[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12278-12280]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 BRING JOBS HOME ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 453, 
S. 2569, the Bring Jobs Home Act.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 453, S. 2569, a bill to 
     provide an incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to 
     America.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the 
Republican leader, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of S. 
2244--an extremely important piece of legislation. There will be 30 
minutes for debate on the Coburn amendment, 20 minutes on the Vitter 
amendment, 10 minutes on the Flake amendment, and 30 minutes on the 
Tester amendment. Any remaining time until 12 noon will be for general 
debate on this legislation.
  At 12 noon the Senate will proceed to a series of up to five rollcall 
votes. Rollcall votes are expected in relation to the Coburn and Flake 
amendments; however, we expect voice votes on the Vitter and Tester 
amendments. Upon disposition of the amendments, the Senate will proceed 
to a rollcall vote on passage of S. 2244, as amended.
  We expect to reach an agreement to vote at 2 p.m. on the motion to 
invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 849, the nomination of Julie 
Carnes, of Georgia, to be United States circuit judge for the Eleventh 
Circuit. Senators will be notified when an agreement is reached.
  (Mr. WALSH assumed the Chair.)


                             Border Crisis

  Mr. President, the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate, 
who just opened the Senate, has been for many, many years the chair of 
the foreign operations subcommittee on appropriations. He is the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I wanted to note that while he is 
on the floor.
  Over the past 2 weeks poker players have flocked to Las Vegas because 
there is an annual World Series of Poker there. It is on ESPN. I do not 
know how athletic it is, but it is on ESPN, and it draws a lot of 
attention. Poker is a very important and popular game now--a game of 
chance, and this tournament--the World Series of Poker--is the most 
prestigious high-stakes tournament in the world, and 2,400 or 2,500 
miles away from Las Vegas, here in Washington, DC, some Senate 
Republicans are playing a high-stakes game of their own with a 
humanitarian crisis. But instead of poker chips, they are using kids, 
children.
  Last night the junior Senator from Texas upped the ante and announced 
that any legislation to address the humanitarian crisis in the Rio 
Grande Valley must also include a termination of President Obama's 2012 
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. In other words, before 
Republicans help our Border Patrol agents and all the other personnel 
who are trying to do something to handle this humanitarian crisis, they 
want President Obama to deport the DREAMers who are already here. They 
are legitimately here. These are children. But instead of considering a 
thoughtful, compassionate solution to a real-life crisis on our border, 
radical Republicans are trying to hold these kids ransom.
  I have heard Senator Durbin speak here on the floor. He visited one 
of these centers in Chicago on Monday. There are mothers with little 
babies there who have been brought, as the law requires, to Chicago to 
try to unite them with their families.
  We have, as we learned last night in a Senators briefing, more than 
50,000 of these children who have arrived at the border, and we have to 
do something to address that. The people who are required by law to 
take care of these children--some of whom are babies--do not have the 
resources to do it.
  These are not children sneaking over the border. They come to the 
people in uniform and say: Here we are. We have an obligation by law to 
do something about it. But it takes a lot of money to take care of 
this. We cannot do it unless we get added resources, and what the 
junior Senator from Texas said is that we are not going to do this 
unless we deport all these children who came here before--the so-called 
DREAMers.
  Once again, we see there are no substantive solutions being offered 
by today's Republican Party. Instead of doing something about these 
children who are at the border, they want to deport hundreds of 
thousands of these people who are already here.
  President Obama's deferred action plan, which is widely popular in 
the country because it is the right thing to do--and, obviously, 
Republicans want to get rid of it--what this is all about, his deferred 
action plan, is about keeping families together in America. It grants 
immigration officials discretion in considering the cases of children 
who have lived most of their lives as Americans, even though they were 
brought here illegally.
  Let me give you an example of a young woman from Las Vegas. Her name 
is Astrid Silva. Astrid came to the United States as a little, tiny 
girl in a boat across the Rio Grande. Her mother was with her. She was 
in her--I want to get this right--she was in her dress, confirmation 
dress or whatever it was. She was just a tiny, little girl. She had her 
rosary beads and a little doll, and she floated across the river.
  She knows no other country than the United States of America. Now, 
because of what happened, because of the President's action, she can 
now fly in an airplane. She has done that. She is working on getting 
her education completed--a wonderful, wonderful, involved woman in what 
is going on in Nevada. And the junior Senator from Texas wants to send 
her back to a place she does not know--Mexico? Mr. President, Astrid 
Silva is an American. It is the only country she knows. It would be 
cruel and unusual to do what the junior Senator from Texas wants done.
  The deferred action plan is a positive step forward, and we should 
not go back, especially not as a ransom for

[[Page 12279]]

helping our border personnel to care for desperate children.
  I would hope my friend, the Republican leader, can rein in these 
extreme elements of his caucus so we can achieve a real solution, one 
worthy of the ideals upon which this Nation was founded.
  These children are real--they are little kids--real human beings. 
They should not be used as pawns in the Republicans' high-stakes game 
of chicken with President Obama.


                       Ambassadorial Nominations

  Mr. President, when I first came to the House of Representatives, I 
had the good fortune of serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee. It 
was wonderful. I served under Chairman Zablocki from Wisconsin, 
Chairman Fascell from Florida. It was a wonderful experience to get a 
view of what was going on in the world, and I enjoyed it very, very 
much.
  But I learned there--and I think we all know; maybe I should have 
learned it sooner--our national security depends on the qualified men 
and women who serve as our ambassadors throughout the world.
  When I travel overseas, I always make sure I get the staff at these 
embassies together and tell them how much I appreciate what they do for 
our country. They are not all ambassadors, of course. There is one per 
country--we hope.
  To apply to be a Foreign Service officer is hard. You have to have 
really, really good grades. You have to pass a written examination 
after having graduated from college and maybe with graduate work. Some 
of them are Ph.D.s. And then, after you pass a written test, you have 
to pass an oral test. It is very, very difficult.
  These are some of the best and brightest in the world, and their 
ultimate goal--as we had the All-Star Game on Tuesday--is to be an all-
star, to be able to play--as they did on Tuesday in Major League 
Baseball--in the ``all-star game.'' Well, that is what ambassadors are; 
they are the all stars of the diplomatic corps of this country. Right 
now, these ambassadors are on the front lines. They are fighting to 
defend our interests abroad--our security interests, our national 
interests, and our economic interests. Right now there are gaping holes 
in our Nation's front lines.
  Let's look at who ambassadors really are. Here in the Senate, I had 
the good fortune to serve with one of the really distinguished 
ambassadors, Daniel Patrick Moynihan from New York. Prior to coming to 
the Senate, he was our Ambassador to India. He left his mark on that 
country. He did a remarkably good job as Ambassador from the United 
States to India.
  The Republican leader and I attended a funeral a week or so ago in 
Tennessee. The funeral was for Howard Baker, who had been the majority 
leader in the Senate--a fine man. He married another Senator from 
Kansas, Nancy Kassebaum. He became, after retiring from the Senate, our 
Ambassador to Japan. He distinguished himself there again with the 
remarkably good job he did.
  We can go back and look at the beginning of the history of this 
country. What do we always learn about Thomas Jefferson? We know how 
smart he was, how he wrote brilliantly. But we also learned in every 
history lesson about Thomas Jefferson, that he was our Ambassador to 
France. John Adams was our Ambassador to England. They have set the 
standard for how important ambassadors are.
  Here in the Senate Republicans are stalling ambassadors. Twenty-five 
percent of all the ambassadorships to the continent of Africa--
unfilled. There are gaping holes in our Nation's front lines. 
Approximately 30 ambassadors are waiting to be confirmed--and waiting 
and waiting and waiting.
  Senate Republicans, who have been so quick to accuse this 
administration of poor leadership on world issues, are obstructing the 
confirmation of ambassadors who are desperately needed at embassies all 
around the world. Republicans are abdicating the Senate's 
constitutional role to confirm ambassadors.
  In previous years ambassadors were just approved so quickly. Once in 
a while something controversial would come up, but it was once in a 
great while. As I said, a quarter of U.S. Embassies in Africa do not 
have an ambassador. We do not have an ambassador in Bosnia. We do not 
have an ambassador in Vietnam--on and on. Can't we all agree that it is 
important that American interests be represented in these places? The 
answer: We cannot agree. The Republicans do not want these 
ambassadorships filled.
  When can these people who want to play in the ``all-star game'' be 
able to play in the ``all-star game'' and represent the interests of 
this country? They work in careers that are very difficult. They do not 
start out as ambassadors. Rarely does that happen.
  Each day that goes by more ambassadorships are unfilled. All the 
ambassador nominees were passed out of committee unanimously. With rare 
exception they are noncontroversial. I am talking about career 
ambassadors. These are not political appointees. I am talking about 
career ambassadors.
  What does that mean when I say career ambassadors, career diplomats? 
These are good men and women who have worked for decades for the U.S. 
State Department. In most cases these diplomats started working at the 
lowest levels, processing visa applications, asylum requests, and then 
became an economic officer, a political officer. By working hard and 
requiring the necessary expertise, these career diplomats have readied 
themselves to be ambassadors. It is hard.
  Career diplomats do not represent political parties, they represent 
our country. These long-time professionals have worked for both 
Democrats and Republicans. They worked for several different 
administrations. It does not matter, if someone is a Foreign Service 
officer, whether the President is a Democrat or Republican, they do 
their job for the country.
  Now these professionals are needed to fill vital ambassadorial posts 
in some of the most volatile regions in the world. Republicans have 
slammed the brakes on these nominations. At the very least the Senate 
should confirm these noncontroversial career diplomats. If they want to 
play games with the political appointees, they can do that, but these 
career diplomats are not political appointees. They are qualified 
diplomats who have performed admirably for the State Department for a 
long time. We need their experience, we need their expertise at 
embassies all over the world.
  Some Senate observers say Republicans are stalling these nominations 
as a payback for rules changes instituted by the Senate. Let's see if I 
can try to figure this one out. Republicans are stalling Executive 
nominees vital to our national interests to get back at Democrats, to 
get back at me. How is that? Stalling these nominees is jeopardizing 
America's interests abroad. It is damaging our Nation's role in global 
affairs. It is damaging our national security. Is this conjured-up 
political retribution worth harming the United States? Of course not.
  There was a New York Times article within the last 48 hours where 
Secretary of State John Kerry said: I have 52 important State 
Department officials who are waiting to be confirmed in the Senate--52. 
I was stunned to read in that same article a quote from the ranking 
member of the Foreign Relations Committee over here, the junior Senator 
from Tennessee.
  Here is what he said: ``Rather than filling vacant embassies to 
alleviate the national security concerns raised by Secretary Kerry and 
others, the majority leader--
  Listen to this one.

       --who controls the Senate floor--has chosen to spend this 
     week on a sportsman's bill and previous weeks confirming 
     judges.

  Why criticize me for bringing up the sportsmen's bill? This bill was 
sponsored by a majority of the Republicans. Twenty-six Republicans 
cosponsored that legislation. The junior Senator from Tennessee is 
complaining that I brought that up. I guess he is also complaining that 
I brought up raising the minimum wage, which the Republicans 
filibustered. Maybe he is also complaining that we have student debt in 
this country--about $1.3 trillion--and

[[Page 12280]]

we brought that up to alleviate the pain to families in America with 
student debt.
  Maybe he is complaining because we brought up on the Senate floor 
something extremely important; that is, that if a woman does the same 
work as a man, she should get paid the same amount of money--not 
different work, the same work. She should get the same money. I guess 
he is complaining because we brought up something that addresses the 
needs that Americans have; that is, the Hobby Lobby decision from the 
Supreme Court. We think that is wrong. Women in America, families in 
America, with some exception, believe that is wrong.
  So I agree with the junior Senator from Tennessee. There is an urgent 
need to fill these diplomatic posts as soon as possible, but for 
heaven's sake, how could he complain about the substantive legislation 
which is so important to America that I have just run through?
  Then he complains about judges, we are confirming judges. I have been 
here a while in the Senate. Until Obama became President, with some 
exception, these nominations went through on unanimous consent. We were 
not holding up ambassadors. There would be a spat on a judge here and 
there but not holding up all of the judges. The reason it is taking so 
long is we have, under the rules of the Senate, what we call 
postcloture time. That time was originally set up so after we got on a 
piece of legislation or on a nomination, we could think about it for a 
little bit. They think about it a lot and do nothing.
  Thirty hours on a lot of nominations postcloture, 8 hours on others, 
judges only 2 hours. We have been able to go through a lot of judges 
because of that rule change that we made. I thought it was an urgent 
need 4 months ago when I came to the Senate floor to talk about the 
growing logjam of our ambassadorial corps around the country. But 
Senator Corker's reasoning that these ambassadorial confirmations were 
delayed unnecessarily by legislation and judicial confirmations is a 
little weird, a little strange. It is strange and weird for a number of 
reasons.
  I take issue with the notion that the Senate somehow wasted time by 
legislating and confirming judicial nominees. These are our 
constitutional duties. We are going to confirm, in the next few days, a 
post in Georgia. We have two to be filled there. One of them has been 
waiting for more than 1,000 days. So I think it is important we do 
this. Why? Because it is our constitutional duty.
  We only have so much time to confirm judges, because as I indicated, 
filibustering nominees, they do it to everybody. We are working through 
the judges quickly because we changed the rules. Thank goodness we did. 
The Senate did consider Senator Hagan's sportsmen's legislation last 
week. I repeat. That important bill affects--the one that the junior 
Senator from Tennessee said we should not have brought up--affects 40 
million Americans who hunt and fish.
  Somebody I used to practice law with has a place in Montana. He took 
his grandson there and had a wonderful time fishing--no hunting but 
fishing. This place he has, a little stream goes by there. He said it 
was the best time he ever had with his grandchild. That is what 40 
million people do. That is what we brought up. That is what the junior 
Senator from Tennessee said was such a bad idea. Twenty-six Republicans 
cosponsored that legislation. It contributes $200 billion annually to 
our Nation's economy.
  My friend from Tennessee thinks it is a waste of time; we should not 
have done that. The junior Senator from Tennessee was a cosponsor of 
the legislation. He is going to go back and tell the people in 
Tennessee that he made a mistake, he should not have been a cosponsor.
  Earlier, he voted to proceed so we could work on the legislation. 
Then he voted to filibuster it. This is the same tactic we have seen so 
much over the past 6 years. Republicans obstruct. When asked why they 
are not accomplishing anything, they blame Democrats. They blame me. 
The truth is Senate Democrats have continued to press for more and more 
ambassadorial confirmations while also introducing legislation that 
helps working families.
  As I came to the floor in March to highlight the backlog of 
ambassadorial confirmations, the Senate has considered an increase in 
the minimum wage, equal pay for women, student loan refinancing, 
extension of tax cuts, cost-cutting energy legislation, and a number of 
other items. These are all important bills to give working Americans a 
fair shot at a measure of prosperity. Republican filibusters blocked 
every one of them.
  Another issue I have with the Senator from Tennessee is that 
undoubtedly he knows the Senate traditionally does much of its business 
through unanimous consent--in fact most of our business. If Republicans 
agree there is an urgent need to get these nominations done and give 
their consent, we could confirm all of these ambassadors in a single 
afternoon. It would only take a few hours in the afternoon. We could do 
it today.
  But it is clearly not a priority for Republicans; otherwise, they 
would expedite these confirmations. Their behavior on these 
ambassadorial nominations reminds me of a quote by Gandhi: ``Action 
expresses priorities.'' Republicans' lack of action on this matter 
illustrates that they have no priorities in this regard.
  So enough with the stalling and enough with retribution. The Senate 
standoff is not good for this body, and it is hurting American 
interests abroad. Let's get these ambassador posts filled. Our national 
security depends on it.

                          ____________________