[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12552-12558]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

           BRING JOBS HOME ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume legislative session.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to S. 2569. Is that 
pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct; the motion is pending.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion on that matter at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to report the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to calendar No. 453, S. 2569, a bill to provide an 
     incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to America.
         Harry Reid, John E. Walsh, Debbie Stabenow, Amy 
           Klobuchar, Patty Murray, Bernard Sanders, Tom Harkin, 
           Richard J. Durbin, Tom Udall, Robert P. Casey, Jr., 
           Christopher Murphy, Tammy Baldwin, Jon Tester, Mark 
           Begich, Sheldon Whitehouse, Carl Levin, Christopher A. 
           Coons.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.


                             Infrastructure

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very proud to be on the floor this 
evening with colleagues for whom I have a great deal of respect. We 
have been working so hard across party lines to call the Nation's 
attention to the problems we are facing funding our transportation 
system. We all know there are many things in the world we cannot 
control and many things that are causing tremendous frustration.
  I went home this weekend and my constituents came up to me and said: 
Senator, we cannot even look at our television sets with the tragedies 
that are unfolding. They feel, as I do and I know our President does, 
that the tragedies we are witnessing have been born out of historic 
animosities, and it is very difficult. If we could wave our wand and 
make things better in all of these areas, we would do so. We will try, 
and we will push. We are having a meeting with the Foreign Relations 
Committee, and we are going to move to speak sanity to the world. There 
is a crisis we can avert and there is a problem we can solve, and that 
is fixing the highway trust fund shortfall.
  For those who don't know, the highway trust fund was created by 
President Dwight Eisenhower in 1956. He created the trust fund, and it 
was a brilliant move because he realized and said that we are 
developing an Interstate Highway System. He said, this is one country, 
and we have to be united, a physically united country, so we can move 
goods and people and make this country work. Since then, we have always 
had bipartisan support for the trust fund.
  Why is it in trouble? The trust fund is in trouble because the 
Federal tax gas receipts have not kept pace with inflation and the 
rising cost of keeping highways and bridges safe. Some of our bridges 
are well over 50 years old. I have lived a while, and I can tell you 
that when you get a little older, you need a little attention, and the 
fact is our infrastructure is aging and we have to pay attention to it. 
This is not the time to walk away from this crisis.
  Some may wonder why Senator Boxer is showing a photo of a football 
stadium. This is actually a picture of one of the Super Bowls. There 
are 100,000 people in this photograph. Do you know there are 700,000 
unemployed construction workers? They would fill seven of these 
stadiums. The good news is there used to be 2 million unemployed 
construction workers at the height of the recession. We have gotten it 
down to 700,000, but we still cannot afford this.
  What is the economic impact of the failure to act? It is pretty 
simple--millions of jobs. Because you have the construction jobs, and 
then you have all the benefits to communities when we have the workers 
around there--whether it is our cities, being able to have restaurants 
that are filled, and all the kinds of things which happen when you put 
people to work in a community.
  Millions of jobs and thousands of businesses depend on the highway 
trust fund and those businesses and those workers are counting on us. 
You may say: Is there really a problem? Well, 70,000 of our bridges are 
structurally deficient. Keep these numbers in mind in case you are 
asked about it at a party--70,000 bridges are deficient and 700,000 
construction workers are unemployed and 50 percent of our highways are 
in less than good condition.
  Is this a frivolous issue we are talking about here? The 2012 Urban 
Mobility Report from Texas A&M said the financial cost of traffic 
congestion in 2011 was $121 billion, or about $818 per commuter. Of 
that total, about $27 billion was wasted time and diesel fuel from 
trucks moving goods on the system.
  A 2013 survey by the National Association of Manufacturers says 65 
percent answered that our infrastructure is insufficient.
  I will tell you some of the ideas to fix it. I am not just out here 
saying words. I have ideas on how to fix it. One of the

[[Page 12553]]

ideas was put forth by Senators Murphy and Corker. We will hear from 
Senator Corker in a moment.
  One of their suggestions was to modify the gas tax to meet current 
needs, and that is pretty straightforward. We have been doing this 
forever. It is very simple and supported by the Chamber of Commerce and 
supported by just about everybody.
  There is another way to do it that was thought of by the Republican 
Governor of Virginia. I support this. Let me be clear, I will support 
all of these measures.
  The second suggestion is to replace the existing cents-per-gallon gas 
tax with a fee on the wholesale price of gasoline from the refinery. I 
like that because it is a broader way to pay for it.
  I drive an electric hybrid, and as a result, I don't fill my car very 
often. In 2 years we filled it up 4 times. I am not paying my fair 
share. This would be a more broad-based fee.
  The third suggestion is repatriation, which is a very interesting 
concept, and I know Senator Paul supports it. It is complicated in 
terms of the way it scores, but the fact is it would bring in $23 
billion over the first couple of years, and it would give a break to 
some of our businesses.
  So many of my colleagues spent so much time on this. I will not go on 
except to read the names of the supporters of this legislation.
  The supporters of the proposal that Senators Murphy and Corker have 
proposed are the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AAA, the American Trucking 
Association. This is huge.
  Also, we have received letters from so many people.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a letter I received 
today from Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and 11 of his 
predecessors who served 7 Republican and Democratic Presidents--
Johnson, Ford, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and 
Obama--printed in the Record. They all wrote an open letter saying that 
we need to pass a long-term transportation bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 [From the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Public Affairs, 
                             July 21, 2014]

 Open Letter From Secretary Foxx and 11 Former DOT Secretaries Urging 
           Congress To Address Long-Term Transportation Needs

                           (By Ryan Daniels)

       Washington.--As Congress considers legislation to avoid a 
     shortfall of the Highway Trust Fund, Transportation Secretary 
     Anthony Foxx and 11 of his predecessors offered the following 
     open letter to Congress. In addition to Secretary Foxx, 
     Secretaries Ray LaHood, Mary Peters, Norman Mineta, Rodney 
     Slater, Frederico Pena, Samuel Skinner, Andrew Card, James 
     Burnley, Elizabeth Dole, William Coleman and Alan Boyd all 
     signed the letter. Their message: Congress' work doesn't end 
     with the bill under consideration. Transportation in America 
     still needs a much larger, longer-term investment. The text 
     of the letter is below:
       This week, it appears that Congress will act to stave off 
     the looming insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund The bill, if 
     passed, should extend surface transportation funding until 
     next May.
       We are hopeful that Congress appears willing to avert the 
     immediate crisis. But we want to be clear: This bill will not 
     ``fix'' America's transportation system. For that, we need a 
     much larger and longer-term investment. On this, all twelve 
     of us agree.
       Taken together, we have led the U.S. Department of 
     Transportation for over 35 years. One of us was there on day 
     one, at its founding. We've served seven presidents, both 
     Republicans and Democrats, including Lyndon Johnson, Gerald 
     Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George 
     W. Bush, and Barack Obama.
       Suffice it to say, we've been around the block. We probably 
     helped pave it. So it is with some knowledge and experience 
     that we can write: Never in our nation's history has 
     America's transportation system been on a more unsustainable 
     course.
       In recent years, Congress has largely funded transportation 
     in fits and starts. Federal funding bills once sustained our 
     transportation system for up to six years, but over the past 
     five years, Congress has passed 27 short-term measures. 
     Today, we are more than a decade past the last six-year 
     funding measure.
       This is no way to run a railroad, fill a pothole, or repair 
     a bridge. In fact, the unpredictability about when, or if, 
     funding will come has caused states to delay or cancel 
     projects altogether.
       The result has been an enormous infrastructure deficit--a 
     nationwide backlog of repairing and rebuilding. Right now, 
     there are so many structurally deficient bridges in America 
     that, if you lined them up end-to-end, they'd stretch from 
     Boston to Miami. What's worse, the American people are paying 
     for this inaction in a number of ways.
       Bad roads, for example, are costing individual drivers 
     hundreds of dollars a year due to side effects like extra 
     wear-and-tear on their vehicles and time spent in traffic.
       Simply put, the United States of America is in a united 
     state of disrepair, a crisis made worse by the fact that, 
     over the next generation, more will be demanded of our 
     transportation system than ever before. By 2050, this country 
     will be home to up to 100 million new people. And we'll have 
     to move 14 billion additional tons of freight, almost twice 
     what we move now.
       Without increasing investment in transportation, we won't 
     be able to meet these challenges. According to the American 
     Society of Civil Engineers, we need to invest $1.8 trillion 
     by 2020 just to bring our surface transportation 
     infrastructure to an adequate level.
       So, what America needs is to break this cycle of governing 
     crisis-to-crisis, only to enact a stopgap measure at the last 
     moment. We need to make a commitment to the American people 
     and the American economy.
       There is hope on this front. Some leaders in Washington, 
     including those at the U.S. Department of Transportation, are 
     stepping forward with ideas for paying for our roads, rails, 
     and transit systems for the long-term.
       While we--the twelve transportation secretaries--may differ 
     on the details of these proposals, there is one essential 
     goal with which all twelve of us agree: We cannot continue 
     funding our transportation with measures that are short-term 
     and short of the funding we need.
       On this, we are of one mind. And Congress should be, too.
       Adequately funding our transportation system won't be an 
     easy task for our nation's lawmakers. But that doesn't mean 
     it's impossible. Consensus has been brokered before.
       Until recently, Congress understood that, as America grows, 
     so must our investments in transportation. And for more than 
     half a century, they voted for that principle--and increased 
     funding--with broad, bipartisan majorities in both houses.
       We believe they can, and should, do so again.

  Mrs. BOXER. We did it in the Environment and Public Works Committee. 
Senator Carper and I led the charge with Senators Vitter and Barrasso. 
We did our job. We were able to come together with Senator Sessions, 
Senator Vitter, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Sanders--left to 
right--in our committee. They came together to agree on a 6-year bill.
  So what is the problem? It is ridiculous. Unfortunately, the House--
and this is not good--decided to kick the can down the road--I know it 
is a cliche, but it is true--until the end of May. Do you know what it 
means? It means we will not do anything until then, and it will be 
right up against the new construction season. Nobody will enter into a 
long-term contract between now and then. And so we are hoping we can 
change the way the House and the Finance Committee thought about it, 
and my colleagues have been leading on this issue.
  I am on the Carper-Corker-Boxer amendment that would say: Instead of 
funding this highway bill through next year, get our work done this 
year. Who is supporting getting it done this year? The U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 
Officials, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, 
National Association of Manufacturers, Associated General Contractors, 
American Trucking Associations, International Union of Operating 
Engineers, and LiUNA.
  If anybody knows politics, they know these groups hardly ever agree 
on a darn thing, and they agree we should act this year.
  I am proud of my friend here, for whom I will yield shortly.
  I support their efforts wholeheartedly and will do everything I can 
to ensure we don't just do smoke-and-mirrors. Explain to me when you do 
the smoke-and-mirrors--taking the pension and controlling how people 
get coverage through their pensions--how that has anything to do with 
transportation.
  The gas tax? Yes. A tax on oil? Yes.
  Let's think about this. Let's step to the plate and do what is right.

[[Page 12554]]

  I am very proud to be in concert with my friend, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the leader for her comments and 
her ability to build consensus around the reauthorization as she did in 
the committee.
  This is the fifth time since 2008--I have been here since January of 
2007--that we have done a temporary extension. It is an absolute 
embarrassment. Not only do we not get the benefit of the economic 
growth that would come from people knowing there is a program in place 
where they can enter into long-term contracts and they can buy 
construction equipment, in addition to that, this is a tremendous 
problem of absolutely being generational theft.
  I will get to those comments, and I thank the Senator from Delaware 
for his leadership and for being here on the floor. I will be fairly 
brief and will yield the floor for him.
  I think if every Senator were asked if they were opposed to using 
budget gimmicks, they would say yes. I am sure the Presiding Officer 
would say the same. They say the budget should not be used as an offset 
to pay for spending. Time and time again, Congress avoids the tough 
decision and instead throws our kids under the bus so we can tell 
people back home that the legislation was passed and paid for. I have 
long been against the disgraceful practice of spending money today and 
paying for it in the future. It is shameful, it is irresponsible, and 
it is generational theft. Yet here we are this week looking for a way 
to pass a bill that would pay for spending that is already happening by 
using a blatant budget scheme called pension smoothing.
  Pension smoothing is one of the worst kinds of budget gimmicks. Not 
only does it allow Congress to spend money today and pay through 
savings accrued in the future, but the gimmick actually loses money. 
Let me say that one more time. The gimmick actually loses money and 
drives our Nation deeper into debt.
  Pension smoothing is Congress cooking the books. It shifts tax 
revenue that Treasury would collect in the future to the present. It 
starts losing money when the smoothing ends and continues beyond the 
10-year window--combining a highway trust fund bailout that spends 10 
years of revenue in 10 months. Let me say that one more time. What we 
are going to be voting on this week spends 10 years' worth of revenue 
in 10 months.
  I just want to say that my friends, my Republican friends--all of 
us--had problems when the President was trying to pass this health care 
bill because he used 6 years' worth of costs and 10 years' worth of 
revenues, which is orders of magnitude better than what is getting 
ready to happen in this bill this week--again, 10 months' worth of 
spending, 10 years' worth of revenues.
  Pension smoothing also increases the chances that taxpayers will be 
on the hook for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation bailout 
sometime in the future because it weakens the corporate pension system. 
So here we are weakening our balance sheet and simultaneously weakening 
the PBGC. The PBGC deficit already exceeds $30 billion. At the expense 
of taxpayers and workers who rely on pension plans, this budget scheme 
benefits big businesses while allowing Congress to avoid real spending 
decisions.
  I understand the conventional wisdom is that in the haste to leave 
town this August, enough Senators will be here to support the House 
bill with the pension smoothing gimmick included and not even try to do 
better. That is the conventional wisdom. I also understand that some 
will try to scare Members into voting for the House bill by claiming 
the House cannot pass anything except this short-term patch endorsed by 
the President with $11 billion in gimmicks to extend the highway 
funding until June. Although 367 House Members voted for this rushed 
package, it is the responsibility of the Senate to weigh in and offer 
an alternative.
  As I have done in previous years, I will continue to oppose these 
short-term patches to the highway trust fund that allow Congress to 
avoid doing its job in passing a long-term, sustainable solution to 
reform and pay for the program. At the very least we should cut the 
gimmicks in this bill by $3 billion and do away with pension smoothing.
  I rarely use exhibits, but this is the gimmick of all gimmicks. Look 
at what happens when we use it to pay for a short-term bill: We collect 
the money during the window that it is counted, and then from then on 
we are losing money. This is a double loser.
  It is amazing that we could even come up with these kinds of schemes 
to pay for an already insolvent program, and we do it by putting our 
country further in debt in the future and, candidly, weakening our 
corporate pension system.
  I am pleased there is bipartisan momentum to change this. I hope my 
colleagues will support the amendment Senators Carper, Boxer, and I are 
offering that would reject the budget gimmicks in this bill and force 
Congress to stop shirking its responsibility so we can work toward 
passing a long-term transportation bill.
  There is going to be a push by some to say that we shouldn't take up 
anything the rest of this year. I would think every Member of this 
Congress who realizes we have allowed ourselves to get into the jam we 
are in would want to show the responsibility of actually dealing with 
this this year. We have a number of Members who are retiring. Many of 
them spent a lot of time on issues such as this. I would like to see 
them have the opportunity to come up with a long-term solution. I would 
imagine that if we did that, the House would want to support a more 
fiscally conservative alternative, which is what our amendment 
achieves.
  I hope we will all back our words with actions and reject this 
irresponsible pay-for once and for all and do something far more 
responsible.
  Before I yield the floor, I want to say I really appreciate Senator 
Carper's continual effort as a former Governor to try to do those 
things that are common sense, that are pragmatic, and that make our 
country stronger along the way.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, before the Senator from Tennessee leaves, 
I wish to thank him very much for joining Senator Boxer and me in this 
Senate to create a dynamic that will enable us to do our job. He shows 
time and again the courage to keep out of step when everybody else is 
marching to the wrong tune. So does Barbara Boxer. She has shown 
extraordinary leadership in the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
on which I serve. I serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure. She and Senator Vitter and Senator 
Barrasso, with a little help from me, were able to guide through 
committee and report a secure transportation bill--a plan for the 
transportation for our country, including roads, highways, bridges, 
transit systems--and report it out of committee without amendment, 
without a dissenting vote, and bring it to the floor of the Senate.
  If it were that easy, we wouldn't all be here tonight. There is other 
legislation, companion legislation that came out of the commerce 
committee for, among other things, freight railroads, passenger 
railroads. They have jurisdiction over aviation as well. The banking 
committee has jurisdiction over transit systems. So there is a shared 
responsibility here, and there is a shared responsibility to figure out 
how to pay for all of this. How do we pay for this?
  We are spending somewhere around $17 billion, $18 billion a year for 
the Federal share for transportation projects. That is roughly about 
half of what we are spending if we add in State and local monies during 
the course of the year. We have run out of money. We literally run out 
of money next month for the Federal Government to do its share.
  So what do we do? Well, I will tell my colleagues what we do. We are 
not going to continue to put it on our credit card, and we are not 
going to keep

[[Page 12555]]

turning to countries such as China and saying: How about loaning us 
some more money so we can replenish the general fund, which will 
replenish the transportation trust fund.
  Why do we want to be beholden to China? I don't think we want to be 
in that situation.
  What we need to do is summon the courage to do what people sent us to 
do, and that is to make tough decisions.
  Senator Corker is--I call him a recovering mayor from Chattanooga. I 
was the Governor for some years in Delaware. We are a bunch of former 
Governors and mayors here and some county executives, and we bring 
those experiences with us. When we are in our State or our city or our 
county and we are trying to plan and fund and permit contracts for 
roads, highways, and bridges or transit projects, it takes a long time. 
People are watching and wondering, why do we need a 6-year bill or why 
do we need predictability and certainty that the money is going to be 
there for these projects? It is because they take a long time. It is 
not uncommon to spend years planning a project.
  The problem is, as the Senator from Tennessee said, five times we 
have done stop-and-go. I think it has actually been 11 times in the 
last 5 years that we have done stop-and-go funding and we haven't 
provided the certainty and predictability that State and local 
governments are begging for and that transportation authorities around 
the country are pleading for. The road contractors and folks who build 
these systems and transit systems, the folks who work on them, the 
labor unions--everybody is pleading with us to do our job. And what we 
have done--the House, God bless them, reported out a bill that was, 
unfortunately, a straight party-line vote. They reported out a bill 
that funds the transportation trust fund to allow projects to be built 
through May 31 of next year.
  Some people say: Well, that is fine.
  That is not fine. It is not 6 years, and, frankly, Senator Boxer 
called it kicking the can down the road. We have done that again and 
again--11 times over the last 5 years. There is a good chance that when 
we get to next May 31, we will say: Well, it is too hard to make these 
tough decisions as to how we are going to pay for this stuff, and we 
will kick the can down the road again, providing more uncertainty, more 
unpredictability.
  It is wasteful. It is inefficient. It is foolish. We look impotent. 
It is not the way for us to do business.
  What Senator Corker and I and a number of others who are going to be 
joining us in this cause will call for doing is pretty simple. Instead 
of providing $11 billion for the transportation trust fund from what I 
will call a bunch of different sources of revenue--some of them more 
equal than others but some of them pretty questionable; but in some 
cases we are stealing revenues over the next 10 years for stuff that 
has nothing to do with transportation projects and using that money to 
fund transportation projects for, I don't know, 7, 8, 9, 10 months 
instead of actually doing what we have done for years--have a user-pay 
system where those who use our roads, highways, and transit systems pay 
for them. That is what we ought to be doing. But the problem with what 
the House has suggested we do is we will never--maybe never--get back 
to providing the certainty and predictability we need. We continue to 
drive up costs and say to all of the folks who are ordering us to do 
our job: Well, we don't have the courage to do it now. Maybe we will 
have it next year.
  I think that will be a huge mistake.
  I like to think of our Nation's economy as a car at the bottom of a 
steep hill, and 5 years ago our Nation's economy was at the bottom of 
the steep hill. We could have literally dropped off a cliff. Between 
July 1 and December 31, 2008, we lost 2.5 million jobs. In the first 6 
months of 2009 we lost 2.5 million jobs. Literally the week Barack 
Obama and Joe Biden were sworn in as President and Vice President, we 
had 628,000 people file for unemployment insurance. In 1 week 628,000 
filed for unemployment insurance. We know that anytime that number is 
over 400,000 people filing for unemployment insurance in a week, we are 
losing jobs in the economy. And that number stayed over 600,000 for too 
long. But it started to drop, and it dropped down to 550,000, then 
500,000, eventually 450,000, and then 400,000, and a year or so ago we 
got under 400,000, and that number now is about 300,000. We are adding 
jobs.
  Some would say: Well, they are not the kinds of jobs we want or need. 
But some are--a lot of them. Almost any job is better than nothing. And 
some of these jobs are very good and pay a fair amount of money. Here 
is where we were.
  We were that car at the bottom of a very steep hill 5 years ago and 
trying to climb up the hill. It was slow going. We kept going. We kept 
going. We have added jobs; sometimes, some months, 50,000, some months 
100,000. Now we are up to over 250,000 new jobs a month. But that car--
if you will, we are that car--is climbing that hill. We are making it 
to the top. We are at the crest of the hill. As we look at it we can 
say it is downhill now.
  As we add more and more jobs every month, we have the option of doing 
two things: One, we can mash down on the accelerator, kick it into high 
gear, kick this economy into high gear, where it needs to go or we can 
start tapping on the brakes--start tapping on the brakes, slow things 
down, introduce uncertainty, lack of predictability. What we offer in 
our amendment, Senator Corker and Senator Boxer and myself and others, 
is a better likelihood that we are going to be pushing down on the 
accelerator next year.
  We are not going to just put hundreds of thousands of people to work 
across our country building roads, highways, bridges and transit 
centers, but we are actually going to make our transportation system 
more efficient, which in the long haul is most important, to move 
product, whether it is from one coast to the other, north to south or 
just around our States. That is the key. How do we do this in a more 
efficient way? How do we make our economy work better? So this works at 
couple of different levels.
  If we say we are going to kick the can down the road into next year 
and we will fund these programs until May 31, I do not know what is 
going to give us the courage next May 31 to fund a 6-year 
transportation program. As Senator Corker said, we have seven or eight 
people who are leaving at the end of this year. They are not running 
for reelection. They are retiring. They want to leave, saying: We did 
this on our watch. It was our job to get this done and we did. That is 
exactly why people send us in the first place, to make those kinds of 
decisions.
  This is not something Democrats can do by ourselves. This is not 
something Republicans can do by themselves. What I am very proud of, in 
both committees, is that the Democrats and Republicans voted for it--
the Finance Committee voted for a similar proposal, not quite a 
majority but a very respectable showing. We have been working and 
gaining support literally by the day for what we are going to do.
  Senator Boxer ran through some of the folks, some of the 
organizations that are supporting this, a lot of State and local 
governments, State departments of transportation, folks who build 
roads, folks who run the roadbuilding companies, folks who do the 
actual labor for these projects, the American Trucking Associations, 
AAA, you name it. There is a huge bunch of people out there who want us 
to do our job. They do not want us to wait until some other time. They 
want us to do it now. We can do that.
  We are not here tonight to say this is how we are going to fund a 6-
year plan. There are a lot of good ideas, and Senator Boxer ran through 
some of those. The idea is to create a situation where we are going to 
be compelled and we will actually figure out, of all those options--and 
there may be some other ones--how do we get this done. The idea that we 
continue to borrow money, to borrow money over the next 10 years--
revenue streams have nothing to do with transportation, nothing to do 
with transportation. If we pretend that is going to fund our 
transportation budget for 5 or 6 months, that is

[[Page 12556]]

just laughing stock. We look so foolish doing that. It is also highly 
inefficient, as I said.
  I wish I could remember exactly what Mark Twain once said--maybe the 
Presiding Officer can help me on this later--but he once said something 
like this: Do the right thing. You will please your friends and amaze 
your enemies--something along those lines. For the record we will 
correct it. But please your friends and amaze or confound your enemies. 
Why do we not try that for a change. That would be a great way to 
finish this year.
  I again thank Senator Boxer. I thank Senator Corker for joining me in 
what I think is a noble mission. I never take anything for granted, but 
I think if we work it hard enough, we may surprise some people in a 
good way.
  I see my friend from Texas--whose mother was born in Wilmington, DE, 
1 of 17 children--is rising for recognition.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                               Venezuela

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the ongoing crisis in 
Venezuela. With so many crises happening around the globe these days, 
political turmoil in Venezuela has slipped from the headlines and 
sometimes seems easy to forget. The situation commands our attention. 
In Venezuela the protests against oppression go on, with 6,369 recorded 
rallies this year, the most in over a decade.
  When Hugo Chavez's death was confirmed 15 months ago, there were 
hopes that his hand-picked successor Nicolas Maduro would prove more 
moderate and friendly to the United States. These hopes quickly proved 
groundless, as Maduro doubled down on his predecessor's disastrous 
socialist economic policies and his close partnership with Castro's 
Cuba, not to mention Khamenei's Iran.
  Earlier this year, as Venezuela endured shortages of basic goods from 
baby formula to caskets, from beginning of life to end and everything 
in between, while an increasingly authoritarian regime trampled their 
constitutional rights, the people finally took to the streets to 
protest Maduro's corrupt and unjust rule. Demanding freedom, they 
marched peaceably while Maduro's Cuban-trained militia tried to incite 
violence.
  Following the wide-ranging protests of February 12, 2014, Maduro's 
regime claimed that opposition leaders were personally responsible for 
the violence that Maduro's regime had deliberately provoked. Six days 
later, the leader of the Voluntad Popular Party Leopoldo Lopez 
demonstrated his respect for rule of law when he voluntarily 
surrendered to the authorities.
  He could have stayed in hiding, he could have gone into exile, but he 
believes it is only through taking action that change can come to 
Venezuela. Here is Mr. Lopez. As he surrendered to the authorities to 
be thrown in prison, hundreds of thousands of supporters accompanied 
him to the police van. Mr. Lopez has been held in the Ramo Verde 
military prison ever since. In early June a judge ordered him held for 
trial, which will begin this week.
  His wife Lilian Tintori is in Washington today to draw attention to 
his case. She spoke powerfully at the National Press Club about how she 
and her children have missed their dad, have missed Leopoldo while he 
has been in prison, but they know their daddy is doing what he must to 
fight for the men and women of Venezuela.
  Maduro's so-called evidence against Mr. Lopez includes the claim that 
he was somehow sending secret subliminal messages inciting violence, 
when he in fact explicitly called on his followers to protest 
peacefully. Let me repeat that. Mr. Lopez explicitly asked his 
followers to protest peacefully against the oppressive regime of 
Maduro. What does Maduro say? That apparently Leopoldo has the power to 
subliminally suggest violence when his words say, ``Don't engage in 
violence.''
  This would be comical and absurd were it not the basis for an 
indictment that Maduro is seeking to lock Leopoldo up for 10 years in 
prison for daring to speak out against oppression. It is important to 
understand the trial scheduled this week is no trial in the ordinary 
term. There will be no jury. There will be no evidence for the 
defense--not for lack of trying. Mr. Lopez is denied any opportunity to 
refute these bogus charges about his supposed subliminal powers because 
Mr. Lopez's defense team asked to submit the testimony of 60 witnesses.
  The trial court denied all 60, said no witnesses will be allowed for 
the defense. Mr. Lopez's team asked to submit 13 videos. The trial 
court denied all 13. Mr. Lopez's defense team asked to submit the 
testimony of 12 experts. The trial court denied all 12. So in this so-
called trial, which is nothing but a sham, the defense will have no 
evidence because the trial court has already decided they will allow no 
evidence in support of someone speaking for freedom, someone speaking 
for the people. The evidence will be kept out of this show trial.
  That is not an unusual path. Dictators, totalitarian regimes from 
Stalin to Castro throughout the ages have engaged in the same show 
trials that they use to brutally silence any who would dare to speak 
out against them. The undeniable fact is that Nicolas Maduro has no 
interest in justice in this case or in the nation of Venezuela.
  The official charges are public incitement, property damage, and 
criminal conspiracy, but Mr. Lopez's real crime is quite simply the 
exercise of his rights provided by article 57 of the Constitution of 
Venezuela, which states:

       Everyone has the right to express freely his or her 
     thoughts, ideas or opinions orally, in writing or by any 
     other form of expression, and to use for such purpose any 
     means of communication and diffusion, and no censorship shall 
     be established.

  That is what the Constitution of Venezuela says, but Nicolas Maduro 
says Leopoldo Lopez goes to prison and wants him to stay there for 10 
years because he spoke out and spoke the truth. Mr. Lopez freely 
expressed his criticism of Maduro's failed leadership, and for that he 
has been unceremoniously thrown in jail and faces a sham trial that 
could rob his 4-year-old daughter and his 1-year-old son of having a 
daddy for the next 10 years.
  As his wife Lilian wrote today in the Washington Post:

       No one should doubt why Leopoldo is in prison: Venezuelan 
     President Nicolas Maduro is afraid of him, and he has great 
     reason to be. Chavez did not deliver and Maduro has not 
     delivered on their promises, and they have systematically 
     dismantled our fundamental freedoms--free speech, freedom of 
     association, freedom of the press and freedom to vote for 
     candidates of our choosing.

  The most basic foundational human rights, and for advocating for 
those Leopoldo Lopez is in prison.
  Every American should take an interest in Mr. Lopez's fate. Not only 
is he a good friend to our country, having attended both Kenyon College 
and Harvard, he also advocates the sort of political and economic 
reforms that would return Venezuela to its historic place as a close 
partner to the United States, a development that would be of great 
advantage in our hemisphere.
  Mr. Lopez's case also reminds us of the precious freedoms we enjoy in 
the United States that can all too quickly be taken away.
  Article 57 should have particular resonance for us as our right to 
free speech is enshrined in the First Amendment of our Constitution:

       Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
     religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 
     abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the 
     right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition 
     the government for a redress of grievances.

  There is a reason the Framers chose this subject for the First 
Amendment in the Bill of Rights, because upon these rights all of our 
liberties are built. No freedom is more vital to true democracy than 
the freedom to worship God according to the dictates of our conscience 
and the freedom to speak as we choose without government censors, for 
when these freedoms are restricted citizens lose their ability to 
express their opposition to the government.
  As Venezuela shows us, this process can take place slowly, over time, 
but the eventual result is that a citizen

[[Page 12557]]

who speaks out is silenced and punished.
  I have to say Leopoldo Lopez's situation is one that has resonance in 
my family. Fifty-seven years ago my father was in a prison in another 
Latin American country, the country of Cuba. My dad was 17 when he was 
imprisoned and tortured in a Cuban jail. Leopoldo is 43, the very same 
age I am today.
  Leopoldo Lopez's case is, unfortunately, not an isolated case in 
Maduro's Venezuela. Forty-six people have been killed, thousands have 
been detained, and more than 100 are still in prison.
  His fellow opposition leader, Maria Corina Machado, recently 
discovered that she too had been charged last month with incitement to 
violence related to the February protests. She had never been informed 
there was a criminal case against her and now she faces potentially 6 
years in prison as well.
  Maduro's actions are those of a dictator who knows he is deeply 
unpopular, that his policies are a dismal failure, and that to survive 
he has to silence the voices of those who oppose him and offer a viable 
alternative, who oppose him and offer freedom.
  The people of Venezuela showed in February that they are ready for a 
change from the long slog into totalitarian socialism that was begun by 
Chavez and is being continued by Maduro. Now Maduro is trying to use a 
cloud of censorship to isolate Venezuelans from each other and from the 
rest of the world. We should not look the other way.
  Again, from Lillian's Washington Post op-ed today:

       We need to send a message to the government that it cannot 
     trample on the rights of its people with impunity. 
     Accordingly, I call on President Maduro to release my husband 
     and the more than 100 political prisoners being held in 
     Venezuela. But my actions alone are not enough. My husband 
     needs the support of all countries that stand for freedom.

  In this, the United States should lead the way. America should speak 
with a clarion voice: Free Leopoldo Lopez. As the hashtag #SOSVenezuela 
has rocketed around the globe, it shows the power of speaking the 
truth: Free Leopoldo Lopez.
  The United States should do everything it can to shine the bright 
light of truth and freedom on this repression by highlighting Leopoldo 
Lopez's case.
  President Obama should stand and lead, demanding the freedom of 
Leopoldo Lopez.
  Secretary Kerry should stand and lead, demanding the freedom of 
Leopoldo Lopez.
  Every Member of this body should join in bipartisan unison demanding 
the freedom of Leopoldo Lopez.
  We should not and cannot let this unjust persecution pass unnoticed 
but, rather, we should help the people of Venezuela choose a different 
path, a path of freedom, a path of prosperity, and a path of friendship 
that will return this one-time enemy, the nation of Venezuela, to its 
traditional role of America's partner and friend. All of us should join 
in demanding and working for the freedom of Leopoldo Lopez.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Tragedy in Eastern Ukraine

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to address the horrific series of 
events which have occurred in Eastern Ukraine within the last week. The 
shooting down of a civilian Malaysian airliner and the killing of 298 
innocent people is an unspeakable tragedy and one that, frankly, speaks 
out for us to address in terms of the responsibility.
  In this situation in Eastern Ukraine there are armed thugs who are in 
control of the territory where this plane was shot down. They have been 
armed, financed, and inspired by Vladimir Putin and the Russians. That 
is the grim reality. All signs point to the fact that Putin, the 
Russians, and their supporters in Eastern Ukraine are responsible for 
this terrible tragedy--the loss of 298 lives.
  I was in Ukraine a few weeks ago with Senator McCain and others, and 
it was at a time when Crimea was about to fall. It was clear then the 
Ukrainians did not have the capacity to stop this effort by Putin to 
take over territory--and he did. Then that wasn't enough. He had to 
reach into Eastern Ukraine for even more territory, stirring up 
problems, creating havoc, and, sadly, bloodshed in the process.
  It is bad enough the Ukrainian citizens themselves were victims, but 
now 298 innocent people on a civilian airliner were shot down over this 
territory. As I have said, the evidence points directly to Moscow and 
its complicity in this horrible event.
  This is a photo which has been distributed showing pro-Russian 
separatists holding up some of the personal effects of the victims of 
the Malaysian airline flight that was shot down. What is happening 
there since the crash is also nothing short of horrific.
  At this moment in time in virtually any other place in the world, 
save perhaps North Korea, international inspectors would be on the 
scene determining the cause of that plane's crash and, of equal or even 
greater importance, making certain the recovery effort of the victims 
of this crash was done by the standards of civilized nations. But the 
Eastern Ukrainian separatists, inspired by Putin and Moscow, have 
refused to allow these people in.
  What we are hearing in reports is horrible. The corpses of these 
victims are being taken and placed in refrigerator cars on trains. 
Imagine the anguish of the families associated with those victims as 
they hear this--a loved one shot out of the sky in a civilian airliner 
apparently because of some folly by Eastern Ukrainian, Russian-inspired 
thugs and now they cannot even recover the remains of the people they 
love--let alone a serious objective investigation about the cause of 
that crash.
  It is hard to imagine that Vladimir Putin could let it reach this 
point and harder still to imagine that he doesn't own up to his 
responsibility. It is horrifying that we have reached this point where 
this terribly tragic scene goes from bad to worse as Putin's thugs go 
through the personal effects of the people who were shot down.
  There is a list of those who were lost. I know the Presiding Officer 
from the State of Indiana has a particular attachment to one of the 
victims--this one--Karlijn Keijzer, a student at Indiana University. 
This was well publicized in the Midwest--that we lost this beautiful 
woman, a victim of this tragic crash.
  There were more--297 more--who died. They included Quinn Lucas 
Schansman, a 19-year-old U.S.-Dutch citizen who was born in the United 
States but whose family moved back to the Netherlands when he was 
young. He was on his way to visit his grandfather in Indonesia.
  This is Joep Lange, a renowned Dutch AIDS researcher traveling with 
his partner to the International AIDS conference in Australia.
  I mentioned Karlijn Keijzer, doctoral student at Indiana University 
in Bloomington. She was going on vacation with her boyfriend when this 
plane was shot down.
  Sister Philomene Tiernan was a 77-year-old Roman Catholic nun who was 
returning to her school in Australia where she had taught thousands of 
students over her 30-year vocation.
  Andrei Anghel, 24, was a Canadian medical student going on vacation 
with his girlfriend.
  Sri Siti Amirah, an 83-year-old, was step-grandmother of Malaysia's 
prime minister. She was heading to Indonesia to celebrate the end of 
Ramadan.
  Shazana Salleh, 31 years old, was a flight attendant on the plane. 
Her father told the media this was her dream, to be a flight attendant.
  And this heartbreaking photo is of Shuba Jaya, 38 years old, Paul 
Goes, and their 1-year-old daughter Kaela. Shuba was a Malaysian 
actress, her husband a Dutch businessman. They were returning to 
Malaysia from Holland after showing their daughter to her husband's 
parents.
  These victims of Mr. Putin's recklessness and their grieving families 
deserve more than the tragic and revolting actions occurring now in 
Eastern

[[Page 12558]]

Ukraine. The Russian people--not the leadership but the people of 
Russia--deserve better.
  The Russian people have a proud history of accomplishment in so many 
different fields. But President Putin has created a climate of fear in 
his country, where those who dissent to his policies will be punished. 
His use of Soviet-style propaganda and intimidation, shutting down of 
independent media and voices, and his strong-arming of other peaceful 
nations are, sadly, an insult to the great achievements and legacy of 
the Russian people.
  I hope Mr. Putin still sees the importance of being a responsible 
world leader. There is little evidence of it in recent weeks. He can 
start almost immediately by calling off his shameful proxies who are so 
disrespecting the victims and their families at this crash site--the 
site for which he is most certainly responsible.
  My thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims.
  To our Dutch friends who suffered such an overwhelming loss of life 
in this crash, I express my deepest condolences. And to the people of 
Ukraine, the Baltics, Poland, and everywhere else facing Russian 
bullying, we stand with you in your desire for democracy and peaceful 
relations with the West and Russia.
  Earlier this evening we considered three nominations and two passed 
by voice vote. One of those passed by voice vote was Michael Lawson of 
California for the rank of Ambassador during his tenure of service as 
representative of the United States of America on the Council of the 
International Civil Aviation Organization.
  The reason I bring that to the attention of the Senate is he was 
nominated last September and reported out of the Foreign Relations 
Committee in May. Mr. Lawson has been sitting on the calendar. There 
was no objection to him. No one had any objection to him, but he was 
sitting on the calendar because of objection on the Republican side of 
the aisle. Why was his name called today? Because of this tragedy--
because this tragedy pointed out the fact that the United States would 
not have its representative before this important organization which 
investigates these airline crashes.
  It has reached a point where almost 30 Ambassadors to organizations 
and nations are being held up on the floor of the Senate over and over 
until something happens--an upheaval, a tragedy--and then they are 
brought for a vote.
  The United States of America is a better nation than that. We 
shouldn't be holding up in the Senate these fine men and women who are 
willing to serve our Nation. I urge my colleagues to reconsider this 
approach. Let us release these ambassadorial appointments by President 
Obama. For those that are controversial, so be it; let's hold them. But 
the vast majority of these are not controversial. Let's give them a 
chance to serve our Nation.

                          ____________________