
     on National Minorities, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of 
     the Media, and the Office for Democratic Institutions and 
     Human Rights (ODIHR),
       The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly:
       10. Condemns the clear, gross and uncorrected violation of 
     the Helsinki principles by the Russian Federation with 
     respect to Ukraine, including the particularly egregious 
     violation of that country's sovereignty and territorial 
     integrity;
       11. Condemns the occupation of the territory of Ukraine;
       12. Considers these actions, which include military 
     aggression as well as various forms of coercion designed to 
     subordinate the rights inherent in Ukraine's sovereignty to 
     the Russian Federation's own interests, to have been 
     unprovoked, and to be based on completely unfounded premises 
     and pretexts;
       13. Expresses unequivocal support for the sovereignty, 
     political independence, unity and territorial integrity of 
     Ukraine as defined by the country's Constitution and within 
     its internationally recognized borders;

[[Page 11575]]


       14. Affirms the right of Ukraine and all participating 
     States to belong, or not to belong, to international 
     organizations, to be or not to be a party to bilateral or 
     multilateral treaties including the right to be or not to be 
     a party to treaties of alliance, or to neutrality;
       15. Views the 16 March 2014 referendum in Crimea as an 
     illegitimate and illegal act, the results of which have no 
     validity whatsoever;
       16. Calls upon all participating States to refuse to 
     recognize the forced annexation of Crimea by the Russian 
     Federation;
       17. Also calls upon all participating States further to 
     support and adhere to mutually agreed and fully justified 
     international responses to this crisis;
       18. Deplores the armed intervention by forces under the 
     control of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, and the human 
     rights violations that they continue to cause;
       19. Calls on the Russian Federation to end its intervention 
     in Ukraine and to bring itself into compliance with the 
     Helsinki principles in its relations with Ukraine and with 
     all other participating States;
       20. Demands that the Russian Federation desist from its 
     provocative military overflights of the Nordic-Baltic region, 
     immediately withdraw its military forces from the borders of 
     the Baltic States and cease its subversive activities within 
     the ethnic Russian populations of Estonia, Latvia and 
     Lithuania;
       21. Supports continued efforts and initiatives of the OSCE 
     to respond to this crisis, and calls on all OSCE states to 
     provide both resources and political support and to allow the 
     OSCE to work unhindered throughout Ukraine, including Crimea;
       22. Urges the Russian Federation to contribute to regional 
     stability and confidence, generally enhance security and co-
     operation by engaging its civil society and all political 
     forces in a discussion leading to liberalization of its 
     restrictive laws, policies and practices regarding freedom of 
     the media, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly and 
     association, and abide by its other commitments as a 
     participating State of the OSCE;
       23. Encourages Ukraine to remain committed to OSCE norms 
     regarding the building of democratic institutions, adherence 
     to the rule of law and respect for human rights and 
     fundamental freedoms of all its citizens;
       24. Exhorts the Russian Federation to fully utilize the 
     expertise and assistance of the OSCE and its institutions, 
     including the Parliamentary Assembly, to enact meaningful 
     improvements in its electoral laws and practices;
       25. Congratulates the people of Ukraine and commends the 
     authorities of that country for successfully holding 
     presidential elections on 25 May 2014 which were conducted 
     largely in line with international commitments and 
     characterized by a high voter turnout despite a challenging 
     political, economic and, in particular, security environment;
       26. Expresses a continued willingness to provide the 
     substantial assistance to Ukraine in these and other matters 
     at this critical time.

  Mr. WICKER. It may be that Senator Harkin will want to touch on this 
issue also, but I think it is significant that we have such great 
leadership in both bodies--in the Senate and in the House--with the 
OSCE, people who are willing to take the time to get to know our 
European neighbors at the parliamentary level and have that exchange 
there, people such as Congressman Robert Aderholt, who is a vice 
president of the Parliamentary Assembly and who has been very diligent, 
again, in traveling to some of these exotic locations that nobody 
perhaps envies; and Congressman Chris Smith, a veteran House Member who 
speaks out so eloquently and so firmly not only for the rule of law and 
human rights internationally, but he has actually been recognized by 
the Parliamentary Assembly as a special representative on the issue of 
human rights and trafficking. I commend our colleague from the House of 
Representatives Chairman Smith for his leadership in getting passed a 
resolution condemning the trafficking of minors internationally and 
getting the Parliamentary Assembly to make a strong statement on the 
record on this very serious problem that faces, not only us here 
domestically, but also on the international front.
  Mr. CARDIN. Will my colleague yield on that point.
  Mr. WICKER. Indeed.
  Mr. CARDIN. I appreciate the Senator mentioning Congressman Smith's 
resolution on child sex trafficking. That was a separate resolution 
that was approved by the parliamentary assembly. The Helsinki 
Commission has been in the forefront on trafficking issues. The 
Trafficking in Persons Report that is prepared annually is used by the 
State Department and is known globally as the document on evaluating 
how States have proceeded on trafficking issues.
  The work started in the parliamentary assembly of the OSCE, to the 
leadership of our commission and Congressman Smith who has been our 
champion. It led to the passage of legislation in 2000 that had the 
Trafficking in Persons Report and followed up with this year's 
parliamentary assembly on child sex trafficking. I do congratulate 
Chairman Smith and our delegation for continuing the sensitivity. The 
OSCE now has a special representative in trafficking. So you do provide 
technical assistance in each of our participating States to deal with 
the trafficking issue.
  I wanted to point out that we do a lot of our work in the three 
committees, and one of those committees is where Senator Harkin was 
extremely valuable in pointing out that the original document prepared 
by the committee did not mention the very important human rights 
concerns of people with disabilities. There is no stronger voice in the 
Senate than Senator Harkin with regard to the rights of people with 
disabilities. I must tell you, I heard from many of my colleagues in 
the parliamentary assembly how honored they were that Senator Harkin 
was in that room to bring this issue to the attention of the 
parliamentary assembly, to give it its proper attention, and the 
matters he brought forward were overwhelmingly adopted at the 
parliamentary assembly.
  If I might yield for Senator Harkin to talk a little bit about the 
work he did in that group.
  Mr. HARKIN. First, I want to thank my colleagues Senators Cardin and 
Wicker for their leadership in the OSCE.
  I was honored to join my colleagues Senator Cardin and Senator Wicker 
last week at the 23rd annual session of the Parliamentary Assembly of 
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, in Baku, 
Azerbaijan. It's important that Members of Congress uphold our shared 
interests and responsibilities in this vital organization, whose 
mission is to address issues of national and regional security, to 
promote mutual economic prosperity, and to improve the lives of 
citizens in all OSCE member States, especially through promotion of 
human rights.
  I was proud to be part of the eight-member delegation from the United 
States led by Senator Cardin, who is Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki 
Commission, our lead entity for participation in the OSCE. I 
congratulate Chairman Cardin and the U.S. Commission's co-chairman, 
Representative Chris Smith, on their accomplishments in advancing 
security and human rights last week. Chairman Cardin was able to pass a 
needed resolution holding Russia accountable for violating OSCE 
principles and its own international commitments through its 
destabilizing actions in Ukraine. And Representative Smith achieved 
passage of a key measure at the Assembly to help combat child sex 
trafficking.
  As my colleagues have stated, the OSCE and thus also the U.S. 
Helsinki Commission were formed to ensure there is long-term security 
for the Europe and its allies and to promote cooperation among member 
States. Part of that cooperation is to foster economic development and 
growth, and it was within this area of cooperation that I sought to 
direct my efforts last week as a U.S. delegation member.
  The Assembly's Second Committee, the Committee on Economic Affairs, 
Science, Technology and the Environment, is charged with promoting 
activities that will enhance the economic development of member States. 
It was there that I was able to offer three amendments to this year's 
committee resolution focusing on individuals with disabilities.
  I am grateful that all three amendments were adopted. The economic 
health of all nations is tied to equal opportunity and equal protection 
for all citizens.
  Our own Americans with Disabilities Act recognizes the importance of 
opportunity and access in daily life for all citizens, particularly 
those with

[[Page 11576]]

disabilities. Without access, without equal opportunity, people with 
disabilities are relegated to poverty and second class citizenship.
  My amendments to the Second Committee resolution called for three 
things: ensuring equal opportunity and access for all persons with 
disabilities in daily activities of all member states; the ratification 
of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities by all OSCE members; and the prohibition of discrimination 
against people with disabilities in employment and the workplace.
  As I mentioned, I am happy that these amendments could pass with 
overwhelming support and were added to the final resolution of the 
Second Committee. They were then subsequently adopted by the full 
Parliamentary Assembly as part of what will now be known as the ``Baku 
Declaration.''
  I thank our leader Senator Cardin for inviting me to this important 
meeting and allowing me the opportunity to offer these amendments which 
focus on the issue of equal opportunity for people with disabilities in 
the member States and across the globe.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I congratulate my colleague from Iowa, a 
senior Member of this body, someone who is respected around the globe 
for being willing to meet fellow parliamentarians and to successfully 
put forward language that was adopted by consensus.
  If I could mention a couple of other matters that pertain to this 
trip, First of all, it is interesting that the capital of Azerbaijan, 
Baku, on the western shore of the Caspian Sea, would be the host of 
this parliamentary assembly.
  Azerbaijan is an important ally of the United States. I think it is 
important for Americans and for Members to know that their neighbor to 
the north is Russia and their neighbor to the south is Iran. This is a 
very tough neighborhood that our ally exists in. Yet they are oriented 
to the West. They are oriented to the United States. They want to be 
allies of ours. They were steadfast friends of ours in Afghanistan and 
have been during the entire time we have been there. They are steadfast 
allies of the Nation of Israel. Again, I think for a majority Muslim 
State such as Azerbaijan to take that stand in a troubling neighborhood 
speaks well of them. There are steps we wish they would take further 
toward transparency and openness and the rule of law, and maybe their 
elections weren't all we hoped for in the past, but they are an ally 
that continues to make progress. So I salute our host nation.
  I think it should also be said, and I will yield to Senator Cardin on 
this point, that we stopped back by Chisinau, Moldova, on our way back 
from Baku, a member of the OSCE, a nation that is also in a troubling 
neighborhood that feels the breath of Moscow breathing down their 
collars and the threats by people from the Russian Federation who would 
like to exert undue influence on that great little nation.
  It happened that we were there on the day the Moldovan Parliament 
ratified the agreement associating Moldova with the European Union. 
This was a wonderful day for the friends of freedom and the European-
oriented citizens of Moldova. It was great to see the young people 
walking through the city with the flag and hear Beethoven's Ode to Joy, 
the European anthem, as it were, and to be there for this very 
significant, pivotal day in the history of Moldova and to say we will 
continue to stand with the great people of that country. I know Senator 
Cardin was thinking of those things when he scheduled that stop.
  Mr. CARDIN. First, the Senator was able to meet with the President of 
Azerbaijan. We thank him for that. He was able to adjust his calendar 
to do that and we appreciate it because it was very important to hear 
the message the Senator gave on the floor of the Senate.
  Azerbaijan is an important ally to the United States. They have 
issues they need to deal with on human rights. We were clear about 
that. We met with the NGO community while we were there. But I think 
the Senator's leadership and the way the Senator balanced that 
presentation was very important.
  There is also the energy issue with Azerbaijan that is very important 
to us in that region as an energy source for Europe. It is an 
important, strategic country.
  And, yes, they do have issues on human rights. We did meet with the 
NGOs and we will continue to voice those concerns.
  I am glad the Senator from Mississippi mentioned Chisinau and 
Moldova. We also on the way visited Georgia, and Georgia and Moldova 
have some common interests: They are both moving toward Europe with the 
association agreements. They recognize their economic and political 
future is with Europe and they both have Russian troops in their 
country, and they are both very much concerned about what is happening 
in Ukraine. We got tremendous interest about what we did in Baku on 
taking on the Russians directly about their violations of the OSCE 
principles in their activities in Ukraine. Moldova, as you know, is in 
the Transnistria area which borders the Ukraine. There are Russian 
troops there, and the independence of Moldova is very much impacted by 
Russia's presence in Transnistria. Even though there is no border 
between Moldova and Russia, they still have that real threat that 
Russia could use its force to try to dictate policy in Moldova. And 
Georgia, of course, with the territories being controlled by the 
Russians--you saw what happened there, the bloodshed--is a country that 
is very much concerned about being able to control their own destiny. 
They want to be independent and they don't want to be dominated by 
Russia's intimidation. I think our presence in both of those countries 
was a clear signal that the United States stands for an independent 
Georgia and an independent Moldova. We want them to make their own 
decisions. We believe their future is clearly with integration into 
Europe. They believe their future is with integration into Europe and 
we will continue to be very supportive of those activities.
  I have one more comment in regard to our work in Baku. There were a 
lot of issues that were taken up through declaration. For example, our 
delegation brought forward a resolution on the 10th anniversary of the 
Berlin conference dealing with antisemitism. Congressman Smith and 
myself were both involved in the original Berlin issues.
  My colleague has already put into the Record the resolution 
concerning Russia and Ukraine.
  I must tell you I was so proud of my participation in this forum. I 
think the United States learned a lot more about the OSCE during the 
Ukraine crisis when they saw it was the OSCE mission that was on the 
ground giving us independent information about what was happening in 
Ukraine, the importance of our participation, and what Senator Wicker 
said in the beginning, our work here knows no political boundaries. 
This is not a partisan effort. It has been Democrats and Republicans 
working over the last 40 years to use the Helsinki principles to 
advance good governance, economic opportunity, and human rights 
throughout not just the OSCE countries but globally.
  It has been a real pleasure to work with Senator Wicker on these 
issues and I thank him for his dedication and leadership. There has 
been no stronger voice on the floor of the Senate in regard to human 
rights issues. I have been on the floor listening to Senator Wicker as 
he talked about individual cases of human rights violations in Russia 
and other countries. He speaks his mind on these issues and I am proud 
to be associated with him on the Helsinki Commission.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I will let Senator Cardin have the last 
word on this matter, and I see there are others who want to speak on 
other issues. Let me emphasize to everyone within the sound of our 
voices that diplomacy and foreign policy are carried out not only 
through the executive branch, the State Department, the other good 
offices that we have in the executive branch. Foreign policy is

[[Page 11577]]

alive and well through the participation of Members of the House and 
Senate, the parliamentary assembly, and in the OSCE. It is important we 
keep our role there.
  My hat is off to the leaders of this Congress--House and Senate--who 
have, over the years, been willing to exercise leadership and to earn 
credibility in the OSCE. I am proud to have stood with them this year 
in this delegation. I believe we came back with a better understanding.
  I appreciate the role of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty in 
covering our participation there and getting that out to the rest of 
the world.
  I am proud to have stood with this delegation--eight Members from the 
House and Senate, senior Members and relatively new ones. We stood for 
the principles of the rule of law and transparency and democracy among 
our allies in Europe and Eurasia.
  I yield for my friend.
  Mr. CARDIN. I wish to be identified with Senator Wicker's comments, 
and again I thank all the participants, the eight Members who took 
their time to participate on behalf of the United States.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                   Civil Rights Act 50th Anniversary

  Mr. DONNELLY. Madam President, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of 
the signing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, I rise to pay tribute to a 
few Hoosier leaders who played important roles in the passing of this 
landmark legislation.
  The story of the Civil Rights Act can be told through the leadership 
and vision of a long list of extraordinary Hoosiers, including many in 
the Indiana congressional delegation who supported the bill regardless 
of party. Yet to truly understand the Indiana leadership behind the 
Civil Rights Act, we need to start back home.
  During World War II, Rev. Andrew Brown vowed to dedicate himself to 
social justice while in a hospital bed after being told by a doctor 
that one of his legs would need to be amputated. Brown promised God 
that if his leg was saved, he would spend the rest of his life fighting 
for justice for all people.
  Later, recalling this moment during an interview, Brown said:

       That's the miracle in my life. That's the commitment that I 
     made. . . . I'll keep fighting until I fall, because that's 
     what I told God I would do.

  Brown did just that. He went on to fight for civil rights as a young 
pastor at St. John's Missionary Baptist Church in Indianapolis in the 
1950s and 1960s. Brown organized African Americans to show voting 
strength in 1963. He was the founder of the Indiana Black Expo, started 
Operation Breadbasket--a radio show devoted to promoting economic and 
social justice--and served as the president of the Indiana chapter of 
the NAACP.
  He marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in Selma, AL, in 1965. 
He welcomed King directly into his home during trips to Indianapolis. 
He worked closely with Martin Luther King, Jr., on the national civil 
rights movement, and he was at the home of Dr. King's parents on the 
night of Dr. King's tragic assassination in April 1968.
  Another renowned, homegrown Indiana leader was Willard Ransom. They 
are all featured here. After graduating from Harvard Law School as the 
only African-American member of his class, he was drafted into the 
military during World War II. While serving, Ransom spent much of his 
time in Alabama, where he was distraught by the discriminatory manner 
in which fellow Americans were being treated.
  Resolving to see these practices come to an end, Ransom returned to 
his home community of Indianapolis, where he quickly became a leader in 
the fight for greater civil rights. He spoke against housing 
discrimination and school segregation. He played a role in drafting 
civil rights bills before the State legislature. He served as the State 
President of the NAACP five times, and he was the first African 
American to run for Congress in Marion County.
  Henry Johnson Richardson, Jr., moved to Indianapolis from Alabama to 
attend Shortridge High School and went on to attend law school at 
Indiana University in Indianapolis. Richardson became a judge in Marion 
County and then a State representative during the struggle for civil 
rights.
  He actively fought to desegregate schools and university housing and 
helped change the State Constitution to allow African Americans to 
serve in the Indiana National Guard.
  These men brought together Hoosiers from every corner of the State, 
every socioeconomic class, race, and religion to further their efforts. 
They knew if we wanted to improve together, we have to work together.
  In 1959 University of Notre Dame president Father Theodore Hesburgh 
and his fellow members of the Civil Rights Commission found themselves 
in Shreveport, LA, while conducting hearings across the country on 
voting rights. Noticing the Commission was uncomfortable in the heat of 
the Shreveport Air Force Base, Father Hesburgh made arrangements for 
the Commission to move their work to Notre Dame's research facility in 
the Presiding Officer's home State of Land O'Lakes, WI.
  While the Commissioners relaxed and enjoyed the flight to their new 
location, Father Hesburgh reportedly sat in the back of the plane 
drafting resolutions that would come to make up the core of the 
Commission's report.
  After an evening of fishing together in Land O'Lakes, WI, Father 
Hesburgh strategically presented the Commission with his 14 
resolutions, 13 of which were approved unanimously.
  After learning of how Father Hesburgh brought the potentially divided 
Commission together, President Eisenhower remarked, ``We have to put 
more fishermen on commissions and have more reports written at Land 
O'Lakes, Wisconsin.''
  Congress would later go on to enact approximately 70 percent of the 
Commission's recommendations, including the recommendations in 
legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Father Hesburgh knew 
that if we want to improve together, we have to work together.
  A like-minded Indiana leader serving in the Senate in 1964 was 
Senator Birch Bayh, who was also the father of Evan.
  On June 19, 1964, exactly 1 year after President John Kennedy 
submitted the Civil Rights Act to Congress, Senator Bayh helped the 
Senate pass the most important and sweeping civil rights legislation 
since Reconstruction.
  The clerk announced the bill passed 73 to 27 at 7:40 p.m. According 
to a copy of a draft press release amongst Bayh's papers at Indiana 
University, Senator Bayh stated:

       Reason replaced emotion. Respect for another's view 
     replaced blind refusal to hear a differing opinion . . . and 
     when this bill is signed into law, we shall have established 
     the basis for fulfillment of Thomas Jefferson's hope for a 
     nation in which all of the people are treated equally under 
     the law.

  Indiana's other Senator, Vance Hartke, also helped to pass the Civil 
Rights Act out of the Senate on the evening of June 19, 1964. Dr. 
Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote Senator Hartke after the vote, saying:

       The devotees of civil rights in this country and freedom 
     loving people the world over are greatly indebted to you for 
     your support in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I add 
     to theirs my sincere and heartfelt gratitude.

  Senators Bayh and Hartke brought to the Senate a belief that if we 
want to improve together, we have to work together.

  Another Hoosier who stepped up to help shepherd through the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 was then-minority leader of the House, Congressman 
Charles Halleck, from Rensselaer, IN.
  While working to move civil rights legislation forward, President 
Kennedy and leaders in the House went to Minority Leader Halleck to ask 
for his help to get the bill through the Judiciary Committee. 
Congressman Halleck, despite having a small percentage of African-
American constituents and despite receiving some criticism, agreed to 
help.
  When the Civil Rights Act came to the Judiciary Committee, some 
committee members took issue with several of its provisions. After 
working with other committee members to take out some of the 
controversial provisions in the bill, Congressman Halleck

[[Page 11578]]

and others went to work to convince their colleagues to support a more 
moderate version of the bill.
  In the end, the bill passed the committee with bipartisan support. No 
one got 100 percent of what they wanted, but thanks to Congressman 
Halleck, the Judiciary Committee was able to move forward a strong bill 
of which both Republicans and Democrats could be proud.
  In private conversations shortly thereafter, Congressman Halleck 
admitted that his vocal support for the Civil Rights Act was 
endangering his position as House minority leader. He said he would 
likely lose his position after the next elections because of his 
support, and he was right.
  Despite the personal cost and consequences, Congressman Halleck's 
work to bring Republicans together with Democrats to support the Civil 
Rights Act was key to its success. He showed if we want to improve 
together, we have to work together.
  On August 28, 1963, another Indiana Congressman stood behind Martin 
Luther King, Jr., on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and bore witness 
to a speech that would change the arc of American history. John 
Brademas came from Mishawaka, IN, and grew up hearing stories of the 
KKK boycotting his father's restaurant simply because he was Greek 
Orthodox.
  These stories, coupled with John's progressive Methodist faith, 
instilled in him a deep sense of social justice that guided him 
throughout his career in public service. Congressman Brademas became an 
instrumental supporter of civil rights during his 22 years in Congress.
  After witnessing Dr. King's ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Congressman 
Brademas welcomed King to speak in Indiana's Third District. Years 
later, Coretta Scott King remembered his work and helped campaign for 
Brademas' last bid for reelection.
  A pioneer in Federal education policy, Congressman Brademas worked 
hard to both integrate schools and increase their funding across the 
entire country.
  Minority Leader Halleck and Congressman Brademas were not alone in 
supporting the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Indiana U.S. Congress Members 
Madden, Adair, Roush, Roudebush, Bray, Denton, Harvey, and Bruce all 
supported the Civil Rights Act to help it pass the House with 
bipartisan support on July 2, 1964. They knew that if we want to 
improve together, we have to work together.
  The list of Hoosiers involved in fighting for civil rights is long, 
and we should not forget the everyday Hoosiers, the men and women who 
did their part in their daily lives to broaden opportunities for all 
Americans. We may never read their names in history books or know what 
the United States would be like if they had not done what they did, but 
what we do know is they understood that if we truly want to improve our 
country, to strengthen who we are as a people, we have to all work 
together.
  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed without leaders 
who were willing to set aside their differences and work together. No 
one got everything they wanted, but America got what was so crucially 
needed. Our country took a monumental leap forward.
  This 50th anniversary is a powerful reminder that if we truly want to 
improve our country, we have to work together.
  I am honored to follow in the footsteps of these and many more great 
Hoosiers who fought for civil rights. I am humbled to have the chance 
to talk about them today.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                       Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act

  Mrs. HAGAN. Madam President, it is with great pride that I rise to 
speak about the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2014.
  Before proceeding, I wish to thank Senator Murkowski for being a true 
partner in developing and building support for the sportsmen's package. 
I am proud to say that by working together, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's 
Act is cosponsored by 18 Democrats, 26 Republicans, and 1 Independent. 
It is endorsed by a very diverse group of more than 40 different 
stakeholders.
  When I became cochair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus in 
early 2013, I was committed to advancing bipartisan legislation that 
would benefit our hunters, our anglers, and our outdoor recreation 
enthusiasts in North Carolina and around the country. Taken together, I 
believe the 12 bills included in this bipartisan act accomplish that 
objective and do so in a fiscally responsible manner. This package does 
not add a dime to our deficit. It actually raises $5 million over the 
next 10 years for deficit reduction.
  Outdoor recreation activities are part of the fabric of North 
Carolina. From the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in the West to 
the Cape Hatteras National Seashore in the East, North Carolinians are 
passionate about the outdoors--me included. Hunting, fishing, and 
hiking are a way of life, and many of these traditions have been handed 
down through my own family.
  According to a recent report, 1.4 million sports men and women call 
my State home, and that is nearly 20 percent of the State's entire 
population. In 2011 a total of 1.6 million people hunted or fished in 
North Carolina. To put that in perspective, that is roughly the same 
amount of people who live in the Raleigh and Durham metropolitan areas.
  Nationwide, over 37 million people participate in these activities. 
That is the equivalent of the population of the State of California. 
While many of these men and women live in our rural areas, they are 
just as likely to hail from some of our much more urban areas.
  To ensure that future generations have an opportunity to enjoy our 
great outdoors as we do today, this act, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act 
of 2014, reauthorizes several landmark conservation programs. For 
example, the package includes legislation to reauthorize NAWCA, which 
is our North American Wetlands Conservation Act. This voluntary 
initiative provides matching grants to organizations, States and local 
governments, and to private landowners to restore wetlands that are 
critical to our migratory birds. These partnerships actually generate 
$3 in non-Federal contributions for every dollar of Federal NAWCA 
funds, and they have actually preserved more than 27 million acres of 
habitat over the last two decades.
  The benefits of this program to outdoor recreation enthusiasts 
nationwide cannot be overstated. The abundance of migratory birds, 
fish, and mammals supported by these wetlands translates into 
multibillion-dollar activities for hunting, fishing, and wildlife 
viewing. In North Carolina, NAWCA has advanced numerous projects to 
improve waterfowl habitats and to enable the acquisition of thousands 
of acres of land used for increasing public opportunities for 
activities of hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-associated 
recreation.
  Here is a photo of the Cape Fear Arch region. As part of the 
Southeastern North Carolina Wetlands Initiative, the North Carolina 
Coastal Land Trust, Ducks Unlimited, the North Carolina Wildlife 
Resource Commission, and the Nature Conservancy received a $1 million 
NAWCA grant to protect wetlands and associated uplands in this Cape 
Fear Arch region. The Federal grant then is matched by close to $3 
million in non-Federal funding.
  The Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act also includes legislation sponsored by 
Senators Heinrich and Heller that reauthorizes the FLTFA, which is the 
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, which enables the Bureau of 
Land Management to sell public land to private owners, counties, and 
others for ranching, community development, and other projects. This 
``land-for-land'' approach has created jobs and generated funding for 
the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, the National 
Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service to help those entities 
acquire critical inholdings of land from willing sellers. This takes 
place in 11 Western States as well as Alaska.

[[Page 11579]]

  Our sportsmen's package also contains Senator Wicker's bipartisan 
bill that will enable hunters in all States to purchase duck stamps 
electronically. Currently, eight States are now participating in a 
private program that enables the issuance of e-duck stamps. Since that 
program began, hunters in those eight States have actually purchased 
3.5 million electronic duck stamps.
  I can personally vouch for the benefits of enabling hunters in all 
States to actually purchase duck stamps online. There have been 
occasions when members of my own family were unable to take a visitor 
hunting because we couldn't find a physical stamp. Let me give an 
example. Our son-in-law came to visit last year. My husband had planned 
to take him duck hunting. Unfortunately, three different places my 
husband visited were out of duck stamps. So now when my husband buys 
his duck stamps for the season, he purchases two or three extra just in 
case a family member or a visitor decides to go hunting with him.
  Enabling all hunters to purchase these duck stamps online will not 
cost taxpayers any money, and it will help preserve additional wildlife 
habitat across the country because a portion of the proceeds of duck 
stamps goes to protecting the habitat.
  Another bipartisan bill in this package reauthorizes the National 
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, NFWF. This poster actually shows the 
number of different habitats that are included in the National Fish and 
Wildlife Foundation. For example, in Florida right now there are 658 
different preserves and projects.
  The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is a nonprofit that 
preserves and restores native wildlife species and habitats. Since its 
inception, NFWF has awarded over 11,600 grants to more than 4,000 
different organizations nationwide. Funding from the National Fish and 
Wildlife Foundation consistently generates $3 in non-Federal funds for 
every $1 in Federal funds.
  One priority that NFWF is currently working on is designed to 
introduce America's youth to careers in conservation. In addition to 
employing youth, NFWF is also exploring ways to expand conservation 
employment opportunities for our Nation's veterans.
  Our package also includes regulatory reforms and enhancements that 
will benefit sports men and women across the country. Another example 
is bipartisan legislation that was introduced by Senator Mark Udall of 
Colorado. His bill is included, and it will enable States to allocate a 
greater portion of the Federal Pittman-Robertson funding to create and 
maintain shooting ranges on public lands. There is currently a shortage 
of public shooting ranges across the country. In North Carolina, a 
principal impediment to target range development is the initial cost of 
acquiring the land and then constructing the facility. By reducing the 
non-Federal match requirement from 25 percent currently to 10 percent 
and then allowing the States to access funds over a greater period of 
time, this legislation will enable the States to move forward with new 
public ranges.
  The Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act will also help improve access for 
hunting and fishing and wildlife viewing on public lands. Right now 
nearly half of all the hunters conduct a portion of their hunting 
activity on public lands, and a lack of access to these public lands is 
cited as a primary reason people stop participating in these 
traditional activities; they just can't get there. The Bipartisan 
Sportsmen's Act would require that at least 1.5 percent, or $10 
million, of annual Land and Water Conservation Fund money be used to 
improve access to our public lands.
  The State of North Carolina is home to four national forests that 
comprise 1.25 million acres. Our outdoor recreation enthusiasts 
regularly have problems with actually getting access to this gorgeous 
place depicted here, which is the Pisgah National Forest. I probably 
spend more time backpacking in this forest than any other one. This 
legislation will help dedicate funding to expanding the access here and 
on public lands across the country.
  Outdoor recreation activities are not only engrained in North 
Carolinians' way of life, they are also huge economic drivers in my 
State and in States across the country. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service has found that hunting, fishing, and wildlife-related 
recreation activities contribute $3.3 billion annually to North 
Carolina's economy. Nationwide, the same report found that 90 million 
Americans participate in this wildlife-related recreation, resulting in 
close to $145 billion in annual spending. That is shown on this chart, 
the actual economic impact for wildlife-related recreation. In 2011 
sports men and women spent a total of about $34 billion on hunting, 
which is depicted on the chart, $41 billion on fishing, and $56 billion 
on wildlife watching. The biggest amount of money spent while enjoying 
the outdoors is on wildlife watching. An extra $14 billion is spent on 
other activities.
  According to the Outdoor Industry Association, all of these 
activities support over 192,000 jobs just in North Carolina and a total 
of 6.1 million across the country. So this really does have a huge 
economic impact across our Nation.
  I often say I don't care if an idea is a Democratic idea or a 
Republican idea, only that it is a good idea, and I will put work 
behind that. I believe this bill embodies that spirit.
  The Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2014 is a balanced, bipartisan plan 
that is endorsed by more than 40 stakeholders, from Ducks Unlimited to 
the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and it is fiscally 
responsible. I urge my colleagues to approve this legislation for the 
benefit of our economy and the more than 90 million sports men and 
women across the country.
  Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to address the Senate as in morning business and engage in a 
colloquy with the Senator from Arizona and the two Senators from the 
State of Texas, Mr. Cornyn and Mr. Cruz.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Border Crisis

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, as my colleagues know and the Senator 
from Texas and the Senator from Arizona both understand, we are facing 
a crisis on our border. It has been changed now to a ``situation.'' I 
understand that it is no longer a crisis but a situation, according to 
the White House.
  The Senator from Texas has been to the border. I have been to our 
border. We have seen this veritable flood of young people who have come 
to our country under the belief that they will be able to stay.
  The real human tragedy here of many, as my colleague from Texas and 
my friend from Arizona know, is that the trip from Central America to 
the Texas border, which is the closest place of arrival, is a horrible 
experience for these young people. Young women are routinely violated. 
Young men are mistreated. It is a terrible experience for them. Those 
who are for ``open borders,'' those who think this is somehow 
acceptable ignore the fact that this is a human rights issue of these 
young people who are enticed to come to our country under false 
circumstances and suffer unspeakable indignities and even death along 
the way.
  The President of the United States, who initially stated that they 
would--and I would quote him--he said that we had to stop this and 
initially said that we needed to reverse the legislation that has 
encouraged the people to come here. I quote him:

       Kids all over the world have it tough, he said. Even 
     children in America who live in dangerous neighborhoods. . . 
     . He told the groups [that he was addressing that] he had to 
     enforce the law--even if that meant deporting hard cases with 
     minors involved.

[[Page 11580]]

     Sometimes, there is an inherent injustice in where you are 
     born, and no president can solve that, Obama said. But 
     presidents must send the message that you can't just show up 
     on the border, plead for asylum or refugee status, and hope 
     to get it.
       Then anyone can come in, and it means that, effectively, we 
     don't have any kind of system, Obama said. We are a Nation 
     with borders that must be enforced.

  Unfortunately, the proposal--and I would ask my friend from Texas--
that has come over for $3.7 billion has nothing to do with dispelling 
the idea and the belief in the Central American countries that they can 
come here and if they get to our border they can stay. They cannot 
stay. They cannot stay. If they believe they are victims of 
persecution, they should go to our consulate, go to our embassy. But we 
cannot have this unlimited flow of individuals.
  Finally--I will yield for my colleagues--what about people in other 
parts of the world? Do they not need this kind of relief? Are they not 
persecuted? What about the Middle East? What about Africa? This is 
selective morality that is being practiced here, I would say to my 
friend from Texas.
  We want people to come to this country legally. We want them to come 
if they are persecuted. But we want an orderly fashion. Finally, could 
I just say and remind my friends that despite what may be said, the 
fact is--and the numbers indicate it--for young people these terrible 
coyotes are bringing them for thousands of dollars. The Los Angeles 
Times reports: In fiscal year 2013, 20,805 unaccompanied children from 
El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras were apprehended by the Border 
Patrol and only 1,669 were repatriated.
  I ask my friend from Texas: What kind of message does that send?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to the distinguished senior 
Senator from Arizona that the administration has been sending mixed 
messages. First they called this a humanitarian crisis. Then they 
called it--I think the Senator said--a ``situation.'' They are sort of 
walking this back. But I just wanted to remind my colleagues from 
Arizona of what the President said a few years ago in El Paso when 
people said we needed better border security measures in place.
  He ridiculed people. The Senators may remember this. He said--this is 
the President talking in El Paso in May 2011--he said:

       You know, they said we needed to triple the Border Patrol. 
     Now they are going to say we need to quadruple the Border 
     Patrol, or they will want a higher fence, or maybe they will 
     need a moat, or maybe they want alligators in the moat. They 
     will never be satisfied. I understand that. That is politics.

  But the truth is, the measures we put in place are getting results. 
The truth is, they are not getting the kind of results the American 
people expect--nor these children who are being subjected to horrific 
conditions as they are smuggled from Central America up through Mexico 
to the United States. One of the most puzzling things to me--I see my 
colleague from Texas here. I know Governor Perry has implored the 
President to come visit the border.
  Now he said: Well, I will invite the Governor to an immigration 
roundtable--where I doubt the Governor will get in a word because the 
President will probably just deliver another lecture. He is pretty good 
at that. But that is 500 miles from where the problem is. How can you 
have a humanitarian crisis, as the White House has called this, and not 
want to go see it for yourself? Maybe you will actually learn 
something.
  I agree with the Senator from Arizona. In the bill the administration 
sent over, they stripped out all of the reforms that would actually go 
to solve the very problem we all know needs to be solved here and 
instead asked for a blank check.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask the Senator a question? The first thing that 
needs to be done is to amend the legislation which basically would then 
make every country treated the same way contiguous countries would be. 
That has to be the first step. Again and again, I think it is important 
to emphasize here that this is a humanitarian issue, but it is a 
humanitarian issue about these children who are taken--for how many 
days? Fifteen, twenty days on top of a train they are being taken and 
exploited by these terrible coyotes.
  So should we not have a system where if someone deserves asylum in 
this country we could beef up our consulates, beef up our embassies, 
and have them come there and make their argument, and then be able to 
come to this country, I would argue?
  Mr. CORNYN. The Senator is exactly right. What we need is a legal 
system of immigration, not an illegal system, because the people who 
control illegal immigration are the cartels and the coyotes the Senator 
mentioned earlier and the criminal gangs. By the way, they have 
discovered a new business model. They treat these children as 
commodities, and they hold them for ransom. They sexually assault the 
young women, as the Senator pointed out.
  We do not know how many of these children start this perilous journey 
from Central America, some 1,200 miles away, and never make it to the 
United States because they simply die along the way. So this is a 
horrific situation.
  I know both the Senators from Arizona might want to speak to this. 
The President has acknowledged that even under the Senate immigration 
bill that passed the Senate, none of these children would qualify. I 
would ask maybe the junior Senator from Arizona if he would care to 
comment.
  How did this situation get created where even under the law that the 
President has advocated for, the Senate immigration bill, none of these 
children would be able to stay?
  Mr. FLAKE. That is correct. The Senator from Texas is correct. 
Neither the President's deferred action program nor legislation passed 
by the Senate would allow people coming now to have some type of legal 
status. In the case of the President's DACA, or Deferred Action for 
Childhood Arrivals Program, you would have to have been here by 2007. 
Under the Senate legislation you would have to have been here by 2011 
at a minimum. So it would not apply.
  The problem here--the root of it or the main part of it--is that 
people coming from noncontiguous countries to the United States, 
meaning Central American countries like Honduras, El Salvador, and 
Guatemala, are treated differently than kids who come from Mexico or 
Canada. In the case of kids coming--unaccompanied minors--from Mexico 
or Canada, the average is 3 days that we take care of them and then 
repatriate them or send them back.
  Here in this case, partly because of the law we have under the 
Trafficking Victims Protection Act, kids who come here need to be 
placed with a guardian or family. The President's proposal is asking 
nearly $2 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services, 
which has no role in border enforcement at all--none. It has no role in 
deportation or to repatriate these children back. It is simply to 
settle these children with families or guardians around the country.
  I should note that HHS does no due diligence whatsoever to ensure 
that the people they are placing them with are here legally. So the net 
effect is, when a child goes to a legal guardian or a parent, it is 
very unlikely that they will then show up later for deportation 
hearings.
  So, in effect, you are telling the cartels and the human smugglers 
and others: Keep doing what you are doing because it works. When those 
unaccompanied minors get here, they will be able to stay. They will be 
taken care of.
  As Senator McCain said, that is the least human thing we can do--to 
encourage parents and relatives in these countries to send their 
children or put them in the care of smugglers and others. If we want to 
stem the tide here, the way to stem the tide is to have parents and 
relatives in these countries seeing these children come back to these 
countries as we do to children in Mexico or Canada who come across the 
border.
  So I thank the Senator from Arizona for arranging this colloquy. We 
have to take action.
  Mr. CORNYN. If I may, the junior Senator from Texas had visited

[[Page 11581]]

Lackland Air Force Base recently and observed some of these 1,200--if I 
am not mistaken--children who are being essentially warehoused because 
we do not have any other place to put them. If he might comment on what 
we are going to do if the numbers continue to grow at the level they 
are growing now. I know in 2011 there were about 6,000 unaccompanied 
minors detained at the southwestern border.
  This year since October, it is somewhere in the 50,000 range. If that 
number continues to escalate, where are we going to put all of these 
kids?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend the senior Senator from Texas. I am 
honored to stand here with the senior Senator from Texas and the 
Senators from Arizona as we speak out together against the humanitarian 
crisis that is unfolding on our border.
  President Obama today is down in the State of Texas. But, sadly, he 
is not visiting the border. He is not visiting the children who are 
suffering as a result of the failures of the Obama policies. Instead, 
he is doing fundraisers. He is visiting Democratic fat cats to collect 
checks. Apparently, there is no time to look at the disaster, at the 
devastation that is being caused by his policies.
  Just a couple of weeks ago, as the Senator from Texas observed, I was 
down at Lackland Air Force Base where there are roughly 1,200 children 
being housed. There is one thing President Obama had said about what is 
happening that is absolutely correct. This is a humanitarian disaster. 
But it is a disaster of the President's own making. It is a disaster 
that is a direct consequence of President Obama's lawlessness. A quick 
review of the facts makes that abundantly apparent.
  In 2011, just 3 years ago, there were roughly 6,000 unaccompanied 
children apprehended trying to cross illegally into this country. Then 
in 2012, in the summer of 2012, right before the election, President 
Obama illegally granted amnesty to some 800,000 people who were here 
illegally who had entered the country as children.
  The direct, predictable, foreseeable consequence of granting that 
amnesty is the number of children--unaccompanied children--immediately 
began to skyrocket. This year, the estimates are that 90,000 
unaccompanied children will enter this country illegally. That is up 
from 6,000 just 3 years ago--6,000 to 90,000. Next year the estimate is 
145,000.
  This explosion is the direct consequence of the President's 
lawlessness. It is worth underscoring. The people who are being hurt 
the most are these kids. The coyotes who are bringing them in are not 
well-meaning social workers trying to help out some kids. These are 
violent, hardened transnational criminal cartels. These mothers and 
fathers, sadly, are handing over their children to violent criminals 
who are physically abusing and who are sexually abusing small children.
  When I was down at Lackland Air Force Base, a senior official there 
described to me how those cartels--with some of these children after 
they have taken them and after they have begun coming to this country 
to take them here illegally--would hold these children captive, hold 
them hostage to extract additional money from the families.
  If the families did not send them additional money, as horrifying as 
it is, these drug cartels would begin severing body parts of these 
children. I listened to the senior official at Lackland describe how 
the cartels would put a gun to the back of the head of a little boy or 
little girl and force that child to cut off the fingers or the ears of 
another little boy or little girl. If they do not do so, they will 
shoot them and move to the next one.
  So on our end, we are having children come to this country whom we 
are having to deal with who are maimed. They have been maimed by the 
brutality of these criminal cartels. Others of them have deep, deep 
psychological trauma from a child forced to do something so horrific. 
This is a tragedy that is playing out. It is happening in real time.
  Now, the administration has suggested the cause of this is violence 
in Central America. I would suggest to my friends, the senior Senator 
from Texas and the Senators from Arizona, that argument is a complete 
red herring. With violence in one country, you would expect to see the 
number of immigrants from that country to go up. But there is no reason 
unaccompanied children would go up. That is something unique and 
distinct.
  There have always been countries across the world, sadly, that have 
been plagued by violence. When that happens, we have always seen an 
influx in immigrants, both legal and illegal, from those countries. 
What we are seeing here is particular, though. It is particularized 
towards children. The reason it is particularized towards children is 
because the President granted amnesty in a way that was particularized 
towards children.
  If you want to understand just how false the administration's talking 
point is for the cause of what is happening, you need to look no 
further than a report which was prepared by our border security that 
Senator Cornyn and Senator Flake and I all saw in the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. A couple of weeks ago we had a hearing on this humanitarian 
crisis, and a whistleblower at the Border Patrol handed over this 
confidential document to a number of Senators on the Judiciary 
Committee.
  It described how the Border Patrol interviewed over 200 people who 
have come here illegally--adults and children--and asked them a simple 
question: Why did you come? Ninety five percent said: We came because 
we believe if we get here we will get amnesty. We believe we will get a 
permiso is what they said; that once they get here, once a child gets 
here, that little boy, that little girl is scot-free. I would suggest 
to my friend, this is what amnesty looks like.
  I would suggest to my friends this is what amnesty looks like. 
Amnesty looks like dangerous drug cartels entering this country 
wantonly. Amnesty looks like thousands of young children being housed 
in military bases. Amnesty looks like hundreds of immigrants who came 
here illegally being transported to cities and towns amid opposition 
from the citizens who lived there. Amnesty looks like a complete and 
utter disregard of our rule of law. Amnesty is unfolding before our 
very eyes.
  I would suggest that the only response that will stop this 
humanitarian disaster is for President Obama to start enforcing the 
law, to stop promising amnesty, to stop refusing to enforce Federal 
immigration law, and, finally, to secure the borders. Indeed, I would 
call upon our colleagues in this body in both parties to come together 
and secure the border once and for all and to stop holding border 
security hostage for amnesty.
  Mr. CORNYN. If I could ask a question, really, of all three.
  I think we have described the catastrophe that continues to unfold 
and indeed grow. I know, speaking for myself--and I venture to say, I 
bet, for all four of us--we are actually interested in trying to solve 
this problem.
  The President sent over an appropriations request that is essentially 
a blank check. The junior Senator from Arizona appropriately 
acknowledged that the majority of the money is for health and human 
resources to continue to warehouse these kids with no actual solution.
  The Senator from Arizona said we need to change that 2008 law. I 
agree with that. We need to make sure the children are detained and 
then get whatever process they are entitled to, perhaps even appear 
before an immigration judge--that is something we should talk about--
before they are repatriated.
  But I want to ask the senior Senator from Arizona, because of his 
long distinguished service on the Armed Services Committee, I was 
troubled to read and hear some of the testimony of General Kelly, the 
head of Southern Command, who is the combatant commander for the world 
south of the Texas border, Mexico and into Central and South America--
or actually I guess Mexico is Northern Command. But he said they sit 
and watch 75 percent of the cartel activity involving illegal drugs and 
they simply don't have the assets to do anything about it.

[[Page 11582]]

  I asked him: Do you think trying to figure out how to adequately fund 
and resource Southern Command, how to get our U.S. military to perhaps 
work more closely with the Central American military forces and the 
Mexican military forces, is that part of the solution to this problem?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would say to my colleague, yes. Also, the commander of 
Southern Command believes there is an increasing inflow of people 
entering our country illegally who are not from Mexico or from Central 
America. They are from other countries around the world, and there is a 
real and imminent threat of people coming to the United States of 
America not just to get a job with a better life but to commit acts of 
terror. We are seeing increasing numbers.
  I say to my friend from Texas, it is my understanding--tell me if I 
am correct--that now 82 percent of the people coming across the border 
illegally are other than Mexican, a majority from Central America but 
then China, India, Africa--from all over the world they are coming.
  Mr. CORNYN. I would say to the Senator I have been in Brooks County 
near Falfurrias, TX, to see some of the rescue beacons they have there 
with some of the language written in Chinese. This is in Brooks County 
near Falfurrias, TX, where I guarantee nobody who lives there speaks 
Chinese--or not many people.
  So the Senator's point is well taken. Out of the 414,000 people 
detained coming across the southwestern border last year, they came 
from 100 different countries. Most of them were from Mexico and Central 
America, but the Senator is exactly right; we have seen a huge influx 
from Central America up through Mexico, and that is the primary source 
today.
  Mr. McCAIN. I just mentioned, and we all know--and I certainly would 
like my friend from Arizona to comment on this--we have a proposal that 
came over from the President of the United States to spend some $3.7 
billion. I think all of us are for finding a way to pay for it but 
agree with measures that need to be taken, such as beefing up our 
consulate and embassy capabilities, such as increasing the number of 
refugee visas for citizens of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala by 
5,000 each next year, do what is necessary to try to address this from 
the humanitarian standpoint.
  But the President of the United States failed, even though he had 
stated with the proposal that came over, there is not a request to 
amend the Trafficking Victims Prevention Act. In other words, we could 
be in an unending funding for treatment of people who came illegally 
unless we address the fundamental problem that is driving it.
  I would ask my friend from Arizona--and, by the way, could I also 
point out that legislation he and I were part of and spent hundreds if 
not thousands of hours on called for 90-percent effective control of 
the border and 100-percent situational awareness, some $8 billion being 
spent. It was amended on the floor for an additional 20,000 Border 
Patrol, that a fundamental element of immigration reform, as we 
proposed it, was to get 90-percent effective control of the border, 
and, in addition to that, that we would have that funding come out of 
fees people would pay as they moved on a path to citizenship, not 
subject to appropriations.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator for making that point with regard to 
the legislation. We propose to truly put border security first, and I 
continue to hope the House will take that up.
  But one of the points that has been made is we have to stem this 
humanitarian crisis in a way that will actually solve the problem, and 
that will be solved when parents and relatives in these countries 
realize that sending their children, unaccompanied minors, is futile, 
that they will spend a lot of money and it won't work.
  There is a good example of how we can give effect to this from a 
couple of years ago. In 2005, the country of Mexico allowed Brazilians 
to come in on kind of a visa waiver-type program. What happened is a 
lot of Brazilian nationals came through Mexico and used it as a conduit 
to come into this country. So we had a huge number of so-called OTMs or 
other-than-Mexicans coming up, Brazilians, and we were doing what can 
best be described as catch and release. We would take them back across 
the border and let them go.
  That wasn't solving the problem, so the Bush administration decided 
we needed to solve this problem. The way to actually solve it is to 
detain these individuals and then send them home to Brazil. We did 
that. It was an operation called Texas Hold 'Em. After that operation, 
within 30 days, the number of Brazilians coming through Mexico into 
this country dropped by 50 percent; within 60 days, that number dropped 
by 90 percent.
  So we can do this, but it needs to involve us changing the law with 
regard to trafficking, to allow us to treat children in Honduras, 
Guatemala, and El Salvador the same way we treat children who come from 
Mexico or from Canada and allow us to repatriate and to take these 
children back. Once that happens, when we actually do that, then we 
have a chance to stem this tide. It is the best thing we could do on a 
humanitarian basis as well, to not have these children subject to the 
cartels and human smugglers who are preying on them right now.
  Mr. CORNYN. I would ask the junior Senator from Texas, surely the 
President understands the facts as we have laid them out here, the 
problems with the 2008 law, really, the flaw in that law. They have 
created a business model out of it because they realized these 
immigrants who come across will not be detained, either the children or 
many adults, women traveling with minor children, because there are not 
adequate detention facilities.
  I wonder if the Senator has an opinion why, if the President--
surrounded as he is with some pretty smart policy people, people such 
as Secretary Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security, whom I 
have had a conversation with about this very topic--hasn't sent over a 
request to actually fix the problem, as opposed to continuing to 
warehouse people?
  Mr. CRUZ. The senior Senator from Texas is exactly right that the 
President has effectively admitted he has no intention of stopping this 
problem. The supplemental request he has submitted, $3.7 billion, the 
majority of that goes to HHS's social services, providing care to these 
kids, rather than stopping and solving the problem.
  The Senator and I have both spent a lot of time down on the border of 
Texas and all four of us have spent time down on the border of Texas or 
Arizona. The consistent answer from local leaders, from local law 
enforcement, from local elected officials about what is effective 
securing the border--the most consistent answer is boots on the ground; 
that if you want to effectively secure the border--boots on the ground, 
particularly combined with technology.
  It is striking, out of $3.7 billion, a tiny percentage of that is 
directed toward boots on the ground. This is an HHS social services 
bill, and it is unfortunately a pattern we have seen with the Obama 
administration of bait-and-switch. They are calling this a border 
security bill. It is reminiscent of the 2009 stimulus, which we will 
all recall was sold to the American people. The 2009 stimulus was about 
building roads, infrastructure, and shovel-ready projects, all of which 
are good ideas. Then when over $800 billion was spent by the Obama 
administration, very little of it actually went to roads, 
infrastructure, or shovel-ready projects. Instead, it paid off liberal 
interest groups such as, in this case, the administration calls the 
$3.7 billion border security and yet almost none of the money goes to 
border security.
  Indeed, I would note for all of the Democrats who are seeing this 
humanitarian crisis unfold, who are discovering suddenly the need for 
border security--and I would note my friend the senior Senator from New 
York stood on this floor as we were debating immigration last year and 
said: The border is secure today.
  President Obama stood in El Paso in 2010 and said: The border is 
secure today.
  I would note, for everyone who says now they are focused on border 
security that when the Senate Judiciary

[[Page 11583]]

Committee was considering immigration reform, I introduced an 
amendment--the senior Senator from Texas supported it--that would have 
tripled our Border Patrol, that would have increased fourfold the 
fixed-wing assets, the technology that would have provided the tools to 
finally solve this problem, and every single Senate Democrat on the 
Senate Judiciary Committee voted against it. So we shouldn't be 
surprised the President's proposal that is labeled border security 
doesn't actually secure the border, doesn't do anything about the 
lawlessness or the amnesty, which means the Obama administration is 
effectively admitting they expect these children to continue coming--
hundreds of thousands of them in years to come, hundreds of thousands 
of little boys and little girls being subjected to horrific physical 
abuse, sexual abuse, and they intend to do nothing to fix the problem, 
to stop it, to secure the borders, to uphold the law. That is 
heartbreaking, and that is not the responsibility of a Commander in 
Chief.
  Mr. CORNYN. I would ask the senior Senator of Arizona, who is also a 
national well-known security expert but who also knows a little bit 
about this big world we live in, what is it we can do with some of the 
money slated to go to countries such as Honduras, Guatemala, and even 
Mexico?
  Historically, we have had a successful partnership, for example, with 
the Colombian Government to help them build their capacity under Plan 
Colombia. Admittedly, that is a different scenario.
  In Mexico we have the Merida Initiative, where we train and provide 
equipment to help build their police and law enforcement capability.
  Are there things we ought to try to tie the money that goes to these 
countries to right now that would be productive programs and help solve 
the problem at its source?
  Mr. McCAIN. Absolutely. And I think, as we mentioned earlier, beefing 
up our embassy and consulate capabilities to hear these cases in the 
country of origin--particularly Central America--is very important.
  I would also point out an article entitled ``Deportation data won't 
dispel rumors drawing migrant minors to U.S.'' It is a very interesting 
piece.

       Organized crime groups in Central America have exploited 
     the slow U.S. legal process and the compassion shown to 
     children in apparent crisis, according to David Leopold, an 
     immigration attorney in Cleveland.
       He said smugglers, who may charge a family up to $12,000 to 
     deliver a child to the border, often tell them exactly what 
     to say to American officials.
       ``The cartels have figured out where the hole is,'' he 
     said.
       As it now stands, the 2008 law guarantees unaccompanied 
     minors from those countries access to a federal asylum 
     officer and a chance to tell a U.S. judge that they were 
     victims of a crime or face abuse or sexual trafficking if 
     they are sent home. If the claim is deemed credible, judges 
     may grant a waiver from immediate deportation.
       ``Word of mouth gets back, and now people are calling and 
     saying, `This is what I said in court''', said a senior U.S. 
     law enforcement official, who was not authorized to speak on 
     the record. ``Whether it is true or not, the perception is 
     that they are successfully entering the United States. . . . 
     That is what is driving up the landings.''

  Of course, the numbers are staggering, as we have pointed out.
  The President himself spoke in the Rose Garden last week.

       Speaking in the Rose Garden last week, Obama said he was 
     sending a ``clear message'' to parents in Central America not 
     to send their children north in hopes of being allowed into 
     America.
       ``The journey is unbelievably dangerous for these kids,'' 
     Obama said. ``The children who are fortunate enough to 
     survive it will be taken care of while they go through the 
     legal process, but in most cases that process will lead to 
     them being sent back home.''

  Unfortunately, his statement is not backed up by the actual numbers. 
We are talking about one-tenth of these children actually being sent 
back, as they are being coached by these coyotes who are giving them 
the story to tell.
  I wish to emphasize on the part of all of us on this side of the 
aisle and every American we represent that we have compassion for these 
people. We care about a humanitarian crisis. We care about these 
children. It is not a matter of fortressing America. We are all for 
legal immigration. We are from every part of the world. We will be 
portrayed by the open border people, very frankly, as those who want to 
stop these poor children from being able to come to our country. It is 
not that. We are trying to stop the human abuses, the terrible things 
being perpetrated on these children under the false pretenses--they 
should be false pretenses but now not so false--that they can come to 
this country and stay.
  Mr. CORNYN. I think the senior Senator has accurately described how 
the cartels have figured out how to game the system.
  Indeed, with all the advertising we do down in Central America saying 
``don't come,'' as the junior Senator from Arizona indicated, as long 
as they get a call saying ``I made it'' and the cartels realize that 
for every migrant child they shuttle up through the smuggling corridors 
it is going to be another $5,000 or more in the bank, there is every 
incentive to continue.
  But I ask the senior Senator and perhaps our other colleagues--the 
President has said that he has a pen and he has a phone, and he is 
going to do things without Congress. He said that because he is 
frustrated. I know we all have experienced a level of frustration 
during the immigration debates from time to time and over the years. 
But he says he is going to consider issuing another order relative to 
deportation policy, which strikes me as doubling down on his message 
that he is not going to enforce the law; he is going to try to 
circumvent the law and basically welcome more people here outside of 
legal avenues. So I ask my colleagues, doesn't that make things worse, 
not better?
  Mr. McCAIN. Well, the other aspect of this that makes things worse: 
Of course, the President on the one hand agrees with us that they can't 
stay. I don't know how many times I have quoted him here. But at the 
same time, as any objective observer would indicate, the proposal that 
came over for $3.7 billion has nothing that would dispel the incentive 
and the magnet creating this flood of young people whose trip we have 
been talking about, I ask my friend from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Senator. I have to run to a hearing, but I 
wish to say yes. I, Senator McCain, Senator Feinstein on the other side 
of the aisle, and many others--I think everyone here--signed a letter 
to the President asking him to make a clear statement that children 
coming now will be deported. He did so, and so did the Secretary of 
Homeland Security. Our State Department has relayed that message. And 
you can say that until you are blue in the face, but if the reality is 
that unaccompanied minors who get here are then placed with guardians 
or families around the country and we appropriate $1.8 billion to do 
so, then the message being sent is exactly the opposite of what the 
President is saying.
  I think that is what we are all here today to say--that we have to 
not just say the right thing, we have to do the right thing. And the 
right thing is to change the law that allows the loophole for people to 
stay here indefinitely and send the message by actually sending 
children--as we do with unaccompanied minors from Mexico and Canada--
back because that will send the message clearer than any words we could 
say to those tight-knit communities who hear by word of mouth. And 
nobody is going to pay another $5,000 or $6,000 or $7,000 to send a 
child through those dangerous conditions to the border if they know 
they are going to be returned home.
  Mr. McCAIN. If I could finally add that this proposal that came over 
for $3.8 billion--and I can only speak for myself, but unless there are 
provisions in that legislation which would bring an end to this 
humanitarian crisis, then I cannot support it. I cannot vote for a 
provision which will then just perpetuate an unacceptable humanitarian 
crisis that is taking place on our southern border. I don't know if my 
colleague would agree.
  Mr. CRUZ. I would note that the confirmation and message of amnesty 
received by the parents entrusting their children to these drug dealers 
is the

[[Page 11584]]

Border Patrol report, which said that 95 percent of those coming 
believe they would get a permiso. They believe they would be allowed to 
go scot-free. That is the message being heard. It is why these children 
are being subjected to violence.
  A Lackland Air Force Base senior official described a young Hispanic 
child who is a quadriplegic, who is paralyzed from the neck down, and 
the drug cartels abandoned him on the Texas side of the Rio Grande. 
They found him lying by the river, on the other side of the river. That 
is the sort of care and consideration they are providing for these 
children. What is happening to these children is horrific.
  We are a compassionate nation. We have always been a compassionate 
nation. But any policy that continues children being abused by violent 
drug cartels is the opposite of compassion.
  So I ask two questions to my friend the senior Senator from Arizona.
  This afternoon I had lunch with the attorney general of Texas, Greg 
Abbott, who described that the attorney general of Texas and the U.S. 
Attorney's Office have recently arrested an alleged terrorist in Texas 
with ties to ISIS--with ties to the radical Islamic terrorists who are 
right now wreaking havoc across Iraq and Syria.
  The first question I would ask the senior Senator from Arizona is, 
how significant does he see the threat of terrorists crossing our 
porous border and targeting the homeland?
  Then, of the $3.7 billion President Obama has requested in the 
supplemental bill, just $160 million is directed to Border Patrol 
agents and immigration judges--both. So less than 5 percent of the 
total actually goes to boots on the ground.
  The second question I would ask of the senior Senator from Arizona 
is, in his judgment, is devoting less than 5 percent of the resources 
from this bill to boots on the ground a serious effort at securing the 
border and solving the problem?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would say to my colleague, the answer to the second 
question is obviously no. It is my understanding that if you break this 
legislation into individual illegal immigrant, it is like $80,000 per 
individual--a remarkable sum. I will be glad to be corrected for the 
record if that is not true.
  But concerning the Senator's first question, about a month ago, for 
the first time in Syria, an American citizen blew himself up as a 
suicide bomber in Syria.
  There are now thousands and thousands of Europeans--we believe there 
are as many as 100 U.S. citizens, although that number varies--who are 
fighting in Syria on behalf of the most radical terrorist organization: 
ISIS. These many hundreds of Europeans who are fighting there have--
guess what. As European citizens of these countries in Europe, they 
have a visa. They can go to a European country, get on a plane 
tomorrow, and fly to the United States of America because they are a 
citizen of one of the European countries with which we have a visa-free 
agreement.
  Our Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have 
all said unequivocally that the events that are transpiring now in the 
largest, most wealthy, most influential, and largest center for 
terrorism, between Syria and Iraq, is breeding these people who have 
said they want to attack the United States of America.
  Baghdadi, who is now the leader of ISIS, whom we saw on television 
apparently preaching at a mosque in Mosul the other day, despite the 
fact that there is $10 million on his head, when he left our prison 
camp Bucca in Iraq, he said: See you in New York. And I don't think he 
was joking.
  So this also is clearly a national security issue over time as well, 
I say to my friend from Texas.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Refugees

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we are here today to address a refugee 
crisis in America. I never thought I would have to use those words on 
the floor of the Senate, but there is no other way to describe what is 
happening on our southern border.
  What is happening in Central America--the violence, the kidnappings, 
the failure of the rule of law--is the root cause of the problem and it 
is threatening tens of thousands of families and thousands and 
thousands of children. It is causing a refugee crisis that is simply 
unacceptable in America and unacceptable in our hemisphere. Let's be 
clear. It is being caused in large measure by thousands in Central 
America who believe it is better to run for their lives and risk dying 
than stay and die for sure. It is nearly a 2,000-mile journey from 
these countries to the U.S. border. These families are not undertaking 
this journey lightly.
  My Republican colleagues make it sound as though parents are 
willingly choosing to risk their children's lives, send them on a 
2,000-mile journey fraught with smugglers, thieves, child abductors, 
and sex traffickers as if that is a choice. They are parents, just as 
we are parents. I, as a parent, cannot imagine having to make that 
choice--to send them on a perilous journey with no guarantees of 
survival except out of an absolute fear for their lives if they stay. 
To politicize the decision to send a child away as opportunistic, as a 
way to take advantage of American law, is as cynical a position as I 
have ever heard.
  First of all, there is no deferred action. Nothing we did for 
DREAMers in this country would help any of these people. They don't 
qualify under any elements of that provision. The immigration reform 
that passed here in the Senate by a broad bipartisan vote--68 votes--
would not help any one of these people because they would have had to 
have been in the country by December 31, 2011. Nothing in that law is 
an attraction--nothing.
  Yet the Republicans in the House of Representatives will not even 
take a vote on immigration reform. Frankly, my Republican friends 
cannot have it both ways. They cannot criticize the President--in fact, 
sue the President--for abusing his Executive authority and at the same 
time come to this floor and criticize him for a lack of leadership when 
they will not even cast a vote. That is nothing if not totally and 
transparently political.
  This is not about a welcome mat. It is a desperate effort on the part 
of thousands of parents to do what parents instinctively do, and that 
is to do what you must do to protect your child from the threats of 
violence and death at home even if it means sending them away.
  Let's be clear. First and foremost, violence and crime are a pandemic 
that has sadly become part of life in Central America--in Honduras, El 
Salvador, and Guatemala. Honduras has the highest per capita murder 
rate in the world. El Salvador and Guatemala are in the top five in the 
world.
  Second, more than 80 percent of the illicit drugs coming from South 
America to the United States travel through Central America. Drug 
traffickers and local gangs harass and extort local residents, and they 
are able to use their profits to corrupt the police, judicial system, 
and government institutions.
  Third, the rates of poverty and inequality in these countries are sky 
high, while levels of economic growth and development lag far behind 
other countries in Latin America.
  A recent report by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees found the 
majority of the minors they interviewed here in the United States had 
left their home country out of fear. The bottom line is we must attack 
this problem from a foreign policy perspective, from a refugee 
perspective, and from a national security perspective. We need to do 
all we can to stabilize the situation in Central America and stop the 
flow of children and refugees to our border.

[[Page 11585]]

  After a full year of squandering every conceivable opportunity to 
pass commonsense immigration reform, Speaker Boehner has admitted his 
party has killed any prospects for reform. Now we have to deal with the 
political consequences of the Republican leadership's obstructionism.
  I fully support the President's efforts to fix some of the most 
urgent problems facing our Nation's broken immigration system, and I 
look forward to seeing those families who are here and eligible receive 
relief from deportation as we continue to advocate for a permanent 
legislative solution.
  In the meantime, we need to provide emergency funding to deal with 
this refugee crisis. To begin with, the President's supplemental 
appropriation request is a very tough pro-enforcement legislation.
  By the way, as we talk about more money for enforcement, we are 
actually doing a good job in enforcement of the border. Why do I say 
that? Because the reason we know of the size of the refugee challenge 
we are facing is because we are interdicting and apprehending these 
people at the border and then putting them in detention facilities. It 
is not that the Border Patrol is not doing their job. They are doing 
their job.
  Yet we have a supplemental request on the appropriations bill that 
includes $3.7 billion for enforcement, Homeland Security, and other 
resources. It provides critical funding to prosecute traffickers who 
are bringing these kids here, and that is what my Republican colleagues 
have been asking for.
  Let's be clear. We need to keep the supplemental clean and free of 
riders and authorizing language. If we don't keep it clean, it will 
never get passed. One person will want to add an item to immigration 
reform, and then another person will want to add an item to immigration 
reform. The bottom line is this body already passed--with over 68 
votes--comprehensive immigration reform. We don't need to have a debate 
on a bill we have already passed. We need to deal with the emergency.
  I love it when my Republican friends scream for action. This is 
emergency funding, and it is as conservative as it gets, focused almost 
entirely on enforcement. The bill is giving Republicans what they have 
always asked for--more money for border enforcement, especially in the 
border States.
  We need to provide the President with the money so he can handle the 
refugee crisis. It is what we expect of nations around the world. It is 
what we tell other nations around the world. The history of America is 
to treat refugees appropriately and according to international 
standards.
  Some of these children and families are refugees and some of them are 
not. The children who have claims should be able to pursue those claims 
with a day in court under existing U.S. law. If they lose, they will be 
deported. We have a legal system to address the crisis. Let's use it, 
and let's give the President the resources he needs to enforce it.
  The President's supplemental appropriations request, in my mind, is 
an essential beginning, but I hope the administration will consider the 
20-point plan I laid out that deals, in part, and I think importantly, 
with the root causes. Because if we spend $3.7 billion for enforcement 
and spend what we have been spending, which is about $110 million among 
five countries in Central America to create citizen security so people 
don't flee in the first place, it seems to me we have this equation a 
little wrong. We are going to spend $3.7 billion to deal with the 
consequences, but we are going to spend $110 million to deal with the 
cause. If we don't deal with the cause, guess what. There will never be 
enough money, and there will always be a continuing challenge of 
refugees fleeing the violence in their countries.
  I hope we will increase aid for citizen security directed to help 
them with our law enforcement entities, to deal with the security of 
their country, to deal with the drug traffickers, to deal with the 
gangs. I hope we will increase aid to be able to create a sense of 
security in neighborhoods so people don't flee the country; so it isn't 
likely that your mother or father will be killed in front of you or 
your brother will be killed or your sister will be raped, which is 
increasingly the stories heard from these individuals, and that we will 
do it while implementing humane reforms that don't put innocent 
children in harm's way.
  South of our border, we are seeing unprecedented violence, 
unprecedented suffering, unprecedented abuse. This is far more than an 
immigration issue, it is a refugee issue, much as we have seen in other 
parts of the world, and we must stop it. It will not be easy. There are 
no easy answers and no easy fixes, but I, for one, believe we should 
muster all the outrage we can to come up with a short-term fix and a 
long-term solution, as well as a strategy that does the following:
  First, we have to identify the root causes of this far-reaching 
refugee problem. Second, we have to put pressure on governments in the 
hemisphere that are not handling crime and violence in their Nations in 
a way that prevents families from sending their children across the 
border in the first place. Third, we need to combat the smuggling and 
trafficking rings in Central America. That is in our own national 
security interests. Fourth, we have to effectively deal with the 
situation at hand and meet the humanitarian needs of these children--
and I mean children, 8 years old, 7 years old--no matter what it takes, 
without placing them in jail in the process. Fifth, we have to deal 
with the overriding issues and basic causes from a foreign policy point 
of view. Then, we can deal with the join-or-die gang recruitment and 
the gang threats against children and their families in the 
hemisphere--in Honduras and in Guatemala. Six, we have to do all we can 
to combat international crime, working with our neighbors to end the 
violence, threats, and crime activity that is destabilizing the region. 
Seventh, we need to crack down hard on the explosion of gangs and 
smugglers forcing families apart and preying on young children.
  I can tell my colleagues, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, I am seeing day after day violence in so many countries 
spreading to so many countries, but I have never seen or thought I 
would see refugees from this hemisphere spilling over our borders. We 
need to act, and we have to deal with the immediate crisis at hand.
  This is not just a challenge here. Asylum claims in the region, 
meaning to other countries in the Central American region, have 
skyrocketed by 700 percent in recent years. Current law protects the 
ability of those children under our system who apply for asylum and 
trafficking protection and other specialized forms of relief to have 
their day in court. Not every child will have a valid claim, and those 
who do not will ultimately be deported and reintegrated back to what is 
obviously a violent set of circumstances as it exists today, but that 
will be the case. But it is critically important that every child be 
given the chance to have due process under our existing law so we don't 
inadvertently return them to death and violence. There are better ways 
to deal with this population than through detention or expedited 
proceedings that don't undermine that due process.
  I would like the administration to explore the use of alternatives to 
detention for families we want to monitor and make sure they show up at 
their court proceedings. This supplemental appropriations bill should 
also include the opportunity to make sure we look at those systems and 
that the representation of children in court is an adequate one.
  While the short-term needs are very pressing, we must also not ignore 
the long-term importance of shoring up our regional security in Central 
America. Congress should increase funding for CARSI, the Central 
America Regional Security Initiative, to assist with narcotics 
interdiction, institutional capacity building, and violence prevention.
  State and USAID must develop a long-term strategy that includes 
increased development budgets to support sustainable growth. The 
Millennium Challenge Corporation should accelerate engagement in the 
region. I also think the State Department

[[Page 11586]]

should designate a high-level coordinator to establish an office to be 
the focal point for policy formulation and a response to humanitarian 
concerns facing children escaping this region. Lastly, State and USAID 
should work together to establish effective repatriation and 
reintegration programs for children who are returning to their home 
countries.
  If we don't deal with the root causes, this is what is going to 
happen: We will expedite the process, we will deport, and when they go 
home and face the same violence we have done nothing to change, their 
option will still be the same, flee or die. And they will take the risk 
all over again, and we will have the challenge all over again.
  There are no easy answers, but I truly believe, at the end of the 
day, immigration reform--which had very significant border protection 
provisions, very significant antitrafficking and smuggling of 
individuals--in terms of assistance to deal with those challenges, 
would have been and is still incredibly important.
  Convincing our Republican colleagues in the House that if we continue 
to do nothing, then there will continue to be trouble on our borders 
and the refugee problem will only get worse seems to be a difficult 
proposition. The fact is the Senate-passed bill actually contains 
important border security measures. If it had been passed in the House 
1 year ago when the Senate passed it and sent it over there, then maybe 
we would have preempted a good part of the challenge we have today. It 
contains antismuggling, antitrafficking measures. It contains 
provisions to address criminal activity. Yet the House Republican 
leadership cannot bring itself to marginalize the extreme rightwing and 
do what is right and just and fair.
  The bottom line is that we have to attack this problem from a refugee 
perspective, a foreign policy perspective, and a national security 
perspective. We need to do all we can to maximize our effort to fight 
the criminals, increase development opportunities, and provide the type 
of economic statecraft that can provide relief. We have to give 
families a chance to fight back economically and politically against 
those who are causing the violence and the illicit trafficking, the 
gang and drug violence, and those running criminal networks in the 
region.
  I am concerned and I am angry and it is time to fight back, but it is 
also time to deal with the crisis that is upon us, and we can only do 
that if we give the President the resources to meet the challenge. 
Failure to be willing to support the resources to do that will rest on 
those who cast a negative vote and, therefore, from my perspective, 
will risk the national security along the border of the United States, 
will risk the consequences of the humanitarian and refugee crisis that 
will continue to flow, and will risk the consequences of the drug 
traffickers in Central America, the gangs in Central America, all who 
use that as a route to come to the United States.
  It is easy to say no. It is far more difficult to be constructive. So 
far what I have heard in response to this crisis is the negativity of 
no, the criticism of the President for using Executive powers when the 
Congress of the United States fails to act in its own right. You can't 
have it both ways. This is a moment to call for the greater interests 
of the Nation than to play partisan politics that I have seen so far.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the humanitarian 
situation on our southern border.
  Over the last year, we have seen a flood of unaccompanied children 
come from Central American countries such as El Salvador, Honduras, and 
Guatemala. In fact, the number of children has more than doubled in the 
past year to nearly 60,000. This is a humanitarian crisis, and it is 
heartbreaking.
  Sadly, there are some who believe they have found a simple solution 
to this problem--that we can somehow just round up these young children 
and send them back on a plane where they came from immediately. I 
disagree.
  The United States has always been a leader in providing aid and 
assistance to those in danger and in need. These are values our country 
and Congress have overwhelmingly endorsed. In fact, the current 
procedures for dealing with children from these countries were set in a 
2008 law. The law was signed by President Bush and unanimously passed 
by both the House and the Senate. These procedures are in place because 
our values as a nation dictate that we do what we can to protect 
children from violence and trafficking.
  It saddens me that there are some who have even called for changing 
this underlying protective law, presumably so we can just ship these 
children back to where they came from without the due process 
protections this law affords. Of the thousands of children showing up 
at our doorstep, many of whom were at risk in the hands of criminal 
smugglers during their trip, 40 percent of them are young girls. Many 
are under the age of 12 and have been sent on their own without the 
protection of their parents or other family. These children aren't 
coming here because of President Obama or Democrats or Republicans. 
They are coming to our border because of the terrible violence and 
conditions they face in their home countries. In fact, there is a 
direct correlation between growing violence in these home countries and 
the increasing waves of children coming to the United States.
  For example, many face join-or-die gang recruitment situations which 
amount to forced conscription such as we saw with the child soldiers in 
other countries. They are subjected to sexual violence and brutality. 
It is hard for someone from our country to imagine how severe this 
violence is, but data from the United Nations offers some perspective.
  The U.N. estimates that the murder rate in Honduras in 2012 was 30 
percent higher than U.N. estimates of the civilian casualty rate at the 
height of the Iraq war. That is a staggering level of violence for any 
nation to endure. We all agree the current situation is unsustainable 
and needs to be addressed, but simply sending children back into harm's 
way is not the answer. We should be working together to address the 
root causes that are pushing these children to make these dangerous 
journeys.
  I am proud to have worked with my colleague Senator Menendez, from 
whom we just heard, to introduce a comprehensive plan to address this 
issue. That plan is a bit more complicated than simply rounding up 
children and shipping them out, but it is clear this crisis requires 
action on several fronts.
  First, we should continue to crack down on human smuggling and 
criminal activity in concert with the children's home countries. 
Second, we have to honor our domestic and legal requirements related to 
the treatment of children, refugees, and asylum seekers. This means 
supporting the administration's efforts to provide humane treatment to 
these children. Third, we have to redouble our efforts to support 
peace, economic growth, and social development in Central America.
  I look forward to discussing more of the details of our plan with any 
of my colleagues who want to work together constructively to solve this 
problem. Only by focusing on addressing the root cause of this crisis 
can we truly address it.
  The President has been managing a coordinated response to handle this 
very difficult, heartbreaking situation. I hope we can work together to 
provide adequate resources to professionals on the ground. We must also 
continue pressing for comprehensive immigration reform so our system 
will not be so overwhelmed in times such as these.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, as you do now, I recently had the honor 
of presiding over this Chamber and had the opportunity in the hour I 
just finished presiding to listen to our colleagues as they have come 
to this floor, as you just have, Madam President, to speak to the 
humanitarian crisis unfolding on the southern border of our country. 
And sadly--I think truly

[[Page 11587]]

sadly--I have listened to a whole series of our Republican colleagues 
use this opportunity to line up on the floor and to whale upon our 
President and claim that this humanitarian crisis is his fault, that it 
is solely the fault of the President that there are tens of thousands 
of children coming to the American border unaccompanied, seeking refuge 
in this country, that it is solely his fault. It is tough to even know 
where to begin in responding to these suggestions, but let me try. Let 
me start from my perspective as a member of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee.
  It is important first to remember that this is no ordinary issue of 
border security or of immigration enforcement. This is a humanitarian 
and a refugee crisis. The tens of thousands of children--young 
children--presenting themselves alone at the border of the United 
States are not dangerous criminals who threaten our national safety. 
They are so often children who have traveled thousands of miles from 
their home countries at enormous risk and expense, and they have come 
not because our border is wide open, not because it is unsecure. In 
fact, virtually all of them are being interdicted at the border by our 
effective border security. The challenge is that these children are 
being sent on these incredibly long and expensive and dangerous and 
difficult trips in the first place.
  Our Republican colleagues have suggested that this is solely caused 
by our President's lawlessness, that somehow either a law that was 
proposed and passed here in the Senate, a comprehensive immigration 
reform bill, or the President's deferred action program with regard to 
those who are so-called DREAMers is what is causing this flood of child 
refugees to this country.
  But as has been said by other of our colleagues just in the last 
hour, neither of those two things--neither the comprehensive 
immigration bill passed on a bipartisan basis by this Chamber nor the 
deferred action program of the administration--would create really any 
legal opportunity for these child refugees to stay in the United 
States. Neither of them applies. In order to get access to the benefit 
and the opportunity to be in the United States under those two 
provisions, you would have to have been here years ago. The problem is 
really instability, violence, the tragic collapse of governance and 
safety in three Central American countries.
  If the magnet drawing thousands of refugees to this country were the 
actions or inactions of the President, would not we see a huge surge in 
refugees from elsewhere in Central America, from Panama or from Belize 
or from Costa Rica or everyone closer to us from Mexico as well? But we 
have not.
  In the last 5 years child migrants from Mexico have stayed relatively 
flat, while children from the three countries that are the focus of 
current violence--El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala--have surged out 
of control. In 2009 child migrants from those three countries made up 
just 17 percent of all the children trying to come across the American 
border. This year, three-quarters are coming from El Salvador, 
Honduras, and Guatemala.
  Why are they coming from these three countries? Why these three 
countries?
  Well, if you ask them, they will tell you. The United Nations High 
Commissioner for Refugees surveyed, last year, 404 child refugees and 
asked: Why have you made this long and dangerous and difficult trip to 
the American border? Only 9 of 404 surveyed said because they believed 
the U.S. would ``treat them well.'' More than half said they came out 
of fear because they were ``forcibly displaced.'' They are refugees, 
not criminals.
  We need to deal with the source of the problem in these three 
countries, not make this a partisan game on the floor of this Chamber. 
I think the evidence is clear that these children are being sent on 
this difficult, long, and expensive trip by their parents in 
desperation--because they have no other choice. If they stay in their 
home countries, the levels of violence, of gang activity, of murder 
have skyrocketed off the charts. They are fleeing not just to America 
but to Mexico, to Nicaragua, to Costa Rica as well. Children are 
fleeing the violence in these three countries in every direction--not 
because they are drawn by the magnet of some failure of immigration 
policy here but because they are driven by the centrifugal force of 
violence in these three countries. In fact, asylum applications from 
children are up by more than 700 percent in the countries of Mexico, 
Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Belize--the countries immediately 
around these three that are at the very center of the violence.
  It is my hope that with the emergency supplemental request submitted 
by the President, as we consider it and debate it in a hearing in the 
Appropriations Committee tomorrow and as we debate it here on the 
floor, we will see more and more ways in which this emergency 
supplemental provides resources needed to ensure that these children 
are given the fair hearing they are entitled to under the law--a law 
signed by President Bush, passed unanimously by this Chamber; that we 
will honor our international commitment and allow these children their 
day in court, and if they have no legitimate claim to refugee status, 
they will be deported, but if they have a legitimate claim, that they 
are treated fairly.
  Families and children are fleeing these Central American countries 
because conditions have become unbearable. Gangs, narcotics groups, and 
corrupt officials have weakened security situations and created an 
environment where innocent civilians are targeted by gangs.
  In Honduras, for example, as has been mentioned earlier today, in the 
city of San Pedro Sula, the murder rate is four times higher, the 
chance of dying through murder is four times higher than faced by 
American troops in the highest years of combat deaths in Iraq. It has 
one of the highest murder rates on the planet.
  In Guatemala, a weak government lacks the capacity to address 
insecurity and poverty, and these forces continue to drive Guatemalans 
to flee and to send their children to seek some peace outside their 
country.
  In El Salvador, after a failed truce, gangs have divided up territory 
and are challenging control of the state, while bringing violence into 
every neighborhood.
  Despite these significant issues, we can and we should contribute and 
invest more in partnership with these three countries to hold them 
accountable for delivering on stability for their citizens.
  Visits by the Vice President, by the Secretary of State, and meetings 
with the leaders of these three countries have laid out a path forward 
and a plan, and funding in this emergency supplemental will help 
contribute to the prosecution of the coyotes and the criminal gangs who 
are profiting off of the trafficking of these children, to increasing 
the capacity of these countries to receive back those children and 
adults who are being repatriated, and to leading a media campaign to 
make sure parents understand that children sent to the United States 
are not automatically entitled to stay in the United States.
  We have to strengthen our efforts to counter corruption, to hold 
these governments accountable, and to assist in building stronger 
security, judicial, and governing institutions in these three Central 
American countries.
  I am also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate 
Appropriations Committee. From those seats, I know how important it is 
that we make sure resources are available to our badly overstretched 
immigration enforcement system. This provides additional resources for 
immigration judges, for the Legal Orientation Program, and for 
providing counsel to minors. As has been mentioned earlier today on 
this floor, we have an international obligation, when children fleeing 
violence present legitimate claims for refugee status, to make sure 
they have their day in court before either repatriating them to their 
country of origin or allowing them refugee status here.
  This emergency supplemental would increase the funding so there would 
not

[[Page 11588]]

be such an enormous backlog of cases, so there would be a Legal 
Orientation Program, which has a proven record of success. While it 
does not provide personal counsel to everyone awaiting trial, it gives 
out basic information so legitimate claims can be made and illegitimate 
claims do not waste the time of our immigration courts.
  Last, providing counsel to minor children it is a small portion of 
this total supplemental, but if you have a child who is a victim of 
child trafficking, who has a valid asylum claim, they have to be given 
the opportunity to present a valid claim.
  We already know funding in these areas is insufficient to meet this 
surge in refugee minors seeking the relief of the American country and 
court system, and I think we have to do both: invest in ensuring 
stability in the three countries in Central America from which tens of 
thousands of children are fleeing and invest in ensuring that our 
border security, our immigration courts, and the reasonable and 
appropriate process for separating out those who are legitimate 
refugees from those who are seeking access to our country illegally is 
done in a fair and an appropriate way.
  A refugee crisis is not the time for us to abandon our laws or our 
values. It is the time for us to enforce and abide those laws--fairly 
and efficiently. To do so, I think, frankly, our best solution would be 
to have the House take up, consider, and pass the comprehensive 
immigration bill, the bipartisan immigration bill that was taken up and 
passed by this Chamber over a year ago. Frankly, I think this crisis is 
in no small part because of a critical opportunity that we missed a 
year ago to legislate in a responsible, bicameral, and bipartisan way 
to invest more in the border, to invest more in stabilizing the region, 
and to invest more in ensuring that we have the resources in our courts 
to deliver justice in this country appropriately.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Connecticut.


                       Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the matter before this Chamber is the 
sportsmen's bill. Most of us, including myself, support and encourage 
sportsmen and sportsmanship. This bill has many laudable provisions. 
Among other provisions, it expands opportunities for sportsmen to use 
guns on Federal property with the encouragement of Federal law.
  I voted in favor of this bill, in effect, when the issue was clotured 
almost 2 years ago because I support sportsmen and think that Federal 
law should, in fact, encourage them. I voted against cloture just a few 
days ago and I oppose this bill now because since that first vote, this 
Nation has experienced the horrific and unspeakable horror of Sandy 
Hook, coming after decades of horror and unspeakable violence resulting 
from the illegal use of guns and the illegal purchase of guns in this 
Nation. There are too many guns illegally in the possession of 
criminals and other people dangerous to themselves or others.
  I have worked on this issue for decades, first as attorney general 
and now as a Senator. I cannot vote for this bill expanding the use of 
guns on Federal property with the encouragement of Federal law, so long 
as this great institution has done nothing--absolutely nothing--to make 
America safer from the kind of carnage and killing that is epitomized 
by the terrible and unspeakable tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook.
  I have spoken often about that tragedy. I have continued to meet with 
the loved ones of those 20 wonderful and beautiful children and 6 great 
educators. They are with me, as is the terrible tragedy of that day 
when I went to the firehouse where they learned for the first time that 
their loved ones would not be coming home. But I have stood also with 
loved ones from urban areas of Hartford, New Haven, and elsewhere from 
all other the country--victims of gun violence who perished 
unnecessarily and avoidably.
  They are the survivors of this continuing carnage that just this past 
weekend took tens of victims from around the country, including many in 
Chicago--as has been described so eloquently by Senator Durbin--and two 
alone in the east side of Bridgeport, CT, just this past weekend.
  I have stood with the family of Lori Jackson, her mom and dad. She 
was a young woman with two small children--twins--murdered by her 
estranged husband when he was under a restraining order, a temporary 
restraining order, literally the day before a permanent one would go 
into effect and he would have been barred under current law from 
possessing or buying a firearm of exactly the kind he used to kill her.
  Lori Jackson's mom was almost killed. A bullet went through her jaw 
and part of her head. Another went through her arm. As she stood with 
me, she was still bandaged from that wound. They stood with me because 
they want to save others from the terrible tragic fate that befell her 
that early morning as she sought refuge in their home--her parent's 
home--knowing her estranged husband was treacherously, dangerously, 
perilously, searching for her.
  But the law could not protect her. Federal law was powerless to do it 
because of a loophole that, in effect, exempted temporary restraining 
orders from the same protection that is provided to permanent 
restraining orders. Yet we know from her experience and from so many 
others that the initial period--those 10 days to 2 weeks when there is 
a temporary order--are the most dangerous and perilous times to women 
and others who are threatened by their intimate partners, spouses or 
former spouses. It is the most dangerous time because it is when the 
intimate partner, often the estranged husband, learns that she is 
leaving. It is over. She is seeking a divorce. She is taking the kids 
because it has become too dangerous. The threats have become too real 
and immediate.
  That was Lori Jackson's situation. I have offered a bill to close the 
loophole that rendered Federal law useless to her. I called it the Lori 
Jackson bill. I am offering an amendment that is identical to that 
legislation I introduced with my great colleague and friend Senator 
Murphy, who has been a teammate in this effort against gun violence.
  The Lori Jackson bill has nine other cosponsors: Senators Durbin, 
Murray, Boxer, Hirono, Warren, Markey, Baldwin, Menendez, and Kaine. 
The identical amendment that I propose today is supported by Senators 
Murphy, Durbin, Markey, Warren, Markey, Feinstein, Hirono, and Boxer.
  Lori Jackson was so brave. There is really no other word for it. She 
was brave, courageous, resolute, and strong--trying to escape the cycle 
of domestic violence which is a scourge across this country. We must 
continue the effort to fight domestic violence. But we know that a 
woman who is a victim of domestic violence is five times more likely to 
die if there is a gun in the house.
  In her name and her memory, so that her legacy will be one of hope 
and courage, I offer this amendment to the sportsmen's bill. Let us do 
something to make the Lori Jacksons of America safer from gun violence, 
if we are going to expand the use and opportunity for guns on Federal 
property or under Federal law. Because it is Federal law that failed to 
protect them now--a simple loophole, that a modest change can close. 
Let's do it in her name and in the name of Jasmine Leonard, who also 
had a temporary protection order against her husband and who died at 
his hand; Chyna Joy Young, who celebrated her 18th birthday just days 
before she was shot and killed by her estranged boyfriend; Barbara 
Diane Dye, who was granted a temporary restraining order and then fled 
to safety in Texas, returning only for a hearing on the permanent 
restraining order when her husband cornered her in a parking lot, and 
shot her repeatedly with a .357 Magnum revolver, killing her--and in 
the name of all of the other victims of domestic violence whom we can 
protect with this sensible, commonsense, modest measure that offers 
them some protection. I know that this amendment and the others that I 
supported offered by my colleagues such as that

[[Page 11589]]

of Senator Durbin, who has been such a steadfast champion, and Senator 
Feinstein, who likewise spearheaded this cause well before I came here, 
while I was attorney general working in the State of Connecticut on 
this cause.
  I know that this measure will not alone solve the problems of gun 
violence in this country. But it is a step. It will save some women and 
men who may be victims of domestic violence. It is to be regarded as a 
companion to legislation proposed by Senator Klobuchar--very important 
legislation that I support as well, to prevent stalkers from accessing 
firearms. These kinds of measures are steps in the right direction. We 
should take those steps, put them first, and give safety the priority 
it deserves before we create more opportunities, and expand more access 
to Federal land for the use of guns. Gun safety should come first. We 
can send that message but also very practically and really help save 
lives, injuries, and dollars.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. I know we have some other colleagues on the way down to 
the floor to speak, so I will be brief. I just want to join Senator 
Blumenthal and thank him for his tremendous leadership, as he noted, 
going back to his days as Connecticut's attorney general and now as a 
member of the Judiciary Committee. There have been few people in this 
country, frankly, who have led more on taking on the fight against gun 
violence, especially when it comes to protecting victims of domestic 
violence, than Senator Blumenthal. I am proud to join him in offering 
this amendment.
  After being married for a number of years, Zina Daniel and her 
husband Radcliffe Haughton became estranged. In October of 2012 she got 
a restraining order against him, telling a court that he had slashed 
her tires and had threatened to throw acid in her face and burn her and 
her family with gas.
  She told the court that his threats against her terrorized her every 
waking moment. She got a permanent restraining order, but even that 
permanent restraining order was not enough. He went on line--her 
estranged husband--went around our background check system, as is 
currently part of Federal law, and posted a ``want to buy'' ad on 
Armslist, one of the biggest online marketers of firearms. Within hours 
he found a seller. He bought a Glock handgun for $500 cash in a 
McDonald's parking lot. There was no background check. There were no 
questions asked by our seller. It was a simple transaction that was 
allowed because of our lax gun laws.
  The next day he stormed into the Brookfield, WI, spa where his 
estranged wife worked and he murdered her and two other women. He 
injured four others and then he killed himself. This story is a caution 
both about our laws that protect victims of domestic violence but then 
also our unreasonable laws right now around how we conduct background 
checks in this country.
  He was prevented from going into a store and buying a handgun only 
because Zina had gotten a permanent restraining order. But had she had 
a temporary restraining order, there would have been no such 
protection. That is what the amendment Senator Blumenthal and I have 
will cure. It will give spouses, girlfriends, partners, protection 
during that moment of intense rage right when the husband is expelled 
from the house for violence, when that temporary restraining order is 
being taken out.
  But this story also tells us that we have miles to go when it comes 
to the other protections that are necessary to reduce the incidents of 
gun violence. In this case she had one protection surrounding the 
permanent restraining order, but because we do not require background 
checks for online purchases, her husband was able to buy a gun within a 
day and go and murder her and two others.
  If we had background checks required for online purchases, it is 
likely that Zina Daniel and her two coworkers would still be alive 
today. So that is why we are on the floor today. Senator Blumenthal and 
I and many others of our colleagues believe that if we are going to 
have a weeklong debate about guns, we should be talking about what 
actions are actually going to reduce the epidemic rates of gun violence 
across this country, in particular the epidemic rates of gun violence 
when it comes to people who are victims of domestic abuse.
  Senator Blumenthal probably covered the landscape in terms of the 
statistics.
  But it is pretty stunning the risks that women in particular are put 
in when their spouse has easy access to a firearm. Abused women are 
five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if their abuser 
owns a firearm, and one of the few moments we can prevent that abuser 
from obtaining that firearm is when the court gets involved at that 
moment of separation between the wife and the husband, between the 
abused and the abuser, that moment of the temporary restraining order.
  Senator Blumenthal and I think this is an amendment that could get 
broad bipartisan support. I wish we could get 60 votes for background 
checks, but I am realistic that it is not likely that five minds have 
changed since the last time we took this vote.
  But just as we came together after a period of disagreement to pass 
the Violence Against Women Act, we can certainly make the decision that 
in those limited circumstances, during those limited days of a 
temporary restraining order, that abuser shouldn't be able to go out 
and buy a weapon.
  Our amendment builds in protections so that this isn't a denial of 
due process; that the judge actually has to make a finding that there 
is a threat of violence. Those are fairly limited circumstances, but if 
this amendment is passed, we will save lives.
  Senator Blumenthal closed, and I will close in the same vein, by 
noting that while this amendment will save lives, it is not going to 
dramatically change the reality in this country, which is 80-plus 
people killed every day by guns. But everybody has a role to play in 
trying to reduce the rates of gun violence.
  A young man in New Haven, CT, by the name of Doug Bethea, lost a 
close friend of his this summer, a 16-year-old boy named Torrence 
Gamble, whom he saw at a funeral for another friend of theirs who had 
been killed by gun violence. Torrence said he wanted to get off the 
streets and start setting his life straight.
  He wanted to set up a time to meet with his friend Doug Bethea to try 
to find a way out. It was only a couple of days after saying, ``Doug, 
don't forget about me''--in fact, the very next day--that Torrance was 
shot in his head and died of his injuries at Yale-New Haven Hospital.
  So Doug decided to do something about it, and he spent the summer 
going out bringing information to house-to-house to tell families and 
kids in New Haven about their options to get off the streets, to do 
something productive with their time this summer, all of the rec 
leagues, arts programs, and dance programs that kids can invest 
positive energy in.
  Target did their part a couple weeks ago by asking their customers to 
refrain from bringing guns onto their property, and we can do our part 
this week. If we are going to talk about guns this week, let's make 
sure we do something that reduces the rates of gun violence all across 
this country. This is a commonsense amendment, an amendment I am sure 
can gain broad bipartisan support. We hope we can do our part this week 
to try to stem the plague and scourge of gun violence on the streets of 
America.


                       BIPARTISAN SPORTSMEN'S ACT

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I support S. 2363, the Bipartisan 
Sportsmen's Act of 2014. I am pleased to join 45 of my colleagues--23 
Republicans and 23 Democrats in total--as a cosponsor of this 
legislation.
  This package of bills supports a variety of important conservation 
priorities while protecting access to public lands for hunters and 
anglers. It reauthorizes annual funding for the National Fish and 
Wildlife Foundation and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, 
two public-private

[[Page 11590]]

matching grant programs that have provided wildlife habitat, flood 
protection, and land and water conservation benefits across Virginia. 
For instance, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Chesapeake 
Stewardship Grants leverage annual Federal support with private funds 
for projects that incur agricultural, stormwater, and habitation 
restoration benefits in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In 2013, Virginia 
received $2.5 million for 12 projects throughout its portion of the 
watershed.
  I have long supported measures to conserve open space in Virginia. 
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 3.3 million people participate in 
hunting, fishing, and wildlife-watching in the Commonwealth. As 
Governor, one of my proudest environmental achievements was meeting an 
ambitious goal of preserving 400,000 acres for recreation and 
conservation by the end of my 4-year term.
  While I am an avid hiker and outdoorsman, conservation is not just 
important to me for the intrinsic enjoyment of Virginia's beautiful 
lands and waters. Conservation is also good for business. According to 
the Outdoor Industry Association, outdoor recreation generates $13.6 
billion in consumer spending, 138,000 jobs, $3.9 billion in wages and 
salaries, and $923 million in State and local tax revenue in Virginia 
every year.
  It is no small feat to put together a bill supported by nearly half 
the U.S. Senate in equal partisan proportion. I encourage my colleagues 
to support this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Washington State 
is recognized.


                         The Export-Import Bank

  Ms. CANTWELL. I appreciate the comments made by the Senator from 
Connecticut, and I come to the floor to talk about a very important 
issue, U.S. manufacturing jobs and what the Senate needs to do to make 
sure we are protecting U.S. manufacturing jobs.
  I am speaking of the need to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, a 
credit agency that helps U.S. manufacturers and small businesses sell 
their products to overseas markets.
  Some of you may have read recently comments by some of our colleagues 
where they have shifted their position. The agency is set to expire on 
September 30 of this year, and it is so critical that we reauthorize 
this program because it is such an important tool for U.S. 
manufacturers.
  Over the last few weeks, fringe organizations and activists have 
suddenly tried to turn this into a political casualty, saying we should 
kill the program, and I am here to advocate that it is a win-win 
situation for American manufacturers, for American taxpayers, and for 
the jobs it creates. That is because the Export-Import Bank supports 
about 1.2 million jobs, it returned $1 billion to the U.S. Treasury 
last year alone, and it supports between 35,000 suppliers of 
manufactured parts, and that was just in the year 2011. As this chart 
shows, the Export-Import Bank helps us generate export sales and 
supports 1.2 million jobs. That is between 2009 and 2013.
  One would think a program that doesn't cost the taxpayers any money, 
actually helps us pay down the deficit, helps create that many export 
sales and that many jobs would be something we would want to 
reauthorize and give predictability to businesses all across the United 
States.
  In fact, if the credit agency is not reauthorized, nearly 90 percent 
of the companies that would be harmed are small businesses. Sure, there 
are big companies such as Boeing or General Electric or Caterpillar 
that help sell products around the globe, and some of my colleagues 
want to criticize that somehow we should be apologizing for the fact 
that we actually make expensive products and sell them.
  I am quite proud that we sell products from the United States to 
China and various parts all around the globe that are actually 
expensive products. We should be proud we are making something worth 
millions of dollars that people want to buy. So I am glad that ``Made 
In the USA'' is actually closing deals all across the globe.
  Today we also want to highlight that all of these companies that are 
in the manufacturing sector are part of a manufacturing chain. We know 
this well, because in the State of Washington, when we look at who 
makes aerospace products, while we can say there is a company in 
Everett, WA, named Boeing, there are hundreds of companies, thousands 
of companies across the United States that are part of what is called 
the supply chain.
  Behind every 777 or Caterpillar tractor there are thousands of 
workers who are working every day to refine their product, stay 
competitive, retrain, and refocus to make sure we build the very best 
products in the United States and that we are competing on a global 
basis.
  When these larger companies and small businesses they work with try 
to win deals overseas, they run into lots of different challenges. That 
is why we are here today to say making sure we reauthorize this program 
is critically important to small business manufacturers and suppliers 
throughout the United States.
  So with all of these small businesses and companies--30,000 to 35,000 
companies across the United States--there is actually a supplier in 
every State in the United States, but let's look at some of the 
numbers.
  In Georgia, there are over 833 different companies, such as United 
Seal and Rubber Company and other important companies, that make 
products just for aviation or for Caterpillar or for other products.
  In the State of Florida, there are over 1,252 different small 
businesses and manufacturers that are helping to produce products that 
are sold on an international basis, and those companies want the 
Export-Import Bank reauthorized.
  In the State of Wisconsin, there are over 1,397 different suppliers, 
such as Hentzen Coatings in Milwaukee, which provides primer, sealer, 
and wing coating. These are companies that also want to see the 
reauthorization of this important tool that helps products they help 
manufacture and build be sold in international markets.
  Of course, there are places, such as Texas, which have a lot of 
people in the supply chain. Here are just some of the companies that 
are involved in manufacturing that take advantage of this important 
export-created agency by building products into final assembly. They 
are all over the State of Texas.
  In fact, here is another continued list of these companies from Texas 
that are part of building products that are then using the Export-
Import Bank to sell their products around the globe. But we can't go 
over all of those in Texas because there are actually 4,355 different 
companies in the State of Texas that are involved in the supply chain 
of companies that are selling products through the export credit agency 
and its assistance.
  So we can see this is not a program that just affects one State or 
one region; it is an example of small business manufacturers working 
everywhere to stay competitive, to sell products, and win in the 
international marketplace.
  Personally, having visited many of these companies in the State of 
Washington, I find it very frustrating, as these people are working 
night and day to make the best airplanes, to make the best manufactured 
product, to take the risk to go and sell in overseas markets, to 
compete with international competitors, to retrain and reskill a 
workforce, that we have people in Congress who don't have the good 
common sense to understand what an important tool the Export-Import 
Bank is in helping U.S. manufacturers sell into new emerging markets.
  I know there are other States--we are not going to show charts about 
them--but in Ohio--I know the Presiding Officer is from Ohio--there are 
over 1,700 suppliers.
  These companies are companies such as Hartzell Propeller. They are a 
family-owned propeller manufacturer in Southwest Ohio. Hartzell is part 
of the Dayton aviation economy that dates back to the Wright brothers. 
In fact, it was Orville Wright who suggested that the Hartzell family 
build an airplane propeller.

[[Page 11591]]

  Today the Wright brothers are gone, but this company is still here 
and they are still innovating. In fact, I think they are part of the 
spirit of innovation in America that makes it so great.
  I am so frustrated that people here don't understand that innovative 
spirit, don't understand what it takes, don't understand that they are 
hampering--truly right now almost torturing--small businesses by not 
giving them the certainty and predictability for the export assistance 
program.
  This company builds crop-dusting plane propellers. Hartzell has grown 
its company from about 13 to about 300 people in the last 3 years, and 
that is because these crop-dusting planes have been sold using the 
Export-Import Bank. The loans haven't come directly to Hartzell as part 
of the Ex-Im supply chain, but companies similar to them that make 
these propellers are important companies to making sure we win in the 
international marketplace.
  The President of this company, Joe Hartzell, I thought said it best. 
He said:

       If you take Ex-Im away from my customers, you might as well 
     bring unemployment checks to their offices, because you're 
     going to put people on the street. If they're not building as 
     many airplanes, then I'm going to have a jobs problem.

  Here is a manufacturer--I heard the same thing in Seattle a few weeks 
ago when I was there--a company in Ohio saying if we don't get this 
program reauthorized, we are going to have bigger problems. So people 
such as Hartzell are trying to tell everyone here we need to keep 
working to make sure we get this reauthorized.
  We need to make sure companies throughout the Midwest, such as in 
Wichita, KS, or people in the West, such as in Tempe, AZ, or companies 
in Irving, TX, everywhere where we are part of this huge supply chain, 
are doing the work we need to do.
  Another area that is big on the supply chain is in the general area 
of aviation, and it supports over 200,000 jobs. So 200,000 jobs 
represents the number of people who are involved in aviation today, and 
those are individuals, businesses that are doing their best to stay 
competitive in aviation, even though we have incredible competition.
  This incredible competition comes from the fact that there are so 
many different companies around the globe that also want to build 
airplanes. There is a demand for 35,000 new airplanes over the next 20 
years. So we can imagine every country wants to try to build airplanes. 
China wants to build airplanes. Brazil is already in the business, 
Canada, the Europeans. Everybody wants to build airplanes.
  The good news for us is we actually have a supply chain in the United 
States, and this chart represents that supply chain of 15,000 
manufacturers and over 1.5 million jobs.
  These are all companies throughout the United States of America who 
are involved in using the Export-Import Bank to make sure their 
products are sold on an international basis. There are actually jobs in 
companies in every State of the Union that take advantage of being part 
of this supply chain.
  And why it is so important to keep the supply chain? Because if you 
keep the supply chain in your country, then you have the skill set it 
takes to keep innovating, because each of these companies is working on 
the individual parts and making them the best they can possibly be. 
That way we get the efficient airplane of today. This innovation is 
taking place all across the country, and we have to stay competitive.
  Now, get rid of the Export-Import Bank and over time this supply 
chain will start to disappear. Why? Because in Europe they will still 
have an Export-Import Bank, and companies such as Airbus will continue 
to use that product and they will have a supply chain, and over time 
all these small businesses and all this expertise in aviation will move 
out of the United States of America to somewhere else. Then what 
manufacturing jobs will we have in the United States?
  Aviation is one of the best sectors for manufacturing that we have 
today. With over 1.5 million employees, we need to keep aviation 
manufacturing competitive in the United States of America. That is why 
we need to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
  There are other sectors of aviation, such as Gulfstream, which is 
another company, based in Savannah, GA, and has been one of the 
foremost makers of business jets. They have watched their international 
competition increase steadily over the last decade, and the Export-
Import Bank has helped them be competitive. The Gulfstream supply chain 
has about 3,500 different businesses and about 13,000 employees, and 
all those employees are working hard to try to stay competitive. They 
are working to make sure we keep those jobs in the United States of 
America. But they also have to have the Export-Import Bank so they can 
then continue to win in the international marketplace. Gulfstream 
actually sells product to China. So jobs in Georgia and throughout the 
supply chain are helping us win in the international marketplace.
  Whether they are composite companies or light industrial or fuselage 
skins, all of these things are helping people be competitive.
  Right now, Gulfstream and the supply chain has sold 8,000 planes to 
China. That helped support 2,100 jobs, and most of those jobs were 
right in the Savannah, GA, area. So if we are going to cancel the 
Export-Import Bank, how are they going to get these products financed 
and how are they going to get them sold?
  While we are very appreciative of both sectors of aviation--the 
commercial sector and general aviation sector, and we haven't even 
talked about the others, such as the defense sectors of aviation--these 
are two big components to our economy. Some people might think, well, 
there is a way to get these planes sold, or these are big companies, 
these are integral parts to our U.S. manufacturing base, and we need to 
keep it. The demand of the United States, as I said earlier, is for 
35,000 new planes over the next 20 years, and 80 percent of those 
planes will be delivered outside of the United States. That means if we 
want to keep winning the race for airplane sales, we are going to have 
to work outside the United States.
  Yesterday, Standard & Poor's reported that if the Export-Import Bank 
is not reauthorized, it would be a huge benefit to Airbus. In fact, 
they said:

       . . . Airbus would still be able to offer . . . financing, 
     and this could be a deciding factor for some new aircraft 
     contracts, especially in emerging markets and for sales to 
     start-up or financially weak airlines.

  In other words, we would be sending U.S. jobs overseas, and that is 
not what we want to do. Countries are building up their investment to 
try to compete with us, and the Export-Import Bank is a key tool for 
U.S. manufacturers to compete.
  Trade is a critically important part of our economy. In 2013, U.S. 
exports reached $2.3 trillion worth of goods, and a key part of that 
export growth can be attributed to this program. The Export-Import Bank 
supported $37.4 billion worth of U.S. exports which supported over 
200,000 jobs in the United States. That alone is enough information for 
me to say the Senate ought to act quickly to reauthorize this program.
  There are many other aspects of the Export-Import Bank that help 
small businesses and manufacturing. In fact, there are about 12 million 
manufacturing jobs in the United States, and 1 in 4 jobs is tied to 
exports. That is why, when I think my colleagues try to portray the 
Export-Import Bank as an issue that maybe a few big companies would 
benefit from, I think they have it totally wrong. This is an issue 
about the competitive nature of manufacturing and the supply chain of 
manufacturers all across the United States, and whether we want to keep 
manufacturing jobs--because they are high-wage, high-skilled jobs--in 
the United States.
  While my colleagues would like to talk about other things in the 
economy, I think it is important to realize how manufacturing jobs are 
a higher wage. They are a higher wage than service-sector jobs, they 
help stabilize the middle class, they help the U.S. economy grow 
because of those large export numbers, and they help the

[[Page 11592]]

United States continue to innovate and stay ahead in a global 
marketplace. All of these are reasons why the Export-Import Bank is 
such a viable tool.
  Think about it from the perspective of being a critical part of 
manufacturing, and these are the high-wage jobs and it supports that 
supply chain I just went through. Then we can see why it is so 
important that this get done before the end of September.
  Right now, what is happening is my colleagues not only want to 
threaten to not reauthorize this program, they actually want to kill 
it. My guess is they would like to say: OK, we will agree to a short-
term extension of a few months, only in hopes of killing it later.
  I want to make sure all my colleagues know how important it is not 
only that we reauthorize this, but we reauthorize it for several years 
so companies have the predictability and certainty to know the program 
is going to be there and they have the support.
  The Export-Import Bank has four primary tools. It has loan guarantees 
that provide security to commercial lenders who make loans to foreign 
buyers of American products. For example, the loan helped Goss 
International in New Hampshire sell their printing presses in emerging 
markets in Brazil.
  We have export credit insurance, and companies such as Manhasset in 
Yakima, in my State of Washington, used it to help get their music 
stands sold across the globe and make sure there was credit insurance 
to protect them.
  There are loan programs, for example, to help foreign buyers of U.S. 
products such as FirmGreen in Newport Beach, CA, which is run by a 
disabled veteran who helped to sell their goods in Brazil.
  It also provides working capital like in Morrison Technologies 
manufacturing in South Carolina which used the tools to purchase 
materials needed for a recent surge in business that couldn't have been 
met without that financing.
  So here they are, all these companies throughout the country using 
the Export-Import Bank and staying competitive. I personally would make 
the Export-Import Bank bigger. When we look at what China is doing or 
what Europe is doing, they are making a bigger financial investment in 
helping their businesses become exporters.
  In the United States, the Export-Import Bank finances less than 5 
percent of U.S. exports. A significant portion of the capital of 
exports is done in the private sector, but this tool helps commercial 
banks and helps commercial manufacturers get their product when other 
avenues aren't available in the private sector.
  Here is an example of one of the programs and how the Export-Import 
Bank works. We can see the U.S. exporter sells to the foreign buyer and 
that commercial financing is still part of the equation. The Export-
Import Bank is only used as a safety net to make sure that financial 
commercial obligation is secure in this situation. So it is not as if 
we are replacing commercial banking, it is not as if we aren't even 
making market rates. We are for products such as aerospace.
  The issue is, we need to make sure commercial banks are willing to 
guarantee these kinds of sales. We are providing a safety net with the 
Export-Import Bank. And what has the cost been to the U.S. Government? 
Well, we have had incredible success, because everybody pays fees into 
this system, and those fees and the success of the program has helped 
us pay down the Federal deficit. That is right; it has actually made 
money for U.S. taxpayers and helped us pay down the Federal deficit.
  It supports 1.2 million export-related jobs, it has helped support 
$37 billion in exports from the United States, which helps our economy, 
and it has returned more than $1 billion to U.S. taxpayers. I would 
call that a win-win situation for American jobs and American taxpayers.
  We have 73 days left until that program expires. I don't want to let 
that happen. So today we are announcing that over 200 different supply 
chain companies are sending a letter to the Senate and House of 
Representatives asking them to urgently support the reauthorization of 
the Export-Import Bank.
  We are also hearing from lots of businesses and business 
organizations that also support the immediate reauthorization: the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the 
Business Roundtable, National Association of Businesses, the 
International Association of Machinists, National Grain and Feed 
Association, and many more organizations. All of them want to be able 
to say ``Made in the USA,'' and have their products sold overseas.
  I hope my colleagues will be there to help ensure this program gets 
reauthorized in a short amount of time. I personally hope the Senate 
will take up this legislation in the next few weeks before we adjourn 
for the August recess. I would hate to see what happens to all the 
business deals these manufacturers have on the table if they go home in 
August and people are saying: Well, the bank only has a few days left 
to be reauthorized; I am not going to do business with you until I 
know. Or if somebody tries to stick a 5-month reauthorization on some 
bill, and then everybody still says: When is this program going to be 
reauthorized? Otherwise, I am not going to do a deal with U.S. 
manufacturers.
  Of all the things we are doing in sending a message to the actual 
competitors of creating jobs in today's economy, why are we sending 
such a message of uncertainty in this situation? These are real jobs in 
a marketplace that is growing.
  The middle class is going to grow from about 2.3 billion to about 5 
billion people outside the United States over the next 15 years. We are 
going to see a doubling of the middle class. That is where products are 
going to be sold in emerging markets. Those emerging markets don't all 
have the financial tools to make those deals a reality, but the Export-
Import Bank can help. They can help make sure a customer pays, that 
U.S. manufacturing wins, and that we keep our marketplace.
  We hope all our colleagues will support this legislation. Time is 
running out. Know that this program has returned over $1 billion to the 
U.S. Treasury. That is a pretty good deal for us. If somebody on the 
other side has a better way of growing jobs and paying down the Federal 
deficit, I would like to hear it, because this is an important tool, 
and time is running out. I urge my colleagues to help support the 
Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter from companies asking to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, 
and I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     July 9, 2014.
     Hon. John A. Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner, Leader Reid, Leader Pelosi and Leader 
     McConnell: We are writing today to ask you to reauthorize the 
     Export-Import Bank without further delay. The Export-Import 
     Bank is absolutely essential to our companies. While many of 
     us don't access the Bank's services directly, our customers 
     do. We sell goods and services of all kinds to American 
     businesses that rely on the Export-Import Bank to sell their 
     products abroad.
       Recent reports on the uncertainty of the Bank's future may 
     have already impacted sales, which can negatively impact our 
     bottom line. Our customers need the certainty of export 
     credit to successfully pursue many of their commercial sales 
     abroad. The ongoing defense budget uncertainty compounds this 
     threat for many of our companies with commercial and defense 
     customers.
       Reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank should not be a 
     partisan political game. Until recently, it never has been. 
     In fact, the Bank has been reauthorized more than a dozen 
     times, and recently it was reauthorized with broad bipartisan 
     support. Reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank also helps 
     reduce the deficit. The Bank earns money on its fees and 
     interest, and last year returned over one billion dollars to 
     the U.S. Treasury. It is time for Congress to schedule a 
     vote, and reauthorize the bank.

[[Page 11593]]

       More than 95 percent of the world's consumers live abroad. 
     We need our customers to have the ability to sell to those 
     consumers. If they do, many of our businesses will grow, 
     allowing us to hire more employees and re-invest in our 
     economy. If they no longer have the Bank's support, it is our 
     foreign competitors who will reap the benefits of greater 
     exports.
       We urge you to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank 
     immediately, helping to reduce our deficit, provide certainty 
     to our economy, and invest in America's middle class.
           Sincerely,
       Advanced Welding Technologies, LLC, Wichita, KS; Aero-Flex 
     Corp., Jupiter, FL; Aero-Plastics Inc., Renton, WA; Aerospace 
     Fabrications of GA Dallas, GA; Aerospace Futures Alliance of 
     Washington, Kent, WA; Air Industries Group; Aircraft 
     Maintenance & Support; AIREPS INC., Anaheim, CA; Airready MRO 
     Services Inc., Melbourne, AR; Alarin Aircraft Hinge, Inc.; 
     Altek, Liberty Lake, WA; American Aerospace Controls, Inc., 
     Farmingdale, NY; Amerisips of the Carolina's, Charleston, SC; 
     Amphenol APCBT, Nashua, NH; Andrews Tool Co., Inc., Pantego, 
     TX; Arizona Industrial Hardware, Chandler, AZ; Arthur J. 
     Gallagher & Co., Cincinnati, OH; Aviation Partners Boeing; 
     Aviation Technical Services, Everett, WA; B/E Aerospace, Inc. 
     Consumables Management, Tulsa, OK; Bedard Machine Inc., Brea, 
     CA; Boise Inc., Boise, ID; Bradham Consulting, LLC, 
     Midlothian, VA; Brogdon Machine Inc., Blue Springs, MO; 
     Buyken Metal Products, Inc.; Cascade Columbia Distribution, 
     Seattle, WA; Central Sales & Service, Inc., Waverly, TN; 
     Certified Inspection Service Co., Inc., Phoenix, AZ; CFAN, 
     San Marcos, TX; Chapel Steel, Portland, OR; Clampco, Sedro 
     Woolley, WA; Clark Manufacturing, Inc.; Wellington, KS; CMS2, 
     LLC, North Las Vegas, NV; CO Maintenance, South Jordan, UT; 
     Coalition Solutions Integrated (CSI); Columbus Jack 
     Corporation, Columbus, OH; Commercial Aircraft Painting 
     Services LLC, Portland, OR; Consolidated Truck & Caster Co., 
     Saint Louis, MO; Council for U.S.-Russia Relations, Seattle, 
     WA; CPI Aerostructures; Crace, Inc., Bellevue, WA; Cv 
     International, Bend, OR; D&S Septic Tank and Sewer Service 
     Inc., Pacific, MO; David Mann Lean Consulting, Grand Rapids, 
     MI; Davis Door Service, Inc., Seattle, WA; Delva Tool and 
     Machine Corporation, Cinnaminson, NJ; Denezol Tool Co., Inc., 
     Salem, OR; DESE Research Inc., Huntsville, AL; Deuro, The 
     Woodlands, TX; Diamond Machine Works; Distribution 
     International SW, Inc., Houston, TX; Diversified Industrial 
     Services, Mukilteo, WA; Dyer Company, Lancaster, PA; E-SUV 
     LLC/ DBA E-Ride Industries, Princeton, MN; E.D. Powerco, Lake 
     Elsinore, CA; East Coast Electronics & Data, Rockaway, NJ; 
     EffectiveUI, Inc., Denver, CO; El-Co Machine Products, Inc., 
     Inglewood, CA; Electroimpact, Mukilteo, WA; Elite Tool LLC, 
     Moscow Mills, MO; Elk Creek Lumber Co., Wilkesboro, NC; 
     Ellwood Group, Irvine, PA; Esterline Technologies, Bellevue, 
     WA; Eustis Co., Inc., Mukilteo, WA; EWT-3DCNC, Inc., 
     Rockford, IL.
       Exelis Inc., McLean, VA; Exotic Metals, Kent, WA; 
     Fabrisonic LLC, Columbus, OH; Farwest Aircraft Inc., 
     Edgewood, WA; Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., Seattle, WA; 
     Flanagan Industries, Glastonbury, CT; FlightSafety 
     International, Broken Arrow, OK; Fluid Engineering 
     Associates, Port Ludlow, WA; Fluid Mechanics Valve Company, 
     Houston, TX; Frank V Radomski & Sons, Inc., Colmar, PA; 
     Frontier Electronic Systems Corp., Stillwater, OK; Gary Jet 
     Center, Inc., Gary, IN; Gasline Mechanical Inc., WA; 
     Gastineau Log Homes, Inc., New Bloomfield, MO; Global 
     Consulting & Investments, Inc., Issaquah, WA; Global Machine 
     Works, Inc.; Global Trade Insurance; GM Nameplate, Seattle, 
     WA; Growth Nation, Scottsdale, AZ; Hapeman Electronics Inc., 
     Mercer, PA; Harris Group, Seattle, WA; Henkel Corporation, 
     Bay Point, CA; Herndon Products, O'Fallon, MO; Hexagon 
     Metrology, Inc., North Kingstown, RI; Hirschler Manufacturing 
     Inc.; HITCO Carbon Composites, Gardena, CA; Hobart Machined 
     Products, Inc., Hobart, WA; HOME INC., Hermann, MO; Horizon 
     Distributing, Yakima, WA; Houston International Trade 
     Development Council, Inc.; Hubbs Machine & Manufacturing, 
     Inc., Cedar Hill, MO; Hughes Bros. Aircrafters, Inc., South 
     Gate, CA; Hurricane Electronics, Inc., Pompano Beach, FL; 
     HVAC R Services LLC, Auburn, WA; HySecurity, Kent, WA; IHS 
     Inc., Englewood, CO; Illinois Chamber of Commerce, IL; IMS-
     CHAS, INC., North Charleston, SC; Independent Machine 
     Company, Gladstone, MI; Industrial Sales & Mfg., Inc., Erie, 
     PA; Industrial Supplies Company, Trevose, PA; Iridium 
     Communications, Tempe, AZ; J. Maxime Roy, Inc., Lafayette, 
     LA; Janicki Industries, Sedro Woolley, WA; Jet Systems, Inc., 
     Wilbur, WA; JWD Machine, Fife, WA; Kaas Tailored; Kemeny 
     Associates LLC dba Middleton Research, Middleton, WI; Kenmore 
     Air, Kenmore, WA; Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., 
     Lancaster, PA; Kubco Industrial Equipment, Inc., Houston, TX; 
     Lamsco West Inc., Santa Clarita, CA; LKD Aerospace, 
     Snoqualmie, WA; LMI Aerospace, St. Charles, MO; Lockheed 
     Martin, Chelmsford, MA; LORD Corporation, Cary, NC; Luma 
     Technologies, LLC, Bellevue, WA; Magna Tool Inc., Cypress, 
     CA; Maney Aircraft, Inc., Ontario, CA; Marketech 
     International, Inc., Port Townsend, WA; Master CNC, Inc., 
     Washington Twp, MI; Maverick Enterprises, Monroe, NC; Meyer 
     Tool Inc.; MFCP Inc--Fluid Connector Products, Portland, OR; 
     MGL Energy, LLC, Destin, FL; Micro-Coax, Inc., Pottstown, PA; 
     Microsemi Corporation; Millitech, Inc.
       NaviTrade Structured Finance LLC, Barrington, IL; Neenah 
     Enterprises, Inc., Neenah, WI; NewAgeSys, Inc., Princeton 
     Junction, NJ; North Star Aerospace, Inc., Auburn, WA; 
     NovaComp Engineering, Inc., Bothell, WA; Object Computing, 
     Inc. (OCI), St. Louis, MO; Officemporium, Seattle, WA; 
     Olympic Tool & Machine Corp., Aston, PA; Onboard Systems, 
     Vancouver, WA; Orbit International Corp., Hauppauge, NY; 
     Orion, Auburn, WA; Pacific Consolidated Industries LLC, 
     Riverside, CA; Pape Material Handling, Seattle, WA; PAS MRO, 
     Irvine, CA; Philips Screw Company; PhoenixMart LLC, 
     Scottsdale, AZ; Pioneer Aerofab Corp.; Pioneer Human 
     Services, WA; PM Testing, Fife, WA; ProTek Models, LLC, 
     Rancho Cucamonga, CA; ProtoCAM, Allentown, PA; R & S 
     Machining, Inc., St. Louis, MO; R&B Electronics, Inc., Sault 
     Ste. Marie, MI; Robert Schneider & Associates, Inc., 
     Kankakee, IL; Russell Investments, Seattle, WA; S & S 
     Welding, Kent, WA; SEA Wire and Cable, Inc., AL; Service 
     Steel Aerospace; Sigmatex High Technology Fabrics, Benicia, 
     CA; Silicon Designs, Inc., Kirkland, WA; Silicon Forest 
     Electronics, Vancouver, WA; SKF Aerospace, Indianapolis, IN, 
     Skills Inc., Auburn, WA; Sound Machine Services, LLC., 
     Suquamish, WA; Spirit AeroSystems, Wichita, KS; StandardAero, 
     Tempe, AZ; Steel-Fab, Inc., Arlington, WA; Sunshine Metals 
     Inc., Wichita, KS; System Heating and Air Conditioning Co 
     Inc., Seattle, WA; System Integrators LLC. Glendale, AZ; Tech 
     Manufacturing, LLC, Wright City, MO; Technical Aero, LLC, WA; 
     Telephonics Corporation, Farmingdale, NY; Telepress, Inc., 
     Kent, WA; The Complete Line LLC, Redmond, WA; The Entwistle 
     Company, Hudson, MA; The Graeber Group Ltd, Kirkland, WA; The 
     Industrial Controls Company, Sussex, WI; The Rockford Agency, 
     Inc., Manhattan Beach, CA; Thick Film Technologies, Inc., 
     Everett, WA; Titan Spring Inc., Hayden, ID; Toray Composites 
     America, Inc., Tacoma, WA; Trade Acceptance Group, Ltd., 
     Edina, MN; Transmet Corporation; TRICOR Systems Inc.; Triumph 
     Actuation Systems--Valencia, Valencia, CA; Triumph Composite 
     Systems, Spokane, WA; TSI Incorporated; TTF Aerospace, 
     Auburn, WA; UEC Electronics, Hanahan, SC; Umbra Cuscinetti 
     Inc., Everett, WA; United Risk Consultants, Dallas, TX; US 
     Aluminum Casting, LLC, Entiat, WA; Valley Machine Shop Inc., 
     Kent, WA; Ventower Industries; Verde Wood International, 
     Carrboro, NC; Vosky Precision Machining Corp., Ronkonkoma, 
     NY; Wallquest Inc., Wayne, PA; Welded Tubes, Inc., Orwell, 
     OH; Wheeler Industries, Inc., North Charleston, SC; Will-Mor 
     Manufacturing, Inc., Seabrook, NH; Wood Group Mustang Inc., 
     Houston, TX; Wulbern-Koval Co., Charleston, SC; Zodiac 
     Aerospace, WA; Zyxaxis Inc., Wichita, KS.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                            EPA Rule Changes

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes about the 
EPA rules on water. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is in Missouri 
today to discuss the EPA's proposed rule which would significantly 
expand the authority of the United States under the Clean Water Act.
  In a conference call with reporters yesterday, Administrator McCarthy 
called some of the questions about the rule ``silly'' and ``ludicrous'' 
and said that her trip to Missouri was part of a broader campaign to 
reassure the agricultural community and set the record straight. I hope 
she is spending at least as much time in my State listening as she is 
talking. If she does that she will find out that some of these concerns 
are very real but they have lots of impact and not just for the farm 
community across the country but for lots of people who are affected in 
lots of different ways by what happens if you expand the authority of 
the Federal Government as this rule would to deal with water almost 
everywhere and almost all water.
  Not only did she say that these questions were silly and ludicrous, 
but the Missouri farm bureau expressed the concern that ``virtually 
every acre of private property potentially falls under the Clean Water 
Act jurisdiction. . . . Things that you normally do on a farm would be 
called into question.'' According to the Springfield News-Leader, 
``McCarthy says that's hog wash.''
  If the way to actually deal with the people we work for is to say 
your ideas are silly, they are ludicrous, and your comments are hog 
wash, I think once again we are certainly seeing the Federal Government 
at its worst, not at its best.

[[Page 11594]]

  This is a big organization. It is a well-run organization. It has 
represented Missouri's agricultural interests for a long time. There 
are folks who stand and say virtually every acre of private property 
potentially falls under the Clean Water Act jurisdiction if this rule 
is finalized, and at least 40 members of this body believe that to be 
the case. That is what they said, and she said it was hog wash. 
According to the paper, she rattled off what she said were ``some of 
the most dubious claims made by the rule's critics.''
  This is a rule which has critics because it is a rule that deserves 
to have critics. It draws concerns from farmers. In fact, just today I 
said: Before I come over, let's be sure I know that we haven't had an 
epiphany of understanding here and suddenly Administrator McCarthy 
said: I have listened and you are right. These are problems to which we 
need to find the answers.
  But what I found when I looked was that the farmers she met with 
today--there was no press in the meeting that included the farmers and 
there were no farmers in the meeting that included the press. So farm 
families were concerned that when you take the press out, away from 
everybody else, and you go out on this farm and talk about--I assume--
all the great benefits that more Federal control of that farmland would 
produce, but then when you have a meeting with the farmers, no press is 
in that meeting where anybody can hear the concerns that these farmers 
have.
  I think the Members of the Senate have been pretty clear as we 
cosponsored bills that would require the EPA to withdraw this rule and 
try again. It is clear that this is really a blatant overreach into the 
private lives and private property rights of the American people by the 
administration--and not just farmers but anybody who owns land 
anywhere. If I were just hearing from farmers, I would be concerned, 
but I am hearing from farmers, I am hearing from builders, I am hearing 
from realtors, I am hearing from local governments: What happens if the 
Federal Government has this most broad definition of waters of the 
United States?
  The proposed rule would give the EPA, the Corps of Engineers, the 
most extreme of environmental groups a powerful tool to delay almost 
anything to prevent development, to prevent land use on property owned 
by municipalities, property owned by individuals, property owned by 
farming families and by small businesses, because all that property 
includes water in some way or another.
  The law was clear when it was written that the EPA under the Clean 
Water Act would have authority ``over the navigable waters of the 
United States.'' This rule, in fact, makes the jurisdictional assertion 
that navigable waters now means ``any water that could go into 
navigable waters.'' Any water that could eventually flow into the 
Missouri River, the Mississippi River, the Ohio River, the Gulf of 
Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and all water everywhere, 
eventually some of it heads to those places. So every drop of water 
everywhere is potentially under the jurisdiction of the EPA.
  Navigable waters means what it means.
  There was an editorial today in the Washington Post which actually 
supported the rule, but I thought the most interesting sentence in that 
editorial today that supports the rule was right in almost the exact 
middle of the editorial. It said: ``It's true that the agency's plan 
would expand the scope of the Clean Water Act regulation.'' Now, the 
way it expands the scope of the Clean Water Act regulation is it 
expands the scope of the Clean Water Act.
  We actually have a procedure for that. It is the procedure that 
everybody who took a civics class learned when they took that civics 
class. The House passes a bill or the Senate passes a bill. The two 
come together. I know this doesn't happen as often as it needs to 
anymore, but that is not the way it has to happen. The two come 
together. They agree on a bill. It goes back to both Houses. They vote 
on that bill one final time. It goes to the President's desk and gets 
signed into law. That is how you expand the Clean Water Act.
  You don't expand the Clean Water Act by somebody saying: You know, we 
just really think that the Congress should have done something here 
that they didn't do, and so we are going to do it. Then your friends 
who actually support the goal are so lulled into the idea that the 
government won't work that they even forget the constitutional process 
and say: Well, there is no question; the truth is this expands the 
regulations under the Clean Water Act.
  If you ask anybody at the Washington Post or anybody else that uses 
words all the time to define navigable waters of the United States, 
nobody would say that is any water that flows into any water that might 
eventually flow into water that you can navigate. Nobody would say 
that. Nobody would say those are the navigable waters of the United 
States. But that is the authority that the EPA has.
  Now we are talking about the authority the EPA would like to take. 
That is why I and a number of my colleagues--I think 29 of us--joined 
Senator Barrasso in a bill that would say you can't do this. We are 
going to protect the water and property rights and stop the EPA from 
going beyond the wall.
  Senator Barrasso is also going to file that as an amendment that I 
intend to support on the bill before us now, the sportsmen's act. That 
has lots of water implications, many of which I have supported--the 
wetlands act. There are many things in there that I can be supportive 
of, but I am not supportive without any congressional authority of the 
EPA's deciding they are just going to take property rights from people 
who have those rights. I am particularly not supportive of that when 
the law was designed to define what the EPA could do.
  If anybody wants to go out and do any kind of survey of the American 
people--let alone the legislators who voted for the Clean Water Act--
and ask what ``navigable waters'' is, nobody thinks that is every drop 
of water that eventually flows to a source that could at some point in 
the distant distance be navigable.
  We know what the law says. We know the authority the EPA has been 
given. I think we can have a legitimate debate about whether that 
authority has been properly used or not. But there is no legitimate 
debate about whether the EPA is trying to go way beyond what the 
Congress has authorized.
  This idea the administration has that the pen and the phone will 
replace the Constitution of the United States is not worthy of this 
country. It not worthy of what we do. It is a disastrous course to set, 
to believe: OK, Congress, you deal with immigration for the next 60 
days or I will just do it on my own. Congress, you change the Clean 
Water Act or we will just change the Clean Water Act with regulation. 
Congress, you change the Clean Air Act or we will change the Clean Air 
Act.
  There is a reason for the constitutional process, and I hope 
Missourians in the next 24 hours are given the chance to remind 
Administrator McCarthy of what that reason is. And there are reasons 
that the Congress is looking for ways to remind the President of what 
that is. That is why I am supporting the Enforcement Law Act that has 
already passed the House of Representatives. What the Enforcement Law 
Act would do is give individual Members of Congress standing if a 
majority of either House of the Congress believes the President wasn't 
enforcing the law as written to go to a court and ask the court to 
decide if the President is enforcing the law as written.
  In my view there is no way in the world that you could look at this 
proposed rule by the EPA and believe that the EPA and this 
administration is in any way complying with what is the clear intent of 
the law. If they don't like the law, there is a way to come to the 
Congress and ask it to change the law. That is their job. It is not 
their job to do the job of the Congress. That job the Constitution left 
to somebody besides the Executive, whose job it is to execute the law--
not to improve on the law, not to write the law, not to make the law. 
And we see all those

[[Page 11595]]

things being attempted by people who believe they know what is better 
for the United States of America than the people of the United States 
believe is good for the United States of America.
  I would yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in a 
very important discussion with regard to the waters of the United 
States and the proposed rule by the EPA.
  The good Senator from Missouri, I, a Senator from Wyoming and--as has 
been already said on the floor--about 30 of us in total are proposing 
an amendment to the sportsmen's bill which is currently under 
consideration on the floor--an amendment that would address the 
regulatory overreach by the EPA and, specifically, their proposed 
waters of the U.S. regulation.
  The amendment we have is very simple, very straightforward. It is 
relevant to the legislation that is currently on the floor and should 
be brought forward for a vote. It is amendment No. 3453, and as I said 
it deals with the waters of the United States.
  I am going to take just a minute to read it because it is very simple 
and very straightforward and could be dealt with in a very expeditious 
way. Obviously with 29 Senators supporting it, it is an amendment that 
we should be voting on. This is a clear example of an amendment where 
this body needs to take a stand, and it is one that should receive a 
vote as part of this sportsmen's legislation.
  So I will read from the amendment:

       In General. Neither the Secretary of the Army nor the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall--
       (1) finalize the proposed rule entitled ``Definition of 
     'Waters of the United States' Under the Clean Water Act'';
       (2) use the proposed rule described in paragraph (1), or 
     any substantially similar proposed rule or guidance, as a 
     basis for any rulemaking or any decision regarding the scope 
     of the enforcement of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act.
       (b) RULES. The use of the proposed rule described in 
     subsection (a)(1), or any substantially similar proposed rule 
     or guidance, as the basis for any rulemaking or any decision 
     regarding the scope or enforcement of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act shall be grounds for vacation of the 
     final rule, decision, or enforcement action.

  So very simply, what we provide is that the EPA cannot move forward 
with the proposed waters of the U.S. rule. It is appropriate because in 
essence, as my colleague from Missouri very accurately described, the 
EPA has gone way beyond its jurisdiction on this rule.
  EPA alleges that it is responding to confusion in regard to the 
proposed Waters of the U.S. rule that it is getting from farmers and 
ranchers across our country. The fact is that is not the case. What EPA 
is doing is they are expanding their jurisdiction dramatically under an 
argument that the Supreme Court did not make, but an argument, rather, 
that the EPA is making that under what they call ``significant nexus'' 
they are empowered to regulate waters far beyond navigable bodies of 
water.
  This is something I think affects almost every industry sector, but I 
am going to bring it back to a discussion of our farmers and ranchers 
and private property rights, which are, in fact, impacted by this 
proposed rule to talk about why it is so important that we have an 
opportunity to vote on this amendment and to defeat the proposed rule.
  America's farmers and ranchers and entrepreneurs go to work every day 
to build a stronger Nation. Thanks to these hardworking men and women, 
we live in a country where there is affordable food at the grocery 
store and where a dynamic private sector offers Americans the 
opportunity to achieve a brighter future. In these difficult economic 
times the Federal Government should be doing all it can to empower 
those who grow our food and create jobs. Yet instead regulators are 
stifling growth with burdensome regulations which generate costs and 
uncertainty.
  The proposed rule by the Army Corps of Engineers and the 
Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the waters of the United 
States is exactly the type of regulation that I am talking about. The 
waters of the United States rule greatly expands the scope of the Clean 
Water Act with regulations over America's streams and wetlands.
  If we look at the chart I brought, we can see it is not just 
affecting our farmers and ranchers, it goes far beyond that. For 
example, it affects the power industry, the oil and gas industry, the 
construction industry, and the manufacturing industry. Almost anything 
you can think of is impacted by this regulatory overreach. It is 
clearly a power grab by the EPA, and it needs to be checked.
  The Supreme Court has found that Federal jurisdiction under the Clean 
Water Act extends to navigable waters. We are not arguing with the 
EPA's ability to regulate something like the Missouri River or a lake 
that is a navigable body of water, but the Supreme Court has also made 
it clear that not all bodies of water are navigable or under the EPA's 
jurisdiction.
  What has our farmers and ranchers so concerned is that the Corps and 
the EPA went far beyond lakes and rivers. This new proposed rule would 
bring EPA permitting, reporting, enforcement, mitigation, and citizen 
lawsuits to ephemeral streams. Ephemeral streams are really dry land 
most of the time. To a farmer, an ephemeral stream is simply a low area 
across the field. It brings tributaries into it--tributaries which are 
all ditches that carry any amount of water that eventually flows into a 
navigable body of water. Think about that. Ditches. All waters that are 
deemed adjacent to other jurisdictional waters, including dry ditches 
and ephemerals, plus any other waters that the EPA has determined to 
have a significant nexus. In real-world terms, these categories could 
bring burdensome regulations to a vast number of small, isolated 
wetlands and ponds. It is hard to see, but that is what we tried to 
depict on this chart. It is almost any type of water anywhere you find 
it.
  For those of you who have not had the opportunity to visit with a 
farmer from my State of North Dakota, know that dealing with excess 
water is a common issue, to say the least, particularly in recent 
years. Most farmers could tell you that just because there is water in 
a ditch or a field one week doesn't mean there is going to be water in 
that field or ditch the next week. It certainly doesn't make that water 
worthy of being treated the same as a navigable river or lake. It 
defies common sense. A field with a low spot that has standing water 
during a rainy week and happens to be located near a ditch does not 
warrant Clean Water Act regulation from a legal or, as I have said, 
commonsense perspective.
  The Corps and the EPA have responded to these concerns by saying they 
are going to exempt dozens of conservation practices, but these 
exemptions are extremely limited and they do not cover many Clean Water 
Act rights. For example, the farmer with a low spot in his field next 
to the ditch described above--as I just explained--may now be sued 
under the Clean Water Act's section 402 National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System. Think about that. Now the farmer faces the risk of 
litigation and litigation costs for using everyday weed control or 
fertilizer applications among other basic and essential farming 
activities.
  Let me get this right. The EPA is saying: We are doing this because 
this is going to help farmers somehow understand what they have to do.
  So the EPA goes beyond navigable bodies of water--let's take a State 
such as Ohio, for example. They are going to go beyond the Great Lakes 
and beyond the Ohio River, and the EPA is now going to extend their 
regulatory jurisdiction to water wherever they find it--in a ditch or 
on a farm--and they are going to regulate that, and they might give 
that farmer or rancher an exemption, and somehow they are helping and 
clarifying things for that farmer or rancher? It defies common sense.
  Farmers and ranchers have to work through uncertain weather and 
markets to ensure that America is food secure, and they do an amazing 
job of it. They are the best in the world. Sixteen

[[Page 11596]]

million people in this country are either directly involved in 
agriculture or indirectly involved in agriculture. We have a positive 
balance of payments in agriculture. We have the lowest cost, highest 
quality food supply in the world. Now the EPA by its own volition is 
going to go out and make it harder and more expensive and more 
difficult for our farmers and ranchers to do what they do better than 
anyone in the world. Farmers and ranchers have to work through 
uncertain weather and markets to ensure that we have food security. 
They don't need the burden of additional regulations and litigation, 
and they certainly don't need that burden under the auspices of the EPA 
saying that somehow this is going to help. Well, that is not the case.
  I offered a very similar amendment in the Appropriations Committee in 
the energy and water section. The night before we were to have our full 
Appropriations Committee meeting, at 7:30 that night, that bill, the 
Energy and Water bill, got pulled, so we didn't have our appropriations 
vote the next morning.
  The amendment I had prepared simply would have defunded this proposed 
regulation, but because there was bipartisan support for this 
amendment, we are not going to get a chance to vote on it.
  Twenty-eight other Senators and I have been here on the floor this 
afternoon. The Senator from Missouri was just here. The Senator from 
Wyoming was here earlier. Others have been here. I am here now. There 
will be more. So here we stand. We are on a sportsmen's bill, this is a 
relevant amendment, and the question is, Why aren't we voting on it? It 
has bipartisan support and 29 cosponsors. It is something that is 
clearly important not just to our farmers and ranchers but really to 
businesses and industry across this great country. So why aren't we 
voting on it? If somebody wants to come down and make an argument that 
they are for it, they can do so. But when all is said and done, the way 
this body works is by voting and determining where the majority falls.
  I ask my colleagues, why in the world are we not voting on this 
amendment that is incredibly important to our farmers and ranchers and 
to businesses and to industry and to the people of this country? As I 
said, we didn't get a chance to vote on it in committee, and here we 
are on a bill where it is relevant. Are we going to get a chance to 
vote on it now? And if not now, when?
  The majority rules, so let's have a vote. Let's give everybody a 
chance to stand and be counted. Let's have our vote, and let's stand up 
for the American people and make sure we strike down this proposed 
waters of the United States regulation.
  With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             VA Health Care

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I have received a number of calls in recent 
weeks, as we all have, about what is happening at the Veterans' 
Administration. Over the July 4th week, back in Ohio, I heard from lots 
of veterans at roundtables in communities all over the State, from 
Steubenville to Dayton, and lots of places in between: What are we 
going to do about the VA? I heard outrage. I heard disillusion over the 
VA. There is outrage about a system charged with caring for those who 
defend our Nation that falls short. There is frustration and 
disillusion because our veterans are waiting too long. We need to fix 
that.
  But I also saw letters to the Cincinnati Enquirer and the Cleveland 
Plain Dealer and I had conversations with veterans who defended and 
bragged about the service they are getting, the care they are getting, 
whether it is the VA in Cincinnati or Dayton or Cleveland or Columbus 
or Chillicothe--the hospitals we have in my State--or whether it is the 
community-based clinics in places such as Mansfield and Zanesville and 
Lima and Springfield--those smaller community-based outpatient clinics, 
so-called CBOCs, that serve veterans who need less acute care but still 
need service from a doctor, from a nurse, from a physical therapist.
  We can only conclude a couple of things. We can conclude there are, 
in fact, serious problems with the VA that need to be fixed. The 
Presiding Officer is a prominent member of the Veterans' Committee, and 
from his veterans hospitals in Connecticut he hears the same. We can 
also conclude that those who get in the system overwhelmingly are 
getting good care. There are 6.5 million veterans who are using VA 
health care with 85 million patient visits a year. That was in 2013. I 
assume there is a similar number this year. They are getting good care.
  The problem is access to the system. The waiting times are simply 
unacceptable and outrageous and the disillusionment for those veterans 
is worse. We know what waiting times mean, especially in mental health 
treatment, where far too many veterans commit suicide.
  With costs of war--and particularly this last round of wars over the 
last decade where we went to war as a nation, wrongly, in Iraq--we 
didn't pay for that war--and then the President and the Congress a 
decade ago made a fateful mistake, mostly out of arrogance, assuming 
that these two wars would be so short we didn't need to scale up the 
VA, we didn't need to increase funding, we didn't need to expand 
services, we didn't need to hire more doctors and nurses--two things 
happened. One, a whole bunch of new veterans, new soldiers and sailors 
and marines and air men and women, came home from Iraq and Afghanistan. 
A whole lot more were in the war than President Bush and the Congress 
thought would happen or cared to think would happen a decade ago.
  The second thing is they came home in much worse shape than in 
previous wars. Soldiers who would have died on the battlefields--the 
Presiding Officer is a veteran himself and he knows and we all know 
that the illnesses and physical and mental injuries are much greater in 
this war because they survived the battlefield when they might not have 
survived these same kinds of explosions 20 or 30 years ago.
  The third thing--I said two. The third thing that happened is because 
of a decision Congress made that was right a couple of decades ago--I 
believe it was President Clinton who signed that bill; it might have 
been President Bush 1--in passing a bill which included a provision 
called presumptive eligibility for Agent Orange. Before presumptive 
eligibility, when a veteran came home from Vietnam right after the war 
or developed an illness many years later, that veteran would have to 
fight with the VA to prove that Agent Orange was the reason he or she 
had that illness. After Agent Orange presumptive eligibility, what that 
meant is that these soldiers and these veterans, 20 years later, if 
they had 1 of the 20 or so illnesses defined by the law that were 
connected to Agent Orange, they automatically were eligible. That is 
called presumptive eligibility, meaning they were eligible for VA 
services and health care. That was a great thing.
  However, what that meant is that as more and more veterans moved 
forward from Vietnam, as they aged into their fifties and sixties and 
some into their seventies, they have had a huge influx of patients into 
the VA. That is why this veterans conference report--the bill that 
passed the House and the bill that passed the Senate with almost no 
``no'' votes--is so important, because our commitment to our veterans 
must match their commitment to our Nation.
  I am the first Ohioan to serve a full term ever on the Senate 
Veterans' Committee. I have been lucky enough to be appointed to the 
joint House and Senate conference committee. We need to iron out the 
differences in these

[[Page 11597]]

bills. We need to do three things. First, increase the accountability 
in the VA. VA employees, senior employees in particular, who don't do 
their jobs should lose their jobs; that if it is proven in fact they 
did not do their jobs, if they altered information, if they explained 
away delays incorrectly or dishonestly, that they be held accountable, 
period.
  Although let's keep in mind the vast majority of VA employees, 
whether they are in Hartford or whether they are in Cleveland, are 
dedicated public servants to our Nation and to our veterans. These are 
men and women who chose to serve veterans, to work in Chillicothe, in 
Zanesville, and in Columbus, and so many of them are veterans 
themselves. They chose a career to serve veterans and they are veterans 
themselves. Whether it is a police officer at the Dayton VA, a claims 
processor at the Cleveland VARO, a nurse at the Toledo CBOC, our 
veterans rely on them. We shouldn't condemn the VA at large for the 
wrongdoings of a relative few.
  Second, the compromise bill will provide an option for veterans who 
are experiencing long wait times. In the Presiding Officer's State of 
Connecticut and in mine, few veterans are all that far from a CBOC or 
from a hospital, and this new proposal says that for veterans more than 
40 miles away from a CBOC or hospital, they can go elsewhere to a local 
hospital or a local community-based health center instead of the VA 
because they are closer. We don't have too many places in my State--and 
I believe there are none in the Presiding Officer's State--where that 
is the case. But those veterans who have had to wait 30 years or 30 
days should have that option because care for the veteran, our 
commitment to veterans must match their commitment to our Nation.
  Third and last, the compromise bill will expand and enhance the VA's 
ability to provide veterans with the care they deserve. It will allow 
the VA to hire more doctors and nurses and physical therapists, to 
build more beds, to build more capacity at these VA centers and CBOCs 
to make sure they have the staff necessary. With the end of these two 
wars, thousands of our newest veterans will be joining the ranks of VA 
health care.
  The shortage of care providers has been especially pressing for vets 
struggling with a brain injury--the so-called invisible injuries. That 
is when a soldier in the Army gets a head injury and it might be 
considered a minor head injury. A number of combatants have told me 
they get their ``bells rung'' is the term they use. It is an invisible 
injury, a minor concussion--often not reported but a minor concussion--
and then another one and then another one. Look at what the stories 
have told us about the NFL players. The same holds true, only in a more 
serious way, for soldiers and for marines, what happens to them down 
the road. Thirty years later they go to the VA, their behavior has 
changed, their families are calling. The VA has no documentation of 
these injuries. They have to struggle to show these injuries, to prove 
these injuries to the VA, to the doctors for a diagnosis and to the VA 
for the coverage of the disability.
  That is why my tracker bill, the Fairman Significant Event Tracker 
Act--or SET Act--is so important. Instead of the burden being on the 
veteran to show here were my concussions, here were my injuries, I 
should be eligible for disability; here is what happened to me, 
diagnose me with the right diagnosis, the Army itself should be keeping 
those records, and they should follow the health care of the veteran 
when they are in the military, when they are in the VA. The interface 
has to take place much more smoothly, so when a soldier turns in her 
gear and she comes back to Ravenna, OH, or she comes back to Wauseon, 
OH, or she comes back to Maple Heights or Garfield Heights, the VA 
locally will know what has happened to her.
  These are the challenges. I will finish with a couple of troubling 
notes I received from a couple of people in Ohio. One came from Gary in 
Franklin County, which is the home of the State capital: My brother was 
a Vietnam vet and survivor of a major battle in Vietnam. He never 
discussed his experiences. He took his life in 1992. This bill will 
provide important mechanisms to help reduce the rate of suicides among 
our veterans. Every Member of Congress should support it. It is not a 
political issue, but a part of our sincere and legitimate commitment to 
our veterans.
  I couldn't have said it better.
  Christine from Miami County, the county just north of Dayton in 
southwest Ohio: This bill will remove the redtape that our veterans 
encounter at a time when they are least able to deal with it. My son 
died at his own hands after a tour in the Middle East. He sought help 
from the VA and was diagnosed with PTSD shortly before dying. I know 
his mental state at the time, and he would not have been able to handle 
providing proof that he experienced traumatic events or remember the 
duties he performed.
  In other words, he had these injuries. The military didn't have the 
records of these injuries because he wasn't injured so badly that he 
was sent back to Germany or to Bethesda or to Walter Reed, but the 
military should have kept these records so he knew what, in fact, was 
wrong. He was not able, in his condition, to put together and find his 
old buddies that were with him 6 or 8 years earlier that could kind of 
recall the incidents of what happened.
  Christine writes that this bill is a simple, effective solution.
  We need to address the issues facing our veterans. Our commitment to 
our troops must match their commitment to our Nation.
  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. 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 am here for the 73rd ``time to wake 
up'' speech that I have done to urge my colleagues to wake up to the 
growing threat of climate change. The changes we are seeing, driven by 
carbon pollution, are far-reaching--from the coast lines of States such 
as Rhode Island and the Presiding Officer's State of Connecticut, to 
the great plateaus and mountain ranges out West; from pole to pole; 
from high up in the atmosphere to deep down in the oceans.
  In Rhode Island, we know the oceans are ground zero for the effects 
of carbon pollution. Since the Industrial Revolution, the oceans have 
been absorbing our carbon dioxide emissions--roughly a quarter of the 
total excess emissions--which, by the laws of chemistry, has caused 
rapid changes in ocean acidity, the pH level of the oceans, changes not 
seen for a long time. When I say ``a long time,'' I mean at least 25 to 
50 million years, potentially as many as 300 million years. To put 300 
million years into perspective, we homo sapiens--the human species--
have been on the Earth for about 200,000 years. So 300 million years 
goes way back into geologic time, back before the dinosaurs. So a 
change that is unprecedented in that much time is something we should 
pay attention to.
  Recently, four Republican former EPA Administrators testified before 
my Environment and Public Works subcommittee on the dire need for 
congressional action to curb this carbon pollution that is causing 
these effects in our oceans.
  Here is how the EPA's very first Administrator, William Ruckelshaus, 
put it. He said:

       Since the ocean absorbs 25-30 percent of the carbon from 
     stationary or mobile sources we thought the ocean was our 
     friend. It was keeping significant amounts of carbon from the 
     atmosphere. But our friend is paying a penalty.

  As carbon dissolves in water, it makes the water more acidic--a 
fundamental chemical proposition--and that can upset the delicate 
balance of ocean life. Again, that is just basic physics and chemistry.
  Ronald Reagan's EPA chief Lee Thomas--Ronald Reagan's EPA chief--
warned us that thanks to the profuse carbon pollution we have emitted,

[[Page 11598]]

oceans are now acidifying at a rate 50 times greater than known 
historical change--50 times.
  Of course, my colleagues in the minority did not seem inclined to 
listen to their fellow Republicans. Instead, they took a page out of 
the polluters' playbook, and as usual their routine was to call into 
question widely accepted science.
  Well, I recently visited communities around the country. I will 
mention my trip recently along the southeast coast--the Atlantic 
coast--where researchers, elected officials, and business and home 
owners are seeing the effects of climate change firsthand.
  It does not matter what somebody thinks on the Senate floor. They are 
seeing it firsthand. They know better than what the polluting special 
interests are trying to sell. Indeed, recently the United States 
Conference of Mayors unanimously adopted a resolution calling for 
natural solutions to fight the effects of climate change to ``protect 
fresh water supplies, defend the Nation's coastlines, maintain a 
healthy tree and green space cover, and protect air quality.'' 
Unanimously, by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a bipartisan 
organization.
  So there are a lot of people who know better than the nonsense the 
polluting special interests are trying to sell.
  I flew out during this trip to where sea level rise is gnawing away 
at the Outer Banks. When you fly over the North Carolina coast, you see 
a lot of investment along the shoreline. You see houses, big houses, 
nice houses. You see hotels, you see restaurants, you see roads and 
infrastructure, you see an entire seafront economy.
  I met down there with the North Carolina Coastal Federation at their 
Coastal Education Center in Wilmington. This is a bipartisan group. It 
has joined together in concern over the exposure of their coastal 
communities, their homes, to rising seas. What would my colleagues here 
in the Senate tell this bipartisan group in North Carolina about 
climate change? What would they tell the United States Conference of 
Mayors, a bipartisan group, about climate change? Do not worry, it is 
not real; run along now, do not concern yourself.
  Good luck with that. People know better.
  King Canute could not decree that the tide not come in. Republicans 
in Congress cannot legislate away the changes we are seeing in our 
oceans. When I was down in Florida, fishermen there told me about the 
northward migration of species they are used to catching in Florida, 
species such as redfish and snook, moving north because of warming 
ocean temperatures.
  Fishermen in South Carolina told me snook are now being caught off 
the coast of Charleston. I have heard that redfish are being caught as 
far north as Cape Cod. I believe that because Rhode Islanders are 
catching tarpon and grouper off the shore of Rhode Island. I have had 
Rhode Island fishermen tell me they are catching fish their fathers and 
grandfathers never saw come up in their nets.
  As one Rhode Island fisherman told me, ``Sheldon, it's getting weird 
out there.''
  It is not just Rhode Island. The Maine legislature just established a 
bipartisan commission to study and address the harm from ocean 
acidification to ecosystems and to their shell fisheries--again, 
bipartisan.
  Once you leave this building, people are taking bipartisan action. It 
is only here that the polluters hold such sway.
  In Virginia, which is also a coal State, a bipartisan group, 
including Republican U.S. Representatives Scott Rigell and Democratic 
Governor Terry McAuliffe, are working together to prepare communities 
such as Hampton Roads, VA, for several feet of sea level rise.
  A State commission that was first assembled under the administration 
of our Virginia colleague Tim Kaine, back when he was Governor, has 
reconvened to address the threat of climate change in the oceans.
  These Virginia leaders are not wasting time quarreling and denying 
basic science. They are working to protect commerce and homeowners in 
their communities threatened as the seas continue to rise. While our 
Republican colleagues in Congress try their best to ignore the problem 
of carbon pollution, there are very serious conversations going on 
outside these walls.
  For example, former President George W. Bush's Treasury Secretary 
Hank Paulson invoked ocean warming and sea level rise in a recent 
editorial he wrote, calling for a fee on carbon pollution. Here is the 
cover of this week's Newsweek: ``Deep end. What rapid changes in oceans 
mean for Earth.''
  This would not be the first one. Last year, National Geographic came 
out with this issue entitled ``Rising Seas.''
  Now perhaps my colleagues on the other side who pretend that climate 
change is a hoax will agree that Newsweek is part of the hoax; National 
Geographic is part of the hoax; U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is 
part of the hoax; the U.S. Navy is part of the hoax. We are bedeviled 
in this Chamber by preposterous ideas. What the Newsweek cover article 
highlights is the unprecedented effects of pumping all of that excess 
carbon into our oceans, ranging from coral bleaching to dissolving 
larval shellfish, to the disappearance of entire species.
  BloombergView just published a recent editorial titled ``Climate 
Change Goes Underwater.''
  I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed in the Record 
at the end of my comments.
  This is not wild speculation. This is good old-fashioned reporting of 
things that are happening around us that people see. I have talked 
before about the humble pteropod, so let's talk a little about the 
pteropod, a funny type of snail which is about the size of a small pea.
  The pteropod is known sometimes as the sea butterfly because its 
small foot has adapted into two little butterfly-like wings which 
propel it around in the ocean. These images show what can happen to the 
pteropod shell when the creature's underwater environment becomes more 
acidic and therefore lacks the compounds that are necessary for this 
little creature to make its delicate shell. It is not good for the 
pteropod. This is the pteropod in action with the little butterfly 
wings that help it to swim. Here is a clean shell from proper water. 
Here is a dissolving shell from exposure to acidified ocean water. This 
obviously is not good for the pteropod.
  Recent research, which was led by NOAA scientists, has found that 
ocean acidification off our west coast, in what is called the 
California current ecosystem, is hitting the pteropod especially hard.
  Let me take a minute and read from the publication of this report in 
the Proceedings of the Royal Society, a respected publication.

       The release of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the 
     atmosphere from fossil fuel burning, cement production and 
     deforestation processes has resulted in atmospheric 
     CO2 concentrations that have increased about 40% 
     since the beginning of the industrial era.

  Now, the measure of that--we have always had atmospheric carbon 
concentrations between about 170 and 300 parts per million--we have 
broken 400. April was the first month when we were consistently, on 
average, above 400 parts per million.
  When you think that the 170 to 300 parts per million range has lasted 
for thousands of years, for millennia, for longer than our species has 
been on the planet, the fact that we are suddenly outside of that range 
is a signal that ought to call our attention. That is what they are 
referring to.
  Continuing:

       The oceans have taken up approximately 28% of the total 
     amount of CO2 produced by human activities over 
     this time-frame, causing a variety of chemical changes known 
     as ocean acidification (OA).

  The rapid change in ocean chemistry is faster than at any time over 
the past 50 million years.
  They go on to say, toward the end of the report, that one of the 
chokepoint areas, what they call the first bottleneck: ``The first 
bottleneck would primarily affect veligers and larvae''--which are 
early stages of the shell before its shell has hardened. The larvae is 
little, and the veliger is when it has kind of a shroud around it, but 
not yet a shell. It helps it to move and to consume food.

[[Page 11599]]

  Continuing:

       The first bottleneck would primarily affect veligers and 
     larvae, life stages where complete shell dissolution in the 
     larvae can occur within two weeks upon exposure to 
     undersaturation.

  They also note that:

       Significant increases in vertical and spatial extent of 
     conditions favouring pteropod shell dissolution are expected 
     to make this habitat potentially unsuitable for pteropods.

  So if the California current ecosystem habitat becomes unsuitable for 
pteropods, we have a little problem on our hands because pteropods are 
food for important fish like salmon, like mackerel, like herring. 
Pteropods are the base of the food chain. No pteropods means crashed 
salmon fisheries, crashed mackerel fisheries, crashed herring 
fisheries, crashes throughout polar and subpolar fisheries.
  Dr. William Peterson is an oceanographer at NOAA's Northwest 
Fisheries Science Center. He is the coauthor of the study, and he said: 
``We did not expect to see pteropods being affected to this extent in 
our coastal region for several decades.''
  These ecosystems, these ocean ecosystems, are crumbling before our 
eyes and yet this Congress hides behind denial. In the face of inertia 
in Congress and in the face of the relentless truculence of the 
deniers, the Obama administration is trying to do what it can to push 
responsible policies.
  Last month Secretary of State John Kerry held the State Department's 
``Our Ocean'' Conference and I attended that conference for 2 days. One 
of the presenters there was Dr. Carol Turley of the Plymouth Marine 
Laboratory. She described her research on ocean acidification, 
including using this graph of ocean acidity over the past 25 million 
years. That is today minus 25 million years, today minus 20 million 
years, minus 15 million years, minus 10 million years, minus 5 million 
years, and now.
  Look at how little variation there has been in ocean pH across that 
25-million-year time scale. Remember, we have been on the planet around 
200,000 years. We go back to about here.
  The rest of this is geologic time. That is a long span of time. If we 
put that against what is happening now, look how sudden that change is 
in ocean pH, the basic acidity of the oceans.
  Why is this happening? We know that human activity releases gigatons 
of carbon every year. That is undeniable. We know that carbon dioxide 
acidifies seawater. That is basic chemistry. You can do that in a high 
school lab.
  We know the ocean's pH is changing in unprecedented ways in human 
history. No one in their right mind can say this is natural 
variability.
  This acidification of our seas will have devastating effects on 
ecosystems such as tropical coral reefs, which, as Dr. Turley pointed 
out, are home to one in every four species in the marine environment. 
If you wanted to drive a bulldozer through God's species on this 
planet, it would be hard to do much better than allowing this rampant 
ocean acidification.
  My colleague and cochair of our Senate Oceans Caucus, Senator Lisa 
Murkowski, and I have had the chance to address the oceans conference 
together. She told the conference that the waters off her Alaskan 
shores are growing more acidic.
  I agree with Senator Murkowski that we need to understand what ocean 
acidification means for our fisheries and ocean ecosystems much better 
than we do now.
  Secretary Kerry delivered a clear challenge. On this planet, with all 
of its many peoples, we share nothing so completely as we share the 
oceans. And if we are going to honor our duty to protect the oceans, to 
honor our duty to future generations, we are going to have to work 
together. These are painfully clear warnings. The facts speak volumes.
  The denial propaganda has shown itself to be nonsense, to be a sham, 
which ought to come as no surprise because the machinery that produces 
the climate denial propaganda is the same machinery that denied tobacco 
was dangerous, the same machinery that denied there was an ozone hole, 
the same machinery that has always fought public health measures for 
industry, and has always been wrong. It has always been wrong because 
it is not its job to be right. It is its job to protect industry and 
allow them to continue to pollute and make money. That is its job. So 
it ought to come as no surprise that the argument it makes about 
climate change is nonsense and is a sham. It is time to unshackle 
ourselves from that machinery.
  History is going to look back at this, and it will not be a shining 
moment for us. History will reflect that the polluters are polluting 
our democracy with their money and their influence just as badly as 
they are polluting our oceans and our atmosphere with their carbon.
  We have to wake up. It will disserve our grandchildren and their 
grandchildren, and it will disgrace our generation to have allowed this 
democracy to miss this issue and to fail to act because of the 
propaganda machinery that has over and over again proven itself to be 
wrong. Our ocean economies, our ocean heritage, are all at stake.
  As Secretary Kerry put it, it is our ocean, and it is our 
responsibility. Let us please wake up before we have completely 
disgraced ourselves.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Bloomberg View, June 29, 2014]

                     Climate Change Goes Underwater

                            (By The Editors)

       When it comes to climate change, almost all the attention 
     is on the air. What's happening to the water, however, is 
     just as worrying--although for the moment it may be slightly 
     more manageable.
       Here's the problem in a seashell: As the oceans absorb 
     about a quarter of the carbon dioxide released by fossil-fuel 
     burning, the pH level in the underwater world is falling, 
     creating the marine version of climate change. Ocean 
     acidification is rising at its fastest pace in 300 million 
     years, according to scientists.
       The most obvious effects have been on oysters, clams, coral 
     and other sea-dwelling creatures with hard parts, because 
     more acidic water contains less of the calcium carbonate 
     essential for shell- and skeleton-building. But there are 
     also implications for the land-based creatures known as 
     humans.
       It's not just the Pacific oyster farmers who are finding 
     high pH levels make it hard for larvae to form, or the clam 
     fishermen in Maine who discover that the clams on the bottom 
     of their buckets can be crushed by the weight of a full load, 
     or even the 123.3 million Americans who live near or on the 
     coasts. Oceans cover more than two-thirds of the earth, and 
     changes to the marine ecosystem will have profound effects on 
     the planet.
       Stopping acidification, like stopping climate change, 
     requires first and foremost a worldwide reduction in 
     greenhouse-gas emissions. That's the bad news. Coming to an 
     international agreement about the best way to do that is 
     hard.
       Unlike with climate change, however, local action can make 
     a real difference against acidification. This is because in 
     many coastal regions where shellfish and coral reefs are at 
     risk, an already bad situation is being made worse by 
     localized air and water pollution, such as acid rain from 
     coal-burning; effluent from big farms, pulp mills and sewage 
     systems; and storm runoff from urban pavement. This means 
     that existing anti-pollution laws can address some of the 
     problem.
       States have the authority under the U.S. Clean Water Act, 
     for instance, to set standards for water quality, and they 
     can use that authority to strengthen local limits on the 
     kinds of pollution that most contribute to acidification hot 
     spots. Coastal states and cities can also maximize the amount 
     of land covered in vegetation (rather than asphalt or 
     concrete), so that when it rains the water filters through 
     soil and doesn't easily wash urban pollution into the sea. 
     States can also qualify for federal funding for acidification 
     research in their estuaries.
       Such research can hardly happen fast enough. It's still not 
     known, for instance, exactly to what extent acidification is 
     to blame for the decline of coral reefs. And if the chemical 
     change in the ocean makes it harder for sea snails and other 
     pteropods to survive, will that also threaten the wild salmon 
     and other big fish that eat them?
       Better monitoring of acidification would help scientists 
     learn how much it varies from place to place and what makes 
     the difference. This calls for continuous readings, because 
     pH levels shift throughout the day and from season to season. 
     Engineers are designing new measuring devices that can be 
     left in the water, and it looks like monitoring will 
     eventually be done in a standardized way throughout the 
     world.
       In the meantime, researchers are finding small ways to give 
     local populations of shellfish their best chance to survive--
     depositing

[[Page 11600]]

     crushed shells in the mudflats where clams live, for 
     instance, to neutralize the sediment, or planting sea grass 
     in shellfish habitats to absorb CO2. Such strategies, like 
     pollution control, are worthwhile if only to help keep 
     shellfish populations as robust as possible in the short 
     term, perhaps giving natural selection the opportunity to 
     breed strains better suited to a lower-pH world.
       These efforts also give humans more time to learn about 
     ocean acidification. And maybe they will help their political 
     leaders better understand the urgency of international 
     cooperation on limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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.

                          ____________________