[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12975-12993]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 NOMINATION OF PAMELA HARRIS TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE 
                       FOURTH CIRCUIT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                          Wildfire Management

  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, we have an opportunity to address an 
issue of concern to foresting communities in Wisconsin and across the 
Nation in the emergency supplemental appropriations bill now pending 
before Congress.
  The supplemental addresses a number of very urgent issues. The issue 
of unaccompanied minors who are crossing our southern border has 
rightly received much attention and there is, indeed, a crisis. I 
believe Congress must pass a supplemental appropriations bill to help 
address this humanitarian crisis.
  This afternoon I wish to call attention to another emergency that 
Congress must address: extreme wildfires and the dysfunctional way the 
Federal Government manages our firefighting operations.
  Devastating wildfires are raging in Washington and Oregon States, and 
many other States have felt the heartbreaking impact of major forest 
fire destruction. As I presided earlier today, I heard the two Senators 
from Washington State come to the floor and talk about the devastation 
the wildfires in their State are causing and the bravery of citizens 
who are facing these destructive fires. It is why I am pleased 
Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Mikulski has drafted an emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill that includes $615 million for 
wildfire suppression. I thank her for her tremendous leadership in 
putting together a strong bill, and I urge Congress to take up and pass 
this legislation without delay to provide much needed support to these 
suffering communities.
  But it is not just Western States that feel the impact of wildfires. 
In fact, a State such as Wisconsin is hurt very significantly by a 
broken budget process called fire borrowing. It forces the U.S. Forest 
Service to take funding intended to manage our forests and instead use 
it for wildfire suppression. In fact, fire borrowing is a misnomer. The 
money is never paid back. This cripples the U.S. Forest Service and 
diverts critical funding from my home State and many others.
  In Wisconsin, over 50,000 people are employed in the forest products 
industry, from jobs in forestry and logging to paper makers in the 
State's many mills. The industry pays over $3 billion in wages into the 
State's economy and ships products worth over $17 billion each year.
  Unfortunately, fire borrowing has led to long project delays that are 
impacting this vital industry and jeopardizing the jobs which it 
supports.
  The practice of fire borrowing has increased in recent years, 
triggered when we have a bad fire season and the Forest Service runs 
out of funds available for firefighting. When the firefighting funding 
is gone, the agency transfers funds from other parts of its budget and 
borrows them to pay for the fire suppression. When these funds are 
diverted, agency work is simply put on hold.
  No business owner would select a supplier who couldn't provide a 
clear delivery schedule or who would routinely delay delivery of 
products for undetermined amounts of time. Loggers and other local 
businesses that partner with the Forest Service have to deal with just 
such uncertainty because of fire borrowing. Government can work better 
than this.
  Fortunately, the Senate emergency supplemental appropriations bill 
would solve this broken process by treating the largest fires as other 
natural disasters such as hurricanes or tornadoes, and it would 
stabilize the rest of the Forest Service budget so that other essential 
work, ranging from timber sales to the management of forest health, can 
be completed on schedule.
  Furthermore, the proposal is fiscally responsible, because it would 
help reduce long-term costs by allowing for increased fire prevention 
activities and because it would not increase the amount that Congress 
can spend on natural disasters.
  Ending fire borrowing has strong bipartisan support. In fact, over 
120 Members of the House and Senate, and more than 200 groups ranging 
from the timber industry to conservation groups, to the National Rifle 
Association, support the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act--the bipartisan 
bill that contains the fire borrowing fix included in the supplemental. 
The consensus is we need to get this fix done this year.
  While there is strong bipartisan support for ending fire borrowing, 
it is unclear if the House of Representatives is going to support this 
fix in the supplemental appropriations bill that is being considered 
now. In fact, my friend, the House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan, 
has consistently stood in the way of bipartisan solutions offered in 
both the House and the Senate. He has ignored the fact that the current 
budget structure is flawed and has resulted in the Forest Service 
taking the forest management funding Wisconsin's forests rely upon and 
instead using it to fight wildfires.
  As his Republican House colleague Representative Mike Simpson 
recently pointed out:

       Unfortunately, continuing the status quo, as Chairman Ryan 
     advocates, prevents us from reducing the cost and severity of 
     future fires by forcing agencies to rob the money that 
     Congress has appropriated for these priorities to pay for 
     increasingly unpredictable and costly suppression needs.

  I urge my friend and fellow Wisconsinite to join us and support 
ending fire borrowing.
  I thank Chairwoman Mikulski and subcommittee Chairman Reed for 
including this important provision in the supplemental bill. I wish to 
also thank Senators Wyden and Crapo for their tireless leadership in 
the fight to end fire borrowing.
  The proposal included in the emergency appropriations supplemental is 
a

[[Page 12976]]

fiscally responsible solution to a devastating problem with wide-
ranging impacts. It will help us respond to wildfires and it will 
support businesses and thousands of jobs in the timber industry in 
Wisconsin as well as throughout the country.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate and in the House to come together 
to solve this problem once and for all.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                            Unrest In Israel

  Mr. HELLER. Madam President, last week the Washington Post ran an 
opinion piece titled ``Moral clarity in Gaza.'' The thesis of the 
article states that Israel is not interested in cross-border violence; 
rather, the goal of the current military action is to establish peace. 
I believe the writer correctly suggests that Israel has been left with 
no choice but to act in order to defend herself from the terrorist 
organization Hamas.
  The piece also made the important conclusion that Hamas wants to 
provoke a fight with Israel and that this group is willing to sacrifice 
their own people in order to win international support and ultimately 
undermine Israel's legitimacy and right to defend itself.
  There is no question regarding Israel's legitimacy, and there is also 
no question regarding Israel's right to defend itself. The 
international community has affirmed this principle. Further, this body 
affirmed Israel's right to defend itself when the Senate recently 
passed Senator Graham's resolution on this matter.
  As a cosponsor, I believe this resolution speaks in clear terms: The 
Senate stands with Israel's right to defend itself, and it demands that 
Hamas immediately--immediately--stop attacking Israel.
  While the Senate has made its position on this issue clear, Israel 
has been forced to take matters into its own hands. As we speak, 
Israeli defense forces are engaged in Operation Protective Edge, 
working to identify and destroy the infrastructure Hamas has used to 
execute attacks and move artillery underneath Gaza City.
  Recent reports have stated that the IDF has destroyed more than 20 
tunnels and identified many more as ground troops moved from building 
to building. They are utilizing air, ground, and sea to strike 
designated targets and provide support as IDF works its way through 
Gaza City.
  The fighting will likely continue and more casualties on both sides 
will increase until either a cease-fire can be negotiated or Israel 
believes the tunnel system has been successfully negated.
  I believe Israel has been left with no choice but to defend herself. 
Israel has faced a barrage of rocket attacks from Gaza Strip, and 
according to Secretary of State Kerry Hamas has attempted to sedate and 
kidnap Israelis through the network of tunnels used to stage cross-
border raids.
  Prime Minister Netanyahu cannot tolerate rocket attacks and cannot 
tolerate kidnappings aimed at Israelis. Their right to defend 
themselves is without question. But through the process, innocent 
Palestinians are being killed. This tragic loss of innocent life must 
not go unnoticed, but we must acknowledge Hamas's role in risking the 
lives of their own through their own actions.
  Hamas stores and launches rockets from heavily populated areas. They 
do this because they know it will draw return fire from Israel, and 
even if some Palestinians are killed, the coverage aired worldwide will 
be favorable to Hamas and therefore well worth the loss. Hamas is 
sacrificing its own to win a media war against Israel. In contrast, in 
the lead-up to military action, Israel dropped thousands of leaflets 
explaining to Palestinians where they can go to be safe.
  There is no clearer picture of right versus wrong than Israel 
fighting to protect its citizens against a terrorist operation 
operating underground and using Palestinians they live with as human 
shields.
  Hamas is a terrorist organization willing to let women and children 
die if there is a possibility it advances international sympathy for 
them and underscores Israel in any way.
  The footage of innocent Palestinians dying in Gaza is tragic, but the 
blame is not at the foot of Israel; it is on Hamas.
  Over the next weeks and months, the military action in Gaza may 
escalate. If a cease-fire is not negotiated, the United States cannot 
turn its back on Israel. We must continue to stand with them and allow 
them to eradicate this terrorist threat and shut down these underground 
tunnels. It is their right as a nation, and the United States must 
stand with them.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I wish to compliment the distinguished 
Senator from Nevada for his very cogent remarks. They are true, and I 
appreciate his leadership on this matter.


                          Bring Jobs Home Act

  Madam President, the Senate is currently debating the so-called Bring 
Jobs Home Act--a bill supposedly aimed at preserving and creating jobs 
in the United States. However, as I noted here on the floor yesterday, 
the Bring Jobs Home Act is little more than political posturing and 
election-year messaging. It really does get old. We have gone through 
that over and over while we do not do what we ought to do for this 
country.
  The Senate Democrats want to portray the Republicans as the party of 
outsourcing, which is a joke. So they have crafted a bill that will do 
nothing to actually address the problem of outsourcing but will provide 
them with a few days' worth of talking points on the subject. We went 
through precisely this same exercise in 2012. We voted on the exact 
same bill during the last election cycle. It was meaningless then, and 
it is meaningless now.
  As I said, I went over this yesterday. I talked at some length about 
the shortcomings of this bill, and I do not want to rehash all of that 
again today. Instead, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about 
some things we could be doing to create and protect American jobs. I 
have filed some amendments to this bill that I think would actually do 
something along those lines. If we get a chance to offer amendments to 
this bill--which is, of course, doubtful under the way the Senate is 
currently being run--I think these are the types of amendments we 
should consider.
  One of my amendments is a four-part tax amendment that would help 
businesses create jobs in the United States. If enacted, it would 
provide additional cash flow for businesses that would allow them to 
hire workers, increase wages, and invest in plant and equipment in the 
United States, among other things. It would do so by making four 
separate temporary tax provisions permanent.
  The first of these provisions relates to section 179, small business 
expensing. My amendment would permanently increase the amount of 
equipment, certain real property, and software a business can deduct in 
a year to $500,000 and index that amount to inflation. That makes 
sense.
  The second provision would make bonus depreciation permanent, 
allowing businesses to permanently deduct 50 percent of the cost of 
qualified property in the first year that property is placed in 
service.
  My amendment would also make the research and development tax credit 
permanent, increasing the alternative simplified credit to 20 percent 
and eliminating the traditional research and development credit test.
  Finally, the amendment would permanently provide for a full exclusion 
of capital gains income derived from the sale of stock of certain small 
subchapter C corporations held on a long-term basis.
  All of these would be tremendous amendments and would really create 
jobs. They ought to be allowed on this bill. Together, these four 
provisions would provide much needed certainty for job-creating 
businesses and allow companies to more effectively plan for the future.
  If we are going to amend the Tax Code in the name of creating jobs, 
this

[[Page 12977]]

is a far better approach, as it removes uncertainty and simplifies 
elements of the code. The Bring Jobs Home Act would actually do the 
opposite.
  I have also filed two health-related amendments to this bill.
  The first of these amendments would repeal the medical device tax 
that was included as part of the so-called Affordable Care Act. 
ObamaCare's $24 billion tax on lifesaving and life-improving medical 
devices is reducing U.S. employment.
  A recent study by industry group AdvaMed estimated that the tax has 
cost as many as 165,000 jobs. That is 165,000 American jobs eliminated 
by this misguided tax. Ten percent of respondents to that survey have 
relocated manufacturing outside of the country or expanded 
manufacturing abroad rather than in the United States.
  This would help solve the inversion problem, but our colleagues on 
the other side will not do anything about it. Yet they are trying to 
blame the Republicans for the inversion? Give me a break.
  The tax is also curbing American innovation. Thirty percent of 
AdvaMed survey respondents have reduced their investments in research 
and development--30 percent.
  If we really want to keep companies from moving American jobs 
offshore, this is a far better approach. It is far more substantial, 
and, as the survey data shows, it will have an immediate, real-world 
impact on jobs in the United States.
  It is bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats support repeal of the 
medical device tax. Last year 79 Senators on this floor--including 34 
Democrats--voted to repeal the tax. It really is a no-brainer. I hope 
we can finally get a vote on it. But sooner or later, we are going to 
get a vote on it, and it is going to be on a bill that will pass both 
Houses.
  My other health care amendment would repeal ObamaCare's job-killing 
employer mandate. As we all know, the so-called Affordable Care Act 
requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide health coverage 
to their workers or pay a $2,000 tax per employee. This deters business 
growth as it discourages small businesses from hiring more than 50 
employees and has led many employers to cut workers' hours to keep from 
going over the mandate's threshold. How stupid can we be? Even the 
administration has acknowledged that the employer mandate is harmful. 
They have already delayed it several times in hopes of delaying its 
harmful impact during an election year. Isn't that nice?
  If we really want to keep people in their jobs and encourage 
businesses to hire more American workers, repealing the employer 
mandate would go a long way.
  My last amendment would advance U.S. trade policy by renewing trade 
promotion authority. Specifically, the amendment contains the text of 
the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014, a bill I 
introduced in January along with Chairman Camp of the House Ways and 
Means Committee and former chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator 
Max Baucus of Montana.
  This bill establishes 21st-century congressional negotiating 
objectives and rules for the administration to follow when engaged in 
trade talks, including strict requirements for congressional 
consultations and access to information. If the administration follows 
these rules, the bill provides special procedures to more quickly move 
a negotiated deal through Congress.
  Renewing TPA, which expired in 2007, is necessary to successfully 
conclude ongoing trade negotiations, such as the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership, the TPP, negotiations as well as free-trade agreement 
talks with the European Union, often referred as T-TIP, involving 28 
nations, including ours. These are two landmark trade deals with the 
potential to greatly boost U.S. exports and create jobs here.
  The TPP countries--which represent many of the fastest growing 
economies in the world--accounted for 40 percent of total U.S. goods 
exports in 2012. Think of the jobs that would be created.
  Another, the EU, the European Union, purchased close to $460 
billion--with a ``b''--in U.S. goods and services that same year, 
supporting 2.4 million American jobs.
  In addition, the United States is negotiating the Trade in Services 
Agreement, or TISA, with 50 countries, covering about 50 percent of 
global GDP and over 70 percent of global services trade. This agreement 
would create many opportunities for U.S. jobs in this critical sector.
  It is vital that we get these trade agreements over the finish line, 
and the only way we are going to be able to do that is to renew trade 
promotion authority. My amendment provides a reasonable, bipartisan 
path forward on renewing TPA and would do far more to create jobs and 
grow our economy than the legislation before us today, which is 
minuscule in effort. As with other amendments, I hope we can vote on 
this TPA amendment.
  Of course, I am not the only Senator who has offered reasonable job-
creating amendments to the Bring Jobs Home Act. Numerous amendments 
have already been offered, and I am sure more are on the way--or should 
I say filed because we have been prohibited from really offering 
amendments on these bills and really having a robust debate for a long 
time now because of the actions of the current leadership of the 
Senate. The Senate is hardly operating as the Senate always has in the 
past; that is, in an effective, let's-be-positive way.
  Sadly, if the recent past is any indication, there will not be any 
votes on amendments to this bill. The Bring Jobs Home Act is not 
designed to create jobs. It is not even designed to pass the Senate. 
Once again, the entire purpose of this bill is to give Democrats some 
political talking points as the August recess approaches. Having an 
open and fair debate on amendments would distract from this partisan 
goal. We understand that everything is partisan around here. Everything 
is political right now. But my gosh, when are we going to start acting 
as the Senate?
  That being the case, it is doubtful that any amendments are going to 
be considered on this legislation, which is, of course, a crying shame. 
The stated purpose of this bill is to create and protect American jobs. 
The Republicans have amendments that would do just that and more. I 
mentioned a few such amendments that would have a far greater impact on 
American workers and businesses than the bill before us today--most of 
which are bipartisan amendments.
  That is what is amazing to me. This is just a game that is being 
played. It is really an irritating game to me. If we are serious about 
the idea of creating jobs in the United States, let's have a real 
debate about it. Let's discuss some alternative approaches. I know my 
friends on the other side will have great ideas on some of these, if 
they would be allowed to act like legislators for a change.
  Let's talk about the real problems that are hampering job growth. 
Let's set votes on some of the ideas we have proposed. I hope we can do 
that this time around. But of course I am not under any illusions that 
the Democratic leadership here in the Senate is about to change course 
and let this body function the way it is supposed to. They are not 
about to let the Senate be the Senate. They are not about to let both 
sides have a full-fledged opportunity to improve these bills. They are 
not about to allow full and fair debate on both sides.
  To me, it is mind-boggling in the case of this bill. I hope I am 
wrong. I hope we can get amendments up that would make this bill a real 
bill about jobs, instead of just politics. But, sadly, I do not think I 
am wrong. My experience has been that politics is triumphant around 
here and getting the people's work done is secondary.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren.) The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 12978]]




                          Child Refugee Crisis

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the child refugee crisis on America's 
border is a human tragedy.
  Two weeks ago in Chicago I met 70 of these children. It was a meeting 
I won't forget. These are children, some are infants. How they ever 
made it to the United States is nothing short of a miracle, and many 
who tried didn't.
  Those who made it--some of them--come scarred from the journey--young 
women who were assaulted, children who were beaten. Some lost their 
lives on the way, but these were the survivors. They made it. They were 
in a transitional shelter in Chicago that has been there for 19 years, 
and 70 of them were getting physical exams and meals. As one person 
there said, for the first time in their lives, many of them, were free 
to be children.
  These children are in the United States and they are testing us. It 
is a test for the United States as to whether we care. I believe we are 
a caring nation. We proved it over and over. How many times in far-
flung places in the world have we rallied--politically to stand behind 
300 girls who were kidnapped in Nigeria, to be there during the Haitian 
earthquake to make sure the families and children would at least have 
shelter, medicine, and food. The list goes on and on for this caring 
nation.
  But this is different. This is not about a problem over there. This 
is about a challenge here. What President Obama has said to us is we 
must rise to this challenge. As we have in so many places in this 
world, we must rise to the challenges at home. When it comes to these 
children, we can be humane and caring and do the right thing.
  He sent us a bill to pay for the services they need. It is expensive. 
Some people argue it is too expensive. Well, we can argue about the 
exact amount of money, but I hope we aren't arguing about the value and 
the principle that is being tested. I hope we are not arguing about 
whether the United States is a caring and compassionate nation.
  I just left a meeting with the Presidents from the three Central 
American countries which are responsible for 80 percent of these 
refugees: El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Yesterday we met with 
their Ambassadors.
  It is easy to understand what is happening. It is easy to understand 
when the economies are so poor in this area that families cannot feed 
their children. It is easy to understand when the drug gangs are so 
powerful that these children are being threatened, exploited, raped, 
and killed. It is only then that in desperation some member of the 
family says: There is only one chance. We send you to the United 
States--putting these children in the hands of coyotes and smugglers 
who take them on a journey that doesn't last hours but days and is 
2,000 miles. Imagine. Imagine a mother taking her child to the freight 
train--this 12-year-old boy--watching him climb up the ladder on the 
side and hang on. She says: You will be there in 4 days.
  Can you imagine that. Can you imagine the family in Honduras, who 
before they send their young girl on this journey with the coyote, 
giving her birth control pills in anticipation that she will likely be 
sexually assaulted during the course of that journey? How desperate 
must that family be? That is the reality of this human child refugee 
crisis that we face.
  The President has said we need to do several things. First, we need 
to tell these countries: Don't send these children. It is too 
dangerous, and when they have arrived, they have no special legal 
rights to be citizens or to stay. We need to get that message through 
loudly and clearly: Do not send your children. The countries involved--
Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala--are joining us now in getting 
that message out.
  Secondly, we need to start apprehending and prosecuting these 
coyotes, these smugglers. They extort from these families 1 year of 
wages to try to bring children into this country.
  Some of these children are teenagers--most of them are--but many of 
them are babies and infants.
  Five women walked into the dining room at the shelter carrying 
newborn babies. All of these women are from Honduras and all are 
victims of rape. They had gone on these buses for 8 days to bring these 
newborn infants to a safer place so that they might survive.
  I am heartened by the fact that religious groups all around the 
United States have rallied behind these children. I am proud the 
Catholic Church--which I associate with; occasionally they associate 
with me--I am proud the Catholic Church and the bishops have spoken. 
Evangelicals are one of the first groups to come forward and say: We 
have to do something for these children.
  Even some of the most conservative political commentators have said: 
First, America, show your heart that you care for these children.
  That is what the President is asking us to do.
  So let us take care, when we consider the supplemental appropriations 
bill, that we don't lose sight of our values. To those who politically 
disagree and sometimes even despise the President, I urge them not to 
try to show how tough they are with this President at the expense of 
these small children. Let's show how big we are as a nation first. The 
political debate can be saved for another day.
  I support this legislation. I think it is the right thing to do.
  I want history to write this chapter about America, and I want it to 
be a chapter of which we are proud. I want a future generation to look 
back to this year and say that in this year, when the United States was 
presented with this border crisis with children, America showed its 
heart; America stood and did what was right for these children, as we 
have so many times in the past.


                               Iron Dome

  There are other parts of this bill. One of them is a section I have 
worked on in my capacity as chairman of the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee. This is called Iron Dome, and it is much different than a 
debate about children or refugees.
  Over the past 3 weeks, more than 2,000 rockets have been fired from 
Gaza into Israel. According to press reports, civilian casualties have 
been limited--maybe even only 2 out of 2,000 rockets. There are two 
reasons for the low number of injuries from this barrage.
  First, many of these rockets land in uninhabited areas. Second, these 
rockets are headed for cities and towns, but these rockets are stopped 
and destroyed before they strike their targets. The reason? The Iron 
Dome missile defense system, a joint effort by the United States and 
Israel to protect against just such an attack. The United States and 
Israel have deep ties on this program. Of the 10 Iron Dome batteries 
that have been fielded, the United States provided funding for 8 of 
them. I am pleased we have because this system has saved innocent 
lives.
  Our country has been asked for additional assistance to ensure that 
the Israeli stockpile of Iron Dome interceptors is adequate to the 
challenge. We don't know when this crisis will end. Secretary of 
Defense Chuck Hagel endorsed an additional $225 million in funding for 
Iron Dome in a recent letter.
  The requested funds are in addition to next year's appropriations. It 
may be some time before the appropriations bills are enacted, and that 
is why the President has asked to include in this supplemental 
appropriation $225 million to speed up the production of Iron Dome 
missiles.
  The Senate simply has too little time. There is next week, and then 
we are gone for 5 or 6 weeks, return for perhaps 2, and then we are 
gone until November. So we have to act and act now.
  This supplemental appropriations bill with the Iron Dome money needs 
to pass. I am going to be supporting it. This is an emergency which is 
front and center.
  The Ambassador from Israel to the United States came to see me last 
week. He said at one time two-thirds of the population of Israel was in 
bomb shelters during these attacks. It is a serious threat to them.
  Let me add too that all of us are praying this violence and war 
between Gaza and Israel will come to an end

[[Page 12979]]

soon, that they will institute a cease-fire, sit at a table and resolve 
their differences.
  But we cannot expect any country--not Israel, not the United States--
any country--to sit and take 2,000 incoming rockets and not respond. 
This saves lives--the Iron Dome.
  But now we need to take the next step, bringing peace to this region 
so that innocent people on both sides of the border are going to be 
spared.
  Hamas, a group which we have characterized as terrorist since the 
late 1990s, is leading this attack on Israel. This terrorist group is 
politically popular in some parts of Gaza. How do they protect their 
rocket launchers? They place them in homes, they put them in crowded 
areas, and they build tunnels under Gaza streets for their weapons and 
to escape when they are attacked.
  The latest report is they were building these tunnels under 
hospitals, knowing that Israel and other countries would spare these 
hospitals. Meanwhile, the hospitals are covering tunnels, which is just 
the source of much more violence in the area.


                          Child Refugee Crisis

  I wish to close on the issue about the child refugees. I see Senator 
Portman of Ohio is on the floor. I will close and yield in a moment for 
him.
  One of the questions I asked of the Ambassadors from Honduras, El 
Salvador, and Guatemala was this: We believe the children who come into 
the United States once given a chance to state why they are here--we 
believe that half of them or maybe more will be returned to their 
countries.
  I asked the Ambassadors from these countries: Can we have confidence 
that if these children, who have come to our border, are returned back 
to their countries, they will be safe. A simple question, Will they be 
safe. Do you have people, charities, agencies of government to 
guarantee that when they return, when they get off the plane or the 
bus, they will be safe?
  The Ambassador from Guatemala said: Yes, we do. The Ambassador from 
Honduras said: No, we don't. The Ambassador from El Salvador said: 
Neither do we.
  Let us think about this for a moment. Let us reflect on this for a 
moment. Let us make sure we do everything in our power to hand these 
children over to a safe situation.
  Let us work with these countries to stop the flow into this country, 
but to make certain that when they return, they are returned to a safe 
setting.
  Can you believe that in Chicago a brother and a sister--a 6 year-old 
and a 3-year-old brother and sister--came to one of these shelters? I 
could see from the bruises on their bodies they had been through 
something on their way here. It took 2 months before these children--
the 6-year-old--finally talked about what she can remember from this 
horrendous journey. I won't recount the details, but it is 
heartbreaking to think that a child of 6 years would have endured this 
experience.
  Let's do right by these children. Let's make sure at the end of the 
day America has proven again we are a caring nation and that for those 
children who come to our shores, come to our borders, we will treat 
them humanely and compassionately, as we would want our own children to 
be treated if they were ever in such a desperate circumstance.
  Let's set the politics aside. Let's put these children front and 
center.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                          Bring Jobs Home Act

  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, earlier today the Senate voted to 
proceed to debate on legislation called the Bring Jobs Home Act. It is 
about tax reform. It is about the tax system in this country.
  I am glad we are having the debate. I voted to proceed to the debate. 
I think it is important we talk about it.
  I had a reporter come to me earlier today who said: I hear that 
Democrats are going to talk about inversions. That means when a company 
of the United States goes overseas and buys a company--usually smaller 
than they are--and then inverts, they become a foreign corporation.
  They said: Are you concerned about that?
  I said: No. I think that is great. I think we need to talk about it. 
I think it is a hidden problem that no one is talking about, and I 
think it is terrific that we are talking about it.
  So I hope what will happen over the next week on the floor of the 
Senate is we will have an honest conversation about what is happening 
in our great country, where we have more and more American companies 
saying, because of the Tax Code they are saddled with, they cannot 
compete around the globe.
  So what do they do? Having a responsibility to their shareholders, 
they go and find either a foreign company to become part of and become 
foreign--or they make themselves a foreign company by being acquired by 
a foreign company. Some of them are simply not growing because they 
can't compete with other companies from other countries that are buying 
some of their assets.
  A company recently came to me from Ohio, my home State, and said: We 
do work in Korea. We were in South Korea. We wanted to buy this 
subsidiary there so we could expand what we are doing in Korea and push 
more of our product there, more of our exports there. We finished the 
negotiation with the Korean company, and a company from Germany stepped 
up and said: Do you know what. Whatever you guys have negotiated, we 
will take it, but we will pay 18 percent more.
  The reason the German company could pay 18 percent more is their 
after-tax profits were higher, because the German tax code treats the 
German company better than the American Tax Code treats the American 
company. That is the reality, and it is happening.
  Over the last 5 years, they say there have been 35 American companies 
that have gone overseas through these inversions, but there are also a 
lot of American companies that have become foreign entities.
  I am a beer drinker, and it is hard to find an American company that 
can sell you a beer these days. Why? Because they are almost all 
foreign companies. The two largest American beer companies each have 
about a 1.4-percent market share--Sam Adams and Yuengling. Great beers, 
by the way. But this is sad to me.
  It doesn't mean these companies have all left the United States. A 
lot of them still have production here, breweries here, and so on. But 
by headquartering somewhere else for tax purposes we lose something as 
Americans. We lose executive jobs over time, but we lose this 
intangible thing--which is, companies that are willing to invest in our 
communities--in hometowns, like in my hometown, probably everything we 
are involved with on the charitable side, some local company has been 
involved with and helped with. A lot of them tend to be international 
companies that do a lot to help make our cities a better place to live 
and to work. But they do it partly because it is where their 
headquarters is. This is where their towns are. If they are not here--
if they are in Dublin, Ireland, or if they are in London, England, or 
if they are in Beijing or in Rio, Brazil, or somewhere else, they are 
not going to be making those investments. So this is a big deal.
  It is also a big deal because it is not just about the inversion. I 
see that as kind of the tip of the iceberg. It is also about all these 
companies that are losing right now in foreign competition because, 
again, they can't compete. They have to pay more in terms of taxes than 
their foreign competitors. So their foreign competitors can afford to 
broaden their market share, get more customers, can afford to buy a 
company when one comes up for acquisition.
  I had a fellow come up recently from the Boston area. Boston does a 
lot of biopharmaceutical research, as the Presiding Officer knows. It 
is very exciting what is going on there, and throughout our country. We 
are still doing top-notch research. They showed me the list of 
companies that have been purchased in the last 4 or 5 years. 
Unfortunately, the majority of those

[[Page 12980]]

companies were purchased by a foreign company. It wasn't by a U.S. 
company coming in and consolidating. It was by a company under 
different tax laws--a Swiss company, a French company, a German 
company, or a Japanese company--that had bought an American company, 
the majority of them--by far the majority. This is happening all over 
the country, and it is happening under our noses.
  We are sitting here in Washington, allowing this to happen because we 
are abdicating our responsibility to reform the Tax Code so that it is 
competitive.
  By the way, we are the only country that is not waking up to this. 
Every single one of the other developed countries in the world--the 
countries that are members of what is called the OECD, which is all the 
developed countries--every single one of them is reforming their tax 
code, except us.
  In the 1980s, we established the rate we have now, which is 35 now--
then it was 34 percent. When we add the State tax rates for the 
companies, it is about 39 percent on average in America. We are the 
highest rate in the world.
  So at the time we set our rate in the mid-thirties, that was just 
below the average. It was done deliberately, and it was done as part of 
the 1986 tax reform. We said: Let's set the business rate at something 
below the average so we can be competitive.
  But since that time, we have become the highest rate, and every 
single one of our developed country competitors--all of them--have 
reformed their tax code and lowered their rate.
  But they haven't just lowered their rate to make us No. 1 in the 
world--which is not a No. 1 you want to be if you want to compete and 
develop jobs--they have also reformed their tax code to make it more 
competitive internationally. We haven't done that. We have been 
bystanders in this effort to attract jobs and investment opportunities.
  We still have what is called the worldwide system, where we don't tax 
income where it is earned. That has created a real problem.
  So I am glad we are having this debate on the floor. I am glad there 
is an opportunity to talk about this. I must say that, unfortunately, 
the bill before us, the Bring Jobs Home Act, is not going to help 
because it doesn't get at this underlying problem we have been talking 
about today. It does nothing about lowering the rate. It does nothing 
about changing the international system of taxation. It tinkers around 
the edges with one issue, and that is to remove deductions and tax 
credits that, according to the authors of the bill, incentivizes 
companies to move overseas.
  There is a group here in Washington called the Joint Committee on 
Taxation. They are nonpartisan, and they tell us in Congress what tax 
policy means, how much it costs, and what the effects are going to be. 
Here is what they say:

       Under present law, there are no targeted tax credits or 
     disallowances of deductions related to relocating business 
     units inside or outside the United States.

  So why are we having this debate? Why aren't we debating the core 
issue--the real problem? I guess because this is the better political 
debate and it is easier to do. But it is not going to help. It would be 
nice if there were these targeted tax credits that some of the authors 
claim, because then we could get rid of those and that might help some. 
But, as the Joint Committee on Taxation has said, that doesn't exist.
  Let's take a look at the numbers.
  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the very small tweaks 
this legislation will make to the Tax Code by disallowing some of these 
deductions will amount to around $143 million over 10 years. So they 
say $143 million over 10 years, because even though there is no 
targeted allowance or targeted tax credits, they think this legislation 
will have some effect on the way the IRS will interpret it. By the way, 
it is left up to the IRS to interpret it, and it is a subjective 
decision by the IRS since it is not targeted.
  But let's say that $143 million over 10 years is the right number. 
That is what the Joint Committee says. So $143 million over 10 years. 
Let me give one example.
  There is a company in Ohio that is about a Fortune 200 or Fortune 300 
company. So it is a big company--not the biggest company, but it is a 
big company in Ohio. They decided a year or so ago to do an inversion. 
They bought a company that was one-quarter their size overseas and they 
became a foreign company. Based on the public filings, we know this 
year that company will save $160 million on its taxes because it chose 
to become a foreign company. That is wrong. Our tax system should be 
fair, it should be competitive. It shouldn't be driving these companies 
to do this on behalf of their shareholders and under their fiduciary 
responsibility.
  That is $160 million a year versus this bill that, even if it works 
as the folks are talking about, is intended to be a $143 million impact 
over 10 years. See what I mean about this not being a serious proposal? 
Let's get at the core problem.
  The other problem is, if we continue to make it harder to be a U.S. 
company--whether it is to take away a tax credit, whether it is to take 
away a deduction, whether it is to do something else, to try to block 
inversion, what will happen? What happens every time we try to put up a 
wall to stop something but don't deal with the underlying problem? 
These companies will continue to look overseas, and they will be 
targets for acquisition.
  We talked about the fact that there are no American beer companies 
anymore, except ones that have less than 2 percent market share. These 
companies didn't invert. They were bought by foreign companies. That is 
happening right and left in America, and that is what would happen even 
more if we make it even more disadvantageous to be an American company 
because we are trying to block this.
  We have to get at the core issue. We can't have the highest tax in 
the world, and we can't have an international system that is not 
competitive and hope to have these companies stay American companies. 
So let's deal with the underlying problem.
  Thirty-five companies over the past 5 years have chosen to invert, 
but so many others have done other things to try to be competitive, 
including to sell to foreign companies, or not to grow, not to be able 
to compete with acquisitions, because their after-tax profits are not 
as high as their foreign competitors.
  It is not going to be easy to do tax reform. I understand that. It is 
never easy. That is not what we were hired to do, the easy things. We 
are on the floor right now debating this proposal called the Bring the 
Jobs Home Act, which I think is a misnomer, unfortunately. I guess that 
would be easy. It wouldn't help, but it would seem easy.
  Tax reform is going to be hard, because we do have to lower the rate 
and broaden the base and get rid of some of these deductions and 
credits and exemptions and so on that are out there. The Tax Code is 
now riddled with them. Everybody likes their special provisions. But it 
is an effort well worth undertaking, because it is about our economy, 
it is about our future, it is about our kids having jobs here. It is 
about keeping American companies here. We simply have to do it.
  By the way, Congress has done this before. We did it back in 1986. It 
was led by a Republican, Ronald Reagan, and a Democrat here in the 
Senate, Bill Bradley; and in the House, Dan Rostenkowski, Tip O'Neill. 
This was a bipartisan effort. It should be again. There is no reason it 
shouldn't be bipartisan.
  The President has talked about it as a big problem right now in our 
economy, that our Tax Code is so inefficient, antiquated, needs to be 
updated. He has talked about lowering the rate, broadening the base. I 
agree with him, let's do it. Unfortunately, we haven't seen a proposal 
from the administration.
  We had a hearing on this recently and I asked the administration: 
Where is the proposal?
  They said: Well, we are interested in working with you.
  Great. I am, too. All of us are.
  Some Republicans, including Dave Camp, have put out very specific 
proposals in the House Ways and Means Committee.

[[Page 12981]]

  We have to move forward on this. And we have done this before. We can 
do hard things. It is our job to do hard things. We did welfare reform 
a year before an election--actually, months before election day, with 
President Clinton, working with Republicans, including Newt Gingrich.
  This seems to be the kind of thing that is harder and harder to do 
around here, and yet there is more and more urgency to do it.
  People call it corporate tax reform or business tax reform and think: 
It must be about the boardroom and about the executives. It is not. 
They will be fine either way. We don't need to worry about them. We 
need to worry about the workers. CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, 
which is the group that analyzes legislation, has looked at this and 
said: Do you know who is hurt more by these high corporate taxes we 
have? It is the workers, of course. More than 70 percent of the burden, 
they said, is borne by the workers in the form of lower pay, lower 
benefits, and fewer job opportunities.
  So we need to do this not because we are looking to help the 
boardroom but because we are looking to help the American worker at a 
time when it is already tough.
  Over the last 5 years, they say, average take-home pay has gone down 
about $3,500 for a typical family. So pay is not going up, it has gone 
down. Health care costs have gone up. In fact, they are skyrocketing.
  I talked to some folks in Ohio last weekend who asked: Why aren't you 
doing more to get health care costs down?
  I said: Well, I didn't support the ObamaCare proposal. It was 
promised that the costs would go down, and they are now going up. That 
is why we need real health care reform.
  This is a middle-class squeeze. Health care costs are up, and wages 
are down, now stagnant. This is an opportunity, not through a sideshow 
like we are going to see on the floor here talking about how to do 
these tweaks that aren't going to make any difference, but to really 
get at the problem is the way to get payback. That is what the 
Congressional Budget Office tells us.
  Our Tax Code should draw companies to our shores, should bring 
investment here and bring jobs here instead of pushing companies away. 
All we are looking for is a level playing field. If Americans have a 
level playing field here, we will be able to be competitive, and we 
will be able to bring back jobs. We have the greatest innovators in the 
world, we have the greatest resources, and we have incredible 
infrastructure in this country. We have a lot of advantages. Our energy 
advantage now, thanks to what we are doing now on private lands--we 
should do more on public lands, but what we are doing on private lands 
is really giving us an advantage in terms of a stable supply of 
relatively low-cost natural gas, particularly for manufacturing. We see 
this in Ohio. It is a great opportunity, but to take advantage of that 
opportunity, we have to reform and improve these basic institutions of 
our economy, including the Tax Code.
  By the way, it is not just the Tax Code, it is about regulatory 
relief to ensure that American companies are not being saddled, as they 
are now, with higher and higher costs and more and more regulations 
that make it harder for them to compete, make it harder for them to 
create jobs.
  It is also about being assured that we have a trade policy that 
actually works to expand exports. That is a huge issue in my home State 
of Ohio. We do a lot of exporting. We could do a whole lot more. 
Twenty-five percent of our factory jobs are now export trade jobs. One 
in every three acres planted in Ohio is now exported. We want to do 
more. That gets the prices up for farmers. That is adding more jobs and 
creating more opportunity for good-paying jobs. These great jobs tend 
to pay more and have better benefits. We are sitting on the sidelines 
there too.
  Congress could move quickly to provide this President with the 
negotiating authority every President since Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
has had. Since FDR, every President has also asked for it. This 
President has now asked for it. You heard him in his State of the Union 
earlier this year. He hadn't asked for it earlier in his term, but now 
he has asked for it. Let's provide it to him. Let's give him the 
ability to knock down the barriers of trade for our workers, our 
service providers, and our farmers to get this economy moving, along 
with tax reform and regulatory reform. These are things that would 
actually make it better for the American people.
  On the regulatory side, I am offering amendments in the context of 
this legislation, and they are bipartisan amendments. One has to do 
with ensuring that we do allow companies to permit something more 
quickly. Right now it can take years to permit a project in the United 
States of America. We have a bipartisan bill. Senator McCaskill and I 
are the two lead sponsors, but we have other Democrats and Republicans 
onboard saying this is just common sense. Let's make one agency 
accountable. Let's be sure there is a way for everybody to 
transparently look at a windshield and see what the status of the 
project is and move it forward. Let's reduce some of the legal 
liability in some of these projects.
  What people tell me--whether it is the solar companies I talked to 
yesterday or whether it is some of the oil and gas producers or whether 
it is some of the wind companies or whether it is the hydro people who 
brought this to my attention initially a few years ago--they cannot get 
foreign investors because it takes so long to permit something in 
America.
  We used to be at the top of the heap, by the way, and now in the 
annual ease-of-doing-business surveys that are done, America has fallen 
behind. America is now something like 34th in the world in terms of the 
ease of doing business on permitting because more and more regulations 
have been added. For an energy project, there are sometimes up to 34 
Federal regulations. Usually it is one after the other because there is 
no coordination and accountability.
  That is what this bill does. It is very simple. It is common sense. 
It already passed the House. It is the kind of bill that, if passed, 
would create jobs and good construction jobs, which is why the building 
trades support it.
  By the way, the labor unions, building trades, and others who support 
this kind of legislation do so because they figured out that America 
cannot be competitive unless we have these basic institutions of our 
economy--whether it is regulatory reform or whether it is a smarter 
energy policy or whether it is the ability to have a tax code that 
works, they want to be sure we are expanding opportunities for their 
members. So I appreciate the building trades stepping forward.
  The other one is simply to make sure regulations are accountable, 
make sure there is a cost-benefit analysis, make sure we use the least 
burdensome alternative in Washington, DC, to get to a policy that is 
passed by the Congress--commonsense stuff. Again, that has passed the 
House, too, with bipartisan support.
  I am offering these because I do think it is important for us to have 
this debate on tax reform, and I look forward to further debate on 
Monday and Tuesday of next week. I think this is a great opportunity 
for us to talk about the real problems.
  I am not going to support this solution because I don't think it will 
help, but I welcome the debate, and I am glad we have proceeded to this 
debate. I am glad my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
raising this issue.
  To the reporter who asked the question I got today--Are you concerned 
that Democrats are talking about inversions?--no, I am really happy 
they are talking about it. We should all be talking about it--
Republicans, Democrats, Independents alike. As Americans, we should be 
focused on this issue and the broader issue that by our companies not 
being competitive, we are hurting American workers. If we don't turn 
this around--not by show votes, not by something that looks good 
politically but doesn't make any difference, but by actually getting at 
the root of the problem--the highest rate in the developed world, an 
international system that doesn't let us be

[[Page 12982]]

competitive globally because people cannot move around their assets to 
find the best, most efficient use for them--those two issues, if 
addressed, will unlock all kinds of opportunities. That is the 
potential we have. There is a better day ahead, right around the 
corner, if we do some of these basic things.
  I was also asked today at a press conference we do every week with 
Ohio reporters: How would you grade this Congress? Are they doing the 
things they ought to be doing?
  I have to tell you there are small things that have been done, but, 
no, Congress is not doing the work of the people. And the work of the 
people at its core means that the laws, the Federal laws that this 
place alone--the House and the Senate and the President--have control 
over, those laws need to help the American people to be successful. It 
needs to be an environment for success, an environment for people to be 
able to say: Hey, my kids and grandkids could have it better than I 
have it because we see America on the upswing.
  That is not what we see today--the weakest economic recovery since 
the Great Depression. I talked about wages going down, not up. I talked 
about the higher cost of health care. I talked about the fact that we 
have now in this country a lot of people who are discouraged about the 
future.
  CNN did a poll recently, and normally when people are asked in a poll 
whether they think their kids or grandkids are better off, they say: 
Yes. That is the American dream. The next generation will be better 
off.
  That is what my grandparents believed, and that is what my parents 
believed. That is not what today's generation believes. Sixty-three 
percent of the people said: No, I don't believe that is going to 
happen.
  What is even more troubling is that 63 percent of young people do not 
believe that. They don't believe their lives are better off than their 
parents'. We can change that.
  I hope we get a vote on these amendments I talked about. I hope we 
will have a good discussion and debate on these issues. We owe it to 
the people we represent to solve these big problems.
  I thank you for the time, Madam President, and I yield the floor.


                           Moment of Silence

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
observe a moment of silence in remembering Officer Jacob J. Chestnut 
and Detective John N. Gibson of the United States Capitol Police.
  (Moment of silence.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask to be recognized as if in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.


                         Israeli-Gaza Conflict

  Mr. RUBIO. Thank you, Madam President.
  I come to the floor today to discuss the ongoing situation in Israel. 
We all watch with great concern the images of the loss of life, young 
children, innocents who have lost their lives over the last few days, 
and also the men and women who served in the defense forces of Israel 
who have lost their lives in this operation. Our hearts also go out to 
the men and women who live in the nation of Israel who are living under 
the constant threat of rockets that are coming over from Gaza.
  I came to the Senate floor a week ago to express not simply my 
concerns with this but also my solidarity--and I believe that of almost 
everyone in this body--with our ally Israel, and I received a response, 
a pretty heated letter from the Palestinian Ambassador in Washington, 
DC. He expressed outrage that I and my colleagues had not expressed the 
same level of concern for Palestinians as we had for the Israelis. He 
particularly pointed to the case of the three murdered Israelis but 
said we had not expressed similar feelings for the young Palestinian 
who lost his life.
  I responded to his letter by pointing out a number of things. The 
first is that I believe that I and all my colleagues wish and pray and 
will do all we can to further the ideal that the Palestinian people 
could live peacefully side-by-side with their Israeli neighbors. It is 
a sentiment I expressed when I visited the Palestinian officials in the 
West Bank a year and a half ago.
  But I also expressed that there was a significant difference between 
the way Israel and the Palestinians reacted to these two horrible 
incidents. The Palestinian Authority had to be basically nudged into 
expressing any sentiment about the three young people who were missing 
at the time. In fact, when the bodies were discovered, it led to street 
demonstrations. It led to celebrations on the streets of the West Bank 
and Gaza.
  In Israel, the discovery of the death of the young Palestinian led to 
strong statements by the Prime Minister and condemnation. It led to a 
phone call from the Prime Minister to the family of the Palestinian. It 
led to visits by Israelis to the family of the Palestinian. It led to 
real outrage. There was a difference there, although both are horrible 
tragedies.
  But I think there is something now emerging that is not being talked 
about. We have all seen the images of people being killed, civilians 
who are losing their lives in Gaza, and some are beginning to say that 
this is all Israel's fault, that this is Israel's fault. In fact, 
earlier today--or maybe it was last night--the Prime Minister of Turkey 
said that what the Israelis are doing in Gaza is worse than what Adolf 
Hitler did to the Jews. It is, of course, a ridiculous statement, but 
it gives an indication of where this is headed.
  There is a story here that is not being told and that the Palestinian 
Ambassador himself has ignored, as I point to in my response to him. 
The first thing he ignores is that we have never in the modern history 
of the world seen any organization use human shields like Hamas is 
using human shields today. In fact, the reality behind it is 
unbelievable.
  I would like to read from some press accounts with regards to this.
  Washington Post correspondent William Booth, reporting from Gaza, 
wrote in an article on the 15th of July:

       At the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, crowds gathered to 
     throw shoes and eggs at the Palestinian Authority's health 
     minister, who represents the crumbling ``unity government'' 
     in the West Bank city of Ramallah. The minister was turned 
     away before he reached the hospital, which has become a de 
     facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the 
     hallways and offices.

  Another report by the Washington Post on July 17 recounts:

       During the lull--

  I imagine in the action--

     a group of men at a mosque in northern Gaza said they had 
     returned to clean up the green glass from windows shattered 
     in the previous day's bombardment. But they could be seen 
     moving small rockets into the mosque.
  The Japanese Mainichi Daily's correspondent in Gaza reported on July 
21:

       Hamas criticizes that ``Israel massacres civilians.'' On 
     the other hand, it tries to use evacuating civilians and 
     journalists by stopping them and turning them into ``human 
     shields,'' counteracting thoroughly with its guerilla tactics 
     . . .

  It doesn't end there. A Globe and Mail correspondent in Gaza, Patrick 
Martin, wrote on July 20:

       The presence of militant fighters in the Shejaia became 
     clear Sunday afternoon when, under the cover of a 
     humanitarian truce intended to allow both sides to remove the 
     dead and wounded, several armed Palestinians scurried from 
     the scene.
       Some bore their weapons openly, slung over their shoulder, 
     but at least two, disguised as women, were seen walking off 
     with weapons partly concealed under their robes. Another had 
     his weapon wrapped in a baby blanket and held on his chest as 
     if it were an infant.

  If you think that is bad, it gets worse. I obviously cannot play a 
video on the floor of the Senate, so instead I will read a statement 
from Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri. This is a quote on television 
in Gaza:

       The people oppose the Israeli fighter planes with their 
     bodies alone . . . I think this method has proven effective 
     against the occupation. It also reflects the nature of our 
     heroic and brave people, and we, the [Hamas] movement, call 
     on our people to adopt this method in order to protect the 
     Palestinian homes.

  The response to this is, Israel drops fliers and sends text messages 
and makes phone calls telling people--civilians--we are going to 
undertake a military operation, you should leave the

[[Page 12983]]

area. What does Hamas do? I will tell you what they do.
  This is from the Facebook page of their Interior Ministry 
spokesperson:

       An important and urgent message: The [Hamas] Ministry of 
     the Interior and National Security calls on our honorable 
     people in all parts of the [Gaza] Strip to ignore the 
     warnings [to vacate areas near rocket launching sites before 
     Israel bombs them] that are being disseminated by the Israeli 
     occupation through manifestos and phone messages, as these 
     are part of a psychological war meant to sow confusion on the 
     [Palestinian] home front, in light of the [Israeli] enemy's 
     security failure and its confusion and bewilderment.

  This next statement was on television on July 14:

       We call on our Palestinian people, particularly the 
     residents of northwest Gaza, not to obey what is written in 
     the pamphlets distributed by the Israeli occupation army. We 
     call on them to remain in their homes and disregard the 
     demands to leave, however serious the threat may be.

  This is evidence that Hamas is using its own people as human shields.
  It doesn't stop there, Mr. Ambassador. Ask yourself: Why did your 
organization--why did your government--unify with this terrorist 
organization that uses its own people as a human shield? You didn't 
mention that in your letter. You didn't mention in your letter that you 
aligned yourself with an organization that calls for the destruction of 
the Jewish state. You left that out of your letter as well, Mr. 
Ambassador.
  What has been the international reaction to this? Well, I already 
told you about what came out of Turkey. Just yesterday the so-called 
United Nations Human Rights Council--and I say so-called because it has 
such distinguished human rights beacons as Cuba and China on its 
membership--voted unanimously, except for the United States, to condemn 
Israel and to call for an investigation into war crimes against Israel. 
There is a 700-page document that briefly mentions rockets and does not 
mention Hamas or human shields whatsoever. Meanwhile, this crisis 
continues.
  What do we see coming out of Hamas? Have they stopped what they are 
doing beyond the human shields? No. What we discovered--and what has 
been discovered now--is an intricate web of underground tunnels 
designed to bring killers into the Israeli territory. They attempted, 
by the way, to carry out a massacre at a kibbutz near the border with 
Gaza. Luckily they were intercepted by Israeli defense forces. They 
discovered tranquilizers in their possession, the purpose of which, of 
course, was to use them to abduct and kidnap Israelis and take them 
back to Gaza for ransom or worse. The rockets continue to rain down as 
well.
  You also didn't mention in your letter, Mr. Ambassador, the cease-
fire, which, by the way, Israel agreed to even though it was extremely 
unpopular in Israel. Why? Because three times in the last 5 years they 
had to face this.
  I want you to imagine for a moment that you lived in a country with a 
neighbor that blitzed you three times in the last 5 years with rockets, 
trying to kill your children and destroy your cities and disrupt and 
paralyze your economy. There comes a point where you say enough is 
enough, we have to put an end to this. So you can just imagine how 
unpopular that cease-fire must have been among some elements of the 
cabinet and the unity government in Israel, and certainly among the 
population. Yet the Prime Minister went ahead with it because they 
desire peace, and in just a few hours Hamas violated the cease-fire.
  So please don't come to me and say that both sides are to blame here. 
That is not true. This crisis would end tomorrow if Hamas would turn 
over its rockets and stop bombarding people. This would end tomorrow, 
by the way, if the Hamas commanders were not such cowards. I will tell 
you why they are cowards. While they are on TV asking these people to 
go to the rooftops of these buildings, you know where they are? They 
are hiding in their basement command center, which, by the way, is 
located in the basement underneath a hospital.
  This would end tomorrow--the civilian deaths could end tomorrow--if 
they stopped storing rockets in schools, including a U.N. school. By 
the way, when the U.N. discovered these rockets, do you know what they 
did with them? They turned them back over to Hamas. Don't tell me both 
sides are to blame here because it is not true. It is not true. This is 
the result of one thing and one thing alone: Hamas has decided to 
launch rockets against Israel, Hamas has decided to build this 
extensive network of underground tunnels so that in a moment of 
conflict they can get these commandos into Israel and kill Israelis.
  What is Israel doing? What any country would do. Of course this is 
not an excellent example, but imagine for a moment if one of our 
neighboring countries decided to start hitting us with rockets. What 
would the United States do? Would we sit there and say: We really have 
to be restrained and hold back here? We would not tolerate that. 
Imagine that every night and every morning sirens were going off in 
your city because rockets were on their way in and you spent the better 
part of the day running in and out of shelters and taking cover. What 
would you say? You would say: Take care of this problem once and for 
all.
  Why would we ever ask Israel to do anything less than we would do if 
we were in the same situation? And that is what they are doing.
  In the process of taking care of the situation, tragically, civilians 
are dying, and do you know why? Because Hamas is deliberately putting 
them in the way. I just read the quotes. Hamas is asking their people 
to do what their leaders won't do. They are asking their own people to 
get in harm's way and act as human shields because they want these 
images to be spread around the world. They are willing to sacrifice 
their own people to win a PR war.
  I think it is absolutely outrageous that some in the press corps 
domestically and most of the press corps internationally are falling 
for this game. So please don't tell me that both sides are to blame 
here, and please don't tell me this was caused by Israel.
  In my time here in the Senate, I had the opportunity to visit 
multiple countries. I have never met a people more desirous of peace 
than the people in Israel. But peace cannot mean your destruction, and 
that is what they are facing here--an enemy force that wants to destroy 
them and wipe them out as a country. It is impossible to reach any sort 
of peace agreement with an organization like that. That is what Israel 
is facing here.
  Mr. Ambassador, I ask that you go back to your government and ask 
them to separate completely from Hamas, condemn what Hamas is doing to 
your own people--condemn the use of human shields. That is what I ask 
you to do. Stop writing letters to Senators and being angry at us when, 
by the way--although we should not be doing it because the law says no 
money should be going toward any organization linked with Hamas--the 
United States has been helping you to stand up your security forces in 
the West Bank through our taxpayer money. Don't write letters to the 
U.S. Congress complaining to us about what Israel is doing when the 
people you just created a unity government with are launching rockets 
against civilians in Israel and using its own people as human shields.
  I think you need to take responsibility for your own people and your 
own part of the world. If you truly want peace, peace begins with 
laying down your arms and stopping these attacks and condemning those 
who are conducting these attacks and using innocent civilians as human 
shields. If you want peace, that is what you should spend your time 
doing and not trying to rally public support around the world for the 
idea that Israel is responsible for war crimes.
  From our perspective, I hope the United States continues to be firmly 
on the side of Israel because there is no moral equivalency here. What 
is happening between Israel and Hamas is totally 100 percent the fault 
of Hamas. There is no moral equivalency here. All of the blame lies on 
Hamas.
  For this crisis to end, Hamas must either be eliminated as an 
organization or they must lay down their weapons and adhere to the true 
precepts of

[[Page 12984]]

peace, which is the desire to live peacefully side by side with our 
neighbors in Israel.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Alabama.


                            Border Security

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are dealing with a very disturbing 
crisis on our borders. The situation that has developed is 
unbelievable. It is unbelievable how rapidly it has developed, but it 
has, indeed, been building up for more than a year. It is a direct and 
predictable result of the President's policies and not enforcing the 
laws of the United States when it comes to immigration. It is a very 
sad day, and it can only end when the President stops suspending laws 
and starts enforcing laws.
  The President is the chief law enforcement officer in America. Every 
Border Patrol officer, every ICE officer, every Coast Guard officer, 
every military officer, every Department of Justice employee, and FBI 
employee works for him. He supervises them and directs them. He has 
been directing them not to enforce the law rather than to enforce the 
law. The evidence of that is undeniable.
  The law enforcement officers--the ICE officers, Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement officers--sued their supervisor directly appointed 
by President Obama for blocking them from fulfilling their oath to 
enforce the laws of the United States of America. There is a Federal 
court case that is still ongoing, and the judge found, at least at one 
point in his order, that the President has no right to direct officers 
not to comply with the law.
  We now know that we are facing an exceedingly grave threat of an 
unbelievable expansion of his unilateral Executive orders of amnesty 
that go beyond anything we have ever seen in this country and which 
threatens the very constitutional framework of our Republic and the 
very ability of this Nation to even have borders, it seems to me, and 
certainly to create a lawful, equitable, consistent enforcement in our 
country.
  The respected newspaper National Journal, which is here in 
Washington, a nonpartisan and respected organization, reported on July 
3--and a lot of people have missed this, and we need to know what this 
is saying. We need to know what it means, and we need, as Members of 
Congress and this Senate, to resist it. We cannot allow it to happen. 
We will not allow it to happen. The American people, when they find out 
what is being discussed, will not allow it to happen, in my opinion. 
Congress needs to be directed by the people--I hate to say--to resist 
it. It says:

       Obama made it clear he would press his executive powers to 
     the limit. He gave quiet credence to recommendations from La 
     Raza and other immigration groups that between 5 million to 6 
     million adult illegal immigrants could be spared deportation 
     under a similar form of deferred adjudication he ordered for 
     the so-called Dreamers in June 2012.

  The DREAMers being the young people. Five to 6 million would be given 
legal status in the United States of America when they have entered 
contrary to law or are in the country contrary to law and are not 
entitled to work in America.
  The article goes on to say:

       Obama has now ordered the Homeland Security and Justice 
     departments to find executive authorities that could enlarge 
     that non-prosecutorial umbrella by a factor of 10. Senior 
     officials also tell me Obama wants to see what he can do with 
     Executive power to provide temporary legal status to 
     undocumented adults.

  What we know is with the children's group, they were provided with an 
ID card that at the top of it, in big print, says, ``employee 
authorization card.'' This is exactly what is being talked about here, 
what the President of the United States is saying.
  Remember, the Congress has been asked by activist groups and certain 
business interests to provide an amnesty for people who are here. The 
Congress has declined to do so. It has been fully and openly debated 
and has not passed into law. That is the decision of the Congress. That 
is the decision we have made--the duly elected body that passes laws. 
As such, they not having been given amnesty, the President of the 
United States is not entitled to do so. By declaration of duly passed 
law, people aren't entitled to come to America unlawfully, to come to 
America and stay unlawfully. They are not entitled to do that. How 
simple is this? They are not entitled to be able to take jobs if they 
do. They are not entitled to certain government benefits if they come 
illegally. Of course they are not. Of course they are not able to work 
and take jobs and get benefits if they came into the country illegally.
  So when this first got talked about in more general terms, 22 Members 
of the Senate wrote President Obama and questioned what we are hearing. 
The Senators wrote this:

       These policies have operated as an effective repeal of duly 
     enacted federal immigration law and exceed the bounds of the 
     Executive Branch's prosecutorial discretion. It is not the 
     province of the Executive to nullify the laws that the people 
     of the United States, through their elected representatives, 
     have chosen to enact. To the contrary, it is the duty of the 
     Executive to take care that these laws are faithfully 
     executed. Congress has not passed laws permitting people to 
     illegally enter the country or to ignore their visa 
     expiration dates, so long as they do not have a felony 
     conviction or other severe offense on their record. Your 
     actions demonstrate an astonishing disregard for the 
     Constitution, the rule of law, and the rights of American 
     citizens and legal residents.
       Our entire constitutional system--

  The letter goes on to say--

     is threatened when the Executive Branch suspends the law at 
     its whim and our nation's sovereignty is imperiled when the 
     commander-in-chief refuses to defend the integrity of its 
     borders.
       You swore an oath--

  The letter says to the President--

     to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the 
     United States. We therefore ask you to uphold that oath and 
     to carry out the duties required by the Constitution and 
     entrusted to you by the American people.

  The President is limited. He is not all-powerful. He is entrusted 
with certain limited powers by the people of the United States of 
America.
  Now we understand he intends to go even further. In the response we 
got back, he never addressed it at all, except for his Secretary of 
Homeland Security, Mr. Jeh Johnson. He announced that, yes, he is 
indeed, at the order of the President of the United States, conducting 
a review of how many other people he can provide this amnesty for and 
work authorization for.
  So last week one of our able colleagues, Senator Ted Cruz--a former 
solicitor general for the attorney general's office in Texas who has 
argued cases in appellate courts in the country--identified this 
problem and proposed I think a legislative fix that every Member of 
this body should sign. Some may say, Well, the President, I don't think 
he is going to do this. OK. Why not bar him from doing it? Some say, I 
don't think we should sign it. Why not? He basically said he has 
already done it with the younger group, and he said it is going to be a 
tenfold increase in the 5 million to 6 million people who are suggested 
to be legalized by the President's unilateral Executive order; 
represents about 10 times the number of people who have already been 
given lawful status, in effect, by the President's unlawful Executive 
order.
  At this time perhaps it would be appropriate, and I would appreciate 
it, if the Senator from Texas would explain his analysis of this issue 
and how his legislation would be effective in ensuring that we don't go 
down this illegal road any further.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the junior Senator from 
Alabama, for his very kind comments and for his relentless leadership 
in defense of the rule of law and standing against amnesty.
  What I wish to speak about this afternoon is the humanitarian crisis 
that is playing out on our southern border right now and the abdication 
of responsibility that is playing out in Washington, DC.
  A couple of weeks ago President Obama was in my home State of Texas. 
He found time to go to two Democratic Party fundraisers, to pal around 
with some Democratic Party fat cats, to collect a whole bunch of 
checks. Yet somehow he didn't have time to make it down to our southern 
border.

[[Page 12985]]

  The day before he was in Colorado and he found time to play a game of 
pool with the Governor there. I am glad he enjoyed himself playing 
pool. Yet somehow he didn't have time to go visit Lackland Air Force 
Base and see the 1,200 children who are being held there who are paying 
the price for the failure of the Obama immigration policy. In the 
coming weeks he is headed to Martha's Vineyard. He is, I am sure, going 
to enjoy himself paling around with swells. Yet the people held in 
detention facilities up and down the border are not going to see the 
Commander in Chief because he cannot be bothered to address the human 
suffering.
  He was just in California, in Hollywood, where the producer of 
``Scandal'' hosted him. That is kind of fitting because it is 
scandalous that the President has more time to be ``Fundraiser in 
Chief'' than he does to do his basic job as Commander in Chief in 
securing our borders.
  Let me tell my colleagues, while the President was running around 
collecting checks from Democratic Party fat cats, I was back home in 
Texas. I was on the border this weekend down in McAllen. I sat down 
with the chief of the Border Patrol in McAllen. I sat down with the 
line officers of the Border Patrol in McAllen. I visited the detention 
facilities that are being constructed to hold these children. I saw a 
remarkable facility. It used to be a gigantic warehouse, and in 18 days 
the Border Patrol had to stand up a facility to house 1,000 children 
because that is the volume coming through there every couple of days.
  The President is right in one regard. He has publicly stated we are 
seeing a humanitarian crisis, and that is correct, but it is a crisis 
of his own creation. This humanitarian crisis is the direct consequence 
of President Obama's lawlessness. I will note he cannot even be 
bothered to cast his eyes on the people who are suffering because of 
it.
  If we want to know what is causing this crisis, a simple examination 
of the numbers will suffice. Just 3 years ago, in 2011, the number of 
unaccompanied children entering this country was roughly 6,000. Then, 
in June of 2012, just a few months before the election, President Obama 
unilaterally granted amnesty to some 800,000 people who were here 
illegally in this country who entered as children. He did so, 
presumably, because he thought there would be a political benefit. It 
was a few months before an election and he thought there was good 
politics in ignoring the law and granting amnesty. But the foreseeable 
consequence of that amnesty--the predictable and the predicted 
consequence of that amnesty--if we tell people across the globe that if 
they enter as children, they get amnesty, suddenly we create an 
incredible incentive for more and more children to come and more and 
more children to come alone.
  This year, the Department of Homeland Security estimates that 90,000 
unaccompanied children will enter this country illegally. Next year 
they estimate 145,000. I want my colleagues to compare those numbers 
for a second. Three years ago, it was 6,000. Now it is 90,000, and next 
year we expect 145,000. The direct and proximate cause was President 
Obama's amnesty.
  There are some in this body who might not believe what a Member of 
the opposite party says on this. There is a whole lot of partisanship 
in Washington. It truly has shut down the ability of this body to deal 
with real challenges facing this country.
  If people don't believe what a Member of the opposite party says, 
perhaps they will believe the Border Patrol. Just a few weeks ago the 
Border Patrol conducted a confidential study that was given to members 
of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a whistleblower in the Border 
Patrol, where they interviewed over 200 people who had entered the 
country recently illegally, and they asked them the question: Why are 
you coming? Ninety-five percent said we are coming because we believe 
we will get amnesty; that if we just get here, we will be allowed to 
stay.
  The administration has been giving lots of supposed causes for this 
humanitarian crisis. One of their favorites is the violence in Central 
America. It is true. Tragically, there is a great deal of violence in 
Central America and it has been increasing, but I would note violence 
is not new to the human condition. There have always been countries 
across the globe that are racked by violence, racked by civil war, and 
we have always seen when violence rises, the immigration from a 
particular country goes up. We see legal immigration from that country 
go up and we see illegal immigration from that country go up. What we 
haven't seen in the past is the explosion of children.
  The violence in Central America is a reasonable cause to explain the 
increase in immigrants from Central America, the increase in families 
coming up to get away from the violence. What it doesn't explain is 
this new phenomenon: 90,000 unaccompanied children. That is a new 
phenomenon. There is no reason violence would dictate saying, I am 
going to take my little boy, I am going to take my little girl, and 
send them alone. That instead is a direct response to what President 
Obama did by granting amnesty that was targeted to those who entered as 
kids. Why are kids entering? Because the President has said, if you 
enter as a kid, I will grant you amnesty.
  Several weeks ago I visited Lackland Air Force Base where roughly 
1,200 of these children are being held. I visited with the senior 
officials there. It is worth understanding that there are many victims 
of the President's refusal to enforce the law, but some of the most 
direct victims are these little boys and little girls because the 
coyotes who are bringing these children in are not well-meaning social 
workers. They do not have beards and Birkenstocks, and they are not 
there out of love. These coyotes are hardened, vicious transnational 
drug cartels, and these children are being subjected to horrific 
physical and sexual abuse.
  When I was at Lackland Air Force Base, a senior official there 
described to me how these coyotes get custody of these kids to smuggle 
them illegally into this country, and then sometimes they will decide 
to hold the children for ransom, to get even more money from the 
families. If the families cannot or will not pay, horribly, what these 
coyotes are doing is severing body parts of these children and sending 
them back to the families.
  The senior official at Lackland described coyotes putting machine 
guns to the back of the head of a little boy or a little girl and 
ordering them to cut off the fingers or the ears of another little boy 
or little girl. If the child refuses, they shoot that child and move on 
to the next one. They described how on our end we are seeing children 
come into this country--some of whom have been horribly maimed by these 
violent coyotes and drug cartels, others of whom have enormous 
psychological damage--from a little boy or a little girl forced to 
commit such atrocities upon pain of death.
  I asked the officials at Lackland: How many of these children have 
been victimized? The answer: All of them. That was from the senior 
official at Lackland. By the way, one of the things we hear reports of 
is these families with the girls, before they send them up, they give 
them birth control because the expectations are that the risks of 
sexual assault and rape are so high. That risk is being undertaken 
because of the promise of amnesty.
  When I was down in McAllen this weekend, I asked the line agents--I 
said: Listen. Every day you guys are on the river, you are in the 
helicopter, you are securing the border. Why are they coming? What has 
changed? Just 3 years ago it was 6,000 kids. Now it is 90,000. What has 
changed? Every single one of the Border Patrol agents gave the exact 
same answer. They said they are coming because they believe they will 
get amnesty.
  It is important to understand, by the way, the coyotes smuggle them 
across the border, and as soon as they get across the border, they 
actively look for the Border Patrol. They are not being captured. They 
are not being caught. They go look for someone in

[[Page 12986]]

uniform. They may have ragged clothes falling off their back, they may 
not have food or water, but they have their papers. They have their 
papers with them. They cross the border illegally with a coyote and 
they endure the physical and sexual abuse and then they look for the 
Border Patrol to hand their papers to. Why? Because they believe once 
they get here and hand their papers over, they get amnesty.
  If we want to solve this crisis, there is one, and only one, way to 
solve this crisis; that is, to eliminate the promise of amnesty. I 
mentioned a few moments ago that I wanted to talk about this 
humanitarian crisis and talk about the abdication of responsibility 
because Washington has always been lousy at taking responsibility for 
the suffering our policies create. But the response of this President, 
and I am sorry to say the Democratic majority in this body, has been 
particularly callous.
  President Obama proposed a $3.7 billion supplemental plan. Mind you, 
he did not have time to visit the border, to visit the children, to see 
the suffering, but he proposed yet more spending. The $3.7 billion 
supplemental is an HHS social services bill. It spends a whole bunch of 
money. By the way, to give you a sense of just how much $3.7 billion 
is, for $3.7 billion we could purchase a first-class airplane ticket 
for each one of these 90,000 children to return them home--first 
class--sitting in the front row of a commercial airline. After doing 
so, we could deposit $3.6 billion back in the Federal Treasury. It is a 
massive amount of money he has asked for, and what is striking, less 
than 5 percent of it goes to border security.
  Here is the cynical part. Here is the sad part. Nothing in the 
President's proposal does anything to solve the underlying problem. 
Nothing does anything to eliminate the promise of amnesty. Nothing does 
anything to solve the problem. What the President is saying is he is 
perfectly content for this crisis to continue in perpetuity. Under the 
President's bill, next year we can expect 145,000--DHS expects--to 
come. We can expect tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of 
little boys and little girls to be physically assaulted and sexually 
assaulted by coyotes.
  That is not humane. That is not compassionate. Any system that 
continues to have children in the custody of these vicious drug cartels 
is the very opposite of humane and compassionate. As my friend the 
junior Senator from Alabama pointed out, the magnet of amnesty has been 
significantly exacerbated in recent months. Why? Because President 
Obama, in a very high-profile way, met with far-left activists and made 
a promise. He said: I am going to study how to expand amnesty and to 
grant amnesty to another 5 or 6 million people here illegally.
  Let's be clear. There is nothing--zero--in U.S. immigration law that 
gives the President the power to grant amnesty. It is open lawlessness 
and contempt for rule of law, but yet that promise is heard. That 
promise is heard throughout Central America. That promise is heard by 
those mothers and dads who make the heart-wrenching decision to hand 
their sons and daughters over to these coyotes. They do so because they 
love their kids and they believe, as terrible as the journey will be, 
that if they get here, they get a permiso, they get to stay in the 
``promised land.'' That promise of amnesty is why this crisis has 
happened.
  So I have introduced legislation to solve the problem. Last week I 
introduced a very simple bill that puts into law that President Obama 
has no authority to grant any additional amnesty. It is a very simple 
bill. It prevents the President from taking the DACA Program that he 
unilaterally and illegally implemented in 2012 and expanding it to 
cover any new immigrants.
  It is interesting. Representatives from the administration go on 
television and they say: These children are not eligible for amnesty. 
If that is their position, the administration should support my bill. 
If that is their position, all this bill does is put into law what they 
say their position is; that these children are not eligible for 
amnesty.
  Have they supported the bill? They have not. Instead the majority 
leader of this body took it upon himself to go out and hold a press 
conference. What is the top priority for the majority leader of this 
body? To come after and attack the legislation I introduced, to 
personally come after the freshman Senator from Texas. The majority 
leader is welcome to impugn any Member of this body. Sadly, that 
happens all too often. But yet nowhere in the majority leader's 
comments was a word said about solving this problem. Nowhere in the 
majority leader's comments was a word said about changing it so little 
boys and little girls are not physically and sexually assaulted so we 
do not have tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of kids coming 
illegally into this country.
  Look, we all understand politics in this town. It is an election 
year. The election is a few months away. Scaring people and 
demagoguing, unfortunately, is not new to Washington. But the cynicism 
that is reflected in President Obama's and the majority leader's 
approach to this issue is a new level for this town.
  This week I am introducing broader legislation that not only includes 
what was included last week--a prohibition on the President granting 
amnesty--but includes two other elements: a reform of the 2008 law to 
expedite the humane return of these children to their families and a 
provision to reimburse the cost for the States calling up the National 
Guard to secure their borders.
  I would like to say a word about the 2008 law. That has actually been 
discussed a lot in this body. Indeed, the Obama administration has two 
talking points. If we ask the administration what has caused this 
crisis, the first one is violence in Central America. There is 
something convenient about that talking point because if it is violence 
in Central America, it is not President Obama's fault. It is not 
anything they have done. It is something else extrinsic. But the second 
talking point that sometimes the administration will say is that the 
cause of this crisis is the 2008 law.
  There is a reason they point to that. Because it seems there is 
nothing President Obama enjoys more than blaming everything bad on this 
planet on George W. Bush. The 2008 law was signed by George W. Bush. So 
if this crisis was caused by the 2008 law, then mirabile dictu, it is 
not this administration's fault.
  But John Adams famously said: Facts are stubborn things. If someone 
is going to make a claim that a crisis is caused by the 2008 law, they 
have to be willing to take at least a moment to look to the facts.
  The 2008 law was passed, unsurprisingly, in 2008. The number of 
children entering unaccompanied did not spike in 2008. It did not spike 
in 2009. It did not spike in 2010. It did not spike in 2011. In 2011 it 
was roughly 6,000. If the 2008 law were the cause of this crisis, we 
would have seen the numbers spike in 2008 or 2009 or 2010 or 2011. No, 
they did not spike until 2012--June of 2012--when the President pulled 
out his pen and granted amnesty. That is the cause--the direct cause--
the cause that the Border Patrol tells us these immigrants are telling 
us is why they are coming.
  Once the crisis was created, the 2008 law has had unintended 
consequences. The 2008 law allowed expedited removal for unaccompanied 
children from Mexico and Canada--our immediate contiguous countries--
but created slow, delayed, bureaucratized removal for children from 
more distant countries.
  That did not create significant problems in 2008 or 2009 or 2010 or 
2011 because we did not have a massive influx of kids from those 
countries. But once the President illegally granted amnesty and we 
started getting--as we are expected to this year--90,000 unaccompanied 
children--most of whom are from Central American countries--now we are 
seeing the 2008 law cause real problems because returning these 
children home is delayed, often delayed indefinitely.
  When I was in the McAllen meeting with the line Border Patrol agents, 
I asked them another question. I said: Listen. Washington is 
dysfunctional.

[[Page 12987]]

Partisan politics rips the town apart. If you could ignore the 
politics, what do you say on the frontlines? How do we actually secure 
the borders? How do we solve this problem? Every single one of the 
Border Patrol agents answered the same way. They said: We have to send 
them home.
  We treat them humanely. We treat them compassionately--because that 
is who we are as Americans; those are our values--but humanely and 
compassionately we need to expeditiously return them to their families 
back home. Why? Because if the children are allowed to stay--and, mark 
my words, President Obama wants these children to stay and he wants to 
grant amnesty to the next children and the next children, which means 
that promise of amnesty will cause tens of thousands and hundreds of 
thousands of children to continue to be physically assaulted and 
sexually assaulted in perpetuity.
  If we grant amnesty, all it will do is incite yet more kids to be 
victimized. The only way to solve this problem--this is coming from the 
Border Patrol agents--is to humanely and expeditiously send them home, 
reunite them with their families.
  The legislation I am introducing this week changes the 2008 law so 
the policies for sending them home are the same as the policies for 
Mexico and Canada. We treat Mexico and Canada with great friendship and 
compassion. There is no reason the very same procedures cannot apply to 
children from Central America.
  The final element of this bill is dealing with the real security 
crisis that is occurring.
  Just today the junior Senator from Alabama and I both heard a 
briefing from one of our senior military leaders on the national 
security threats caused by our porous borders, by the same avenues that 
are taking those kids in and that are also being used to smuggle vast 
quantities of drugs. The same corridors that are taking those kids in 
are also being used to smuggle in thousands of aliens from special 
interest countries, from the Middle East, aliens from countries that 
face serious issues of radical Islamic terrorists.
  A number of our border Governors have stepped forward to respond to 
this crisis. I commend the Governor of my home State of Texas, Rick 
Perry, for showing leadership and calling up the National Guard in 
Texas. It was the right thing to do. He should not have to do it. The 
Constitution gives that responsibility to the Federal Government. The 
Governor should not have to step in and fill the breach. They are doing 
so because the President and the Federal Government are refusing to do 
their job. But I commend the Governors for doing so. The legislation I 
am introducing simply provides that when a State steps up and does the 
job that is our responsibility, the Federal Government will reimburse 
the costs.
  In all likelihood, next week we are going to have a vote on a bill 
that is denominated a ``border security'' bill. It is a bill the 
majority leader wants us to vote on that is a version of the 
President's HHS social services bill and spends a whole bunch of money 
and does nothing, zero, nada, to solve the problem.
  The majority leader knows that. The President knows that. The 
intention is to have it voted down. One of the incredible things about 
where we are right now is this Democratic Senate is a do-nothing 
Senate. We do not pass any legislation of consequence. There is a 
reason for that. The majority leader has decided we are not going to 
pass any legislation of consequence. So instead what do we have? We 
have a series of show votes, every one of which is designed to fail, 
every one of which the majority leader knows will fail, and every one 
of which is poll tested or focus-group tested to allow Democrats 
running for reelection to campaign based on those votes.
  It is not legislating. It is not doing the job the Senate was meant 
to do. This border security bill that we will likely vote on next week 
will do nothing for border security. It is not designed to. Even if it 
were to pass, it is not designed to. It is not designed to do anything 
to stop President Obama's amnesty. It is not designed to do anything to 
expedite reuniting these kids with their families back home. It is 
simply designed to be a fig leaf, to say: The Democrats have responded 
to this crisis. The evil, mean, nasty Republicans did not go along.
  That is a political narrative that is not new. It is common in 
partisan politics. It just happens not to be true. Unfortunately, the 
Democratic majority in this body has demonstrated no interest in 
actually solving this problem. You want to know just how cynical the 
majority leader's strategy is? They have added to this border bill a 
provision that would replenish the Iron Dome missiles for the nation of 
Israel.
  I would note that has nothing to do with the crisis at our southern 
border. It is a policy that is unambiguously good. Every Member on the 
Republican side of this Chamber supports replenishing the Iron Dome 
missiles that are right now keeping Israel safe from the Hamas 
terrorist rocket fire. So why has the majority leader stuck that onto a 
bill that he knows will fail and is designed to fail?
  Well, it is called partisan politics. Because when it fails, the 
talking points will come out. The majority leader will come out and 
say: The Republicans do not want to solve the problem on the border. 
The Republicans are unwilling to stand with our friend and ally Israel. 
Let me tell you right now, every Republican on this side of the Chamber 
would vote right now, this afternoon, to replenish the Iron Dome 
missiles. To be honest, we should be voting. You know, in most parts of 
the country, Thursday afternoon, 4:30, people who actually have an 
honest job are still at work. Not in the Senate. The Senate people head 
on home. People are out campaigning. How about we actually have 
Senators show up on this floor more than one or two at a time and 
debate these issues? How about we actually see Senators stand, debate 
the issues, and resolve the problems?
  The majority leader went on television and said: The border is 
secure. I find that an astonishing assertion. I recognized how from the 
perch of Washington, DC, it might seem that way. Perhaps the DC/
Virginia border is secure. But I would invite the majority leader and I 
would invite any Member of the Chamber: Come down to Texas. Come to 
McAllen. Come visit the border. When I was in McAllen on Saturday, the 
Border Patrol agents told me the day before they had apprehended 622 
people.
  I went to the processing center. They had 10 holding centers with 600 
or 700 people there. One holding room had little girls below age 14, 
unaccompanied. Another holding room had little boys under age 14, 
unaccompanied. The third holding room had girls ages 14 to 19, 
unaccompanied. The fourth room had boys ages 14 to 19, unaccompanied. 
The fifth and sixth rooms had family units, mothers and fathers and 
little bitty babies, including tiny infants needing diapers and 
formula. Then the final four holding areas held adults.
  That was one day. That was not a week. That was not a month. That was 
one day. Ninety thousand unaccompanied children are expected to enter 
the country this year. The majority leader of the Senate says the 
border is secure. I would invite the majority leader to say that to 
those little boys and little girls who have just been victimized that 
the border is secure. That sure would surprise them. I would invite the 
majority leader to say that to the farmers and ranchers and the 
citizens in South Texas because that sure would surprise them.
  By the way, when you get outside of Washington this issue is not 
partisan. When you go down to South Texas and you visit with the 
elected leaders there, many of whom--most of whom--are elected 
Democrats and often Hispanic Democrats, and you ask: What is your top 
priority? Among Hispanic Democrats on the border, they say: Border 
security--because the border is so far from secure that their 
communities are paying the price.
  I would invite the majority leader to come to Brooks County, TX. In 
Brooks County, TX, hundreds of men, women, and children are found dead 
from crossing illegally. I would invite the majority leader to look, as 
I have, at the photographs of these bodies. Pregnant

[[Page 12988]]

women are abandoned and left to die. Those are vicious cartels and 
coyotes. This is the face of amnesty. Ninety thousand children being 
victimized, being physically assaulted and sexually assaulted. This is 
the face of amnesty: Children held in detention centers with chain-link 
fences going up 18 feet, separating them in separate pens. This is the 
face of amnesty. Our heart breaks for these kids. But if it really 
breaks for those kids, we should do something about it. The only way to 
stop this humanitarian crisis is to stop President Obama's amnesty. As 
long as the President continues to promise amnesty, these children will 
keep coming, and they will keep being victimized.
  Sadly, as long as Senate Democrats are unwilling to stand up to their 
President and say, let's actually show some leadership and fix this 
problem, then the Senate will continue to be the Democratic do-nothing 
Senate. We will not solve those problems. We will fail in the 
fundamental obligation all of us owe to the men and women who elected 
us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas because 
it, indeed, is the face of amnesty. He has documented for us, I think 
indisputably, that this surge of immigration was a result of the 
amnesty provided for these children by the President of the United 
States. I think that has been shown. I think we have never had a 
clearer analysis of it.
  I am reading now further in the National Journal article about what 
the President plans to do next. The concern we have is about the 
future. I am not making this up, colleagues. This is a very real action 
the President is considering, as I read from that chart on amnesty. He 
would execute, contrary to law, what would give legal status and work 
status to 5 to 6 million people, 10 times the number that he has been 
provided for in this action.
  What did the National Journal report? Well, I am quoting here.

       The President also told a group--This is the group of La 
     Raza and other activist groups that are demanding amnesty 
     and, really, open borders. He told them that Boehner, the 
     Speaker of the House ``urged him not to press ahead with 
     executive actions because that would make legislating more 
     difficult next year.''

  In other words, Speaker Boehner said: Do not use this executive 
amnesty in the future, Mr. President. So now the President is talking 
to the group, these activists that have been pushing him and demanding 
things. This is what the article says.

       Obama told the group, according to those present, his 
     response to Boehner was: `Sorry about that. I'm going to keep 
     my promise and move forward with executive action soon.'

  It makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck as a former Federal 
prosecutor in Federal court for almost 15 years to have the President 
say this. The article went on to say:

       In the room, there was something of a collective, electric 
     gasp. The assembled immigration-rights groups had been 
     leaning hard on Obama for months to use executive action to 
     sidestep Congress and privately mocked what they regarded as 
     Pollyanna hopes that House Republicans would budge . . . 
     Obama told the groups what they had been dying to hear--that 
     he was going to condemn House Republicans for inaction and . 
     . . provide legal status to millions of undocumented 
     workers--all by himself.

  Mr. CRUZ. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would be pleased.
  Mr. CRUZ. The junior Senator from Alabama has just described 
President Obama's stated intention to grant amnesty to an additional 5 
to 6 million people here illegally in the months preceding this next 
election. As the junior Senator from Alabama is certainly aware, there 
are a number of Senators up for reelection, including a number of 
Democrats in bright red States where the constituents of those States, 
whether in Louisiana or Arkansas or North Carolina or many other 
States, do not support amnesty for another 5 to 6 million people here 
illegally.
  The question I would ask my friend from Alabama: Is he aware of any 
Democrat in this Chamber, including those Democrats running for 
reelection in conservative States where the citizens strongly oppose 
amnesty--is he aware of any Democrat in this Chamber who has had the 
courage to stand with him in standing up to President Obama and saying: 
Do not grant amnesty illegally? Is he aware of any Democrat who has 
joined the two of us in our legislation to prohibit President Obama 
from illegally granting amnesty to 5 to 6 million people?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I am not. One of the things I think the American 
people do need to understand is when Majority Leader Reid, in 
conjunction with the President of the United States, blocks even 
amendments up for a vote, where does he get his power? He gets his 
power from every Member of his conference.
  None of them are breaking in and saying: This is not right.
  Senator Cruz's bill would deal with this future danger, that the 
President might do this again. I think--and we have looked at it hard, 
our Judiciary staff--we both serve on that committee--and have said 
this will actually work to ensure that we don't have another rogue 
action, unlawful, by the President of the United States, directly 
contrary to deciding the will of the American people and congressional 
action.
  The President is happy that Congress doesn't pass his law, and he 
says: They won't act, so I will.
  But, colleagues, when we don't act, we act. That is an act. It is a 
decision as sure as if we had passed a law. A decision not to act is a 
decision. The President of the United States can't simply go around and 
say: I can do anything I want because Congress won't act. How 
ridiculous is that? A National Journal article calls this policy 
explosive, and I believe that is a direct action.
  One more question. Senator Cruz, I know, is a student of the 
Constitution, and Professor Turley at George Washington University has 
testified numerous times before Congress. I think he considers himself 
a Democrat, a liberal, but he is deeply concerned about the future of 
our Republic because of the President's overreach and exceeding the 
lawful powers given to the President.
  Is some other President going to expand it further and very soon 
Congress becomes nothing? I would ask if the Senator shares this 
concern, because he was very active in the attorney general's office in 
Texas. Professor Turley said:

       The President's pledge to effectively govern alone is 
     alarming, and what is most alarming is his ability to fulfill 
     that pledge. When a president can govern alone, he can become 
     a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger the 
     framers sought to avoid . . .
       What we're witnessing today is one of the greatest crises 
     that members of this body will face. . . . It has reached a 
     constitutional tipping point that threatens a fundamental 
     change in how our country is governed.

  Does that cause the Senator concern and does he have any thoughts 
about that?
  Mr. CRUZ. Senator Sessions, it causes me great concern. One of the 
most troubling aspects of the Obama Presidency has been the persistent 
pattern of lawlessness from this President. We have never seen a 
President who, if he disagrees with a particular law, so frequently and 
so brazenly refuses to enforce it, refuses to comply with it, and 
asserts the power to unilaterally change it.
  The President famously said: I have a pen and I have a phone, and he 
seems to confuse his pen and his phone for the constitutional process 
of lawmaking our country was built on.
  Rule of law does not mean you have a country with a whole lot of 
laws. Most countries have laws, and many totalitarian countries have a 
whole lot of laws. Rule of law means no man is above the law. It means 
that everyone, everyone, everyone, and especially the President, is 
bound by the law.
  President Obama openly defies his constitutional obligation under 
article 2 of the Constitution to take care that the laws will be 
faithfully executed.
  I would note that Professor Turley, as the junior Senator from 
Alabama quoted, is a liberal Democrat who in 2008 voted for President 
Obama. Professor Turley also testified before the House that President 
Obama has become the embodiment of the imperial

[[Page 12989]]

President. Barack Obama has become the President Richard Nixon always 
wished he could be.
  Those are the words of a liberal Democratic constitutional law 
professor who voted for Barack Obama.
  But my friend the junior Senator from Alabama is learned and 
experienced in the ways of the Senate. He has seen lions of the Senate 
walk this floor. It is unprecedented to have a President so brazenly 
defy the rule of law, but I state what is equally unprecedented, to 
have the Senate lie down and meow like kitty cats.
  Abuse of power by the President is not a new phenomenon. Presidents 
of both parties have abused their power. That is a job, sadly, where 
that tendency has been significant. But in the past, when Presidents 
have abused their power, Members of their own party stood and called 
them to account for it. When Richard Nixon abused his power, Members of 
both parties rightfully decried his abuse of power, so much so that he 
was forced to resign.
  I can state when George W. Bush was President, he signed a two-
paragraph order that purported to order the State courts to obey the 
World Court. I know this because I was at the time serving as the 
solicitor general of Texas, and it was our State courts that the 
President's order purported to bind.
  George W. Bush is a good man. He is a former Governor of Texas, he is 
a Republican, and he was a friend and is a friend. Yet I was proud that 
the State of Texas did not hesitate to stand up to that abuse of power. 
I went before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the State of Texas 
and argued that President George W. Bush's order was unconstitutional, 
that no President has the authority to give up U.S. sovereignty. I am 
pleased to say the U.S. Supreme Court agreed and struck down the 
President's order by a vote of 6 to 3.
  What is unprecedented today is that on the left side of the Chamber 
it is both literally and figuratively empty.
  We had, not too long ago, the President abuse his power with recess 
appointments. One of the important checks and balances the Constitution 
creates on Presidential authority is it gives this body, the Senate, 
the power of confirmation. President Obama apparently didn't like any 
checks and balances on his power, so he made a series of recess 
appointments when the Senate wasn't in recess. It was brazen, it was 
naked. The President simply asserted: I say the Senate is in recess. 
Mind you, the Senate didn't say we were in recess, but the President 
claimed the power to declare us in recess when we weren't.
  Do you want to know how extreme that was? Do you want to know how 
brazen that was? Do you want to know how extraordinary that was?
  Just a few weeks ago the Supreme Court unanimously struck it down as 
unconstitutional.
  It is important to underscore that. There is a lot of coverage in the 
newspaper that suggests we have liberal Justices, conservative 
Justices, and on any close issue it is going to be 5 to 4. This wasn't 
5 to 4, it wasn't 6 to 3, it wasn't 7 to 2, and it wasn't even 8 to 1--
9 to 0. Every Democratic appointee on the Court--both of President 
Obama's appointees on the Court. They looked at the substantive issue 
and they said: This ain't hard. The President doesn't get to say when 
the Senate is in recess, the Senate gets to say when the Senate is in 
recess. And if the Senate isn't in recess, the President has to respect 
the checks and balances of confirmation.
  So we have an easy, no-brainier layup of a constitutional law 
question about the President usurping the constitutional prerogatives 
of the Senate, and how many Senate Democrats stood up to their party's 
President? Not a single one. Not the majority leader of the Senate, who 
we would think might have some interest in the credibility of this 
institution and, I am sorry to say, not a lone Democratic Senator. It 
wasn't that long ago there were lions of the Senate on the Democratic 
side who prided themselves on defending this institution: Robert Byrd, 
who stood for years defending this institution; Ted Kennedy.
  I would say to my friend the junior Senator from Alabama, what is 
truly unprecedented is that there are no Senate Democrats who say: 
Enough is enough.
  I am hopeful at some point we will see a Senate Democrat listen to 
their constituents, listen to the Constitution, and listen to the rule 
of law.
  I can assume the reason why Senate Democrats don't do it and why our 
friends in the press often don't report on this. I can assume their 
reasoning goes something such as: Well, I basically agree with the 
policies of President Obama. I like the policies. I agree with what he 
is doing, and he is our guy. We kind of have to back our guy.
  I am guessing that is a reason, but I will note, as the Scriptures 
say: There came a pharaoh who knew not Joseph and his children.
  President Barack Obama will not always be President of the United 
States. There will be another President. And even to my friends on the 
Democratic side of the aisle--I must say something shocking and 
terrifying to you--there will come another Republican President.
  If the President has the authority to do what President Obama is 
claiming, with ObamaCare--28 times--he simply unilaterally changed the 
text of the law, said: It doesn't matter what the law says, I say it is 
something different. If the President has that power, a Republican 
President has that power too.
  So I would encourage all of my friends on the left who like these 
policy issues--well, imagine some of the policy issues you don't like, 
whether on labor law or environmental law or tort reform or let's take 
tax law. I will give an example.
  Imagine a subsequent Republican President who stood up and stated 
quite sensibly the economy might do much better if we move to a flat 
tax, so I am therefore instructing the IRS: Do not collect any tax 
above 20 percent.
  Now one might say, well, that sounds extreme. That sounds radical. As 
a policy matter, that would be a terrific policy.
  But could the President instruct the IRS not to enforce tax laws? 
Fifty-five Members of this body are already on record saying yes. Do 
you know why? Because when the President suspended the employer mandate 
for big business, the text for ObamaCare says the employer mandate 
kicks in on January 1, 2014. The President said: I am suspending that 
provision of law. I am granting my buddies in big business a waiver. 
That was a tax law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Texas.
  I think what he is saying is reflected in what Professor Turley said. 
It is almost like a plea to his colleague, maybe his Democratic 
colleague, his friend. He said: ``The President's pledge to effectively 
govern alone is alarming, and what is most alarming is his ability to 
fulfill that pledge.''
  In other words, his ability to get away with it; that Congress 
acquiesces in it. Let me say this the President is not going to get 
away with a unilateral amnesty. We are going to take this to the 
American people, and at some point this Congress will be held to 
account if he does so. Remember, every Member is going to have to vote 
and be responsible for allowing a President to run roughshod over the 
law of this country, the people's representatives, and, in effect, the 
people of the United States.
  His plan for amnesty, under the circumstances he advocated them, has 
been rejected.
  Congress is always available to consider any issue and make any 
decision it chooses, but it has, under the circumstances driven in this 
body, been rejected.
  He has no power to go forward and beyond that, and we are not going 
to allow it to happen. It is wrong. Whether we agree or disagree about 
how amnesty should be given, it is wrong for the President to 
unilaterally execute such a policy, as Professor Turley said and as the 
Senator from Texas has said, the former solicitor general of the State 
of Texas. He understands it is law, and this matter is not over. We 
will continue to advocate.

[[Page 12990]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Harkin pertaining to the introduction of S. 2658 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam President. This is my 75th ``Time to 
Wake Up'' speech, something of a minor benchmark, I suppose. I come 
here urging my colleagues to wake up to the threat of climate change. I 
do this every week we are in session, hoping someday a spark will hit 
tinder. But even as the evidence of climate change deepens, the 
dialogue in Washington remains one-sided.
  Climate change was once a bipartisan concern. In recent years 
something changed. I think I know what changed, and I will get to that. 
First, let's reminisce about the bipartisanship. As we take a look back 
in this body, we have Republican colleagues who once openly 
acknowledged the existence of carbon-driven climate change and who 
called for real legislative action to cut carbon emissions. Imagine 
that. It wasn't that long ago.
  We have a former Republican Presidential nominee amongst us who 
campaigned for the Presidency on addressing climate change. We have 
Republicans here who have spoken favorably about charging a fee on 
carbon, including an original Republican cosponsor of a bipartisan 
Senate carbon-fee bill. We have a Republican colleague who cosponsored 
carbon fee legislation in the House and another who voted for the 
Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill when he was in the House. For years--
for years--there was a steady, healthy heartbeat of Republican support 
for major U.S. legislation to address carbon pollution.
  Let me be specific. In 2003, Senator John McCain was the lead 
cosponsor of Democrat Joe Lieberman's Climate Stewardship Act, which 
would have created a market-based emissions cap-and-trading program to 
reduce carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants from the 
biggest U.S. sources.
  Here is what Senator McCain said at the time:

       While we cannot say with 100 percent confidence what will 
     happen in the future, we do know the emission of greenhouse 
     gases is not healthy for the environment. As many of the top 
     scientists through the world have stated, the sooner we start 
     to reduce these emissions the better off we will be in the 
     future.

  His Climate Stewardship Act actually got a vote. Imagine that. When 
it did not prevail, Senator McCain reintroduced the measure himself in 
the following Congress. Republican Senators Olympia Snowe of Maine and 
Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, my predecessor, were among that bill's 
cosponsors. Other Republicans got behind other cap-and-trade proposals. 
Senator Tom Carper's Clean Air Planning Act at one time or another 
counted Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Senator Lindsey Graham of 
South Carolina, and Senator Susan Collins of Maine among its 
supporters.
  In 2007, Republican Senator Olympia Snowe was a lead cosponsor of 
then-Senator Kerry's Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act. Senators 
Murkowski and Stevens from Alaska and Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, 
then a Republican, were original cosponsors of the Bingaman Low Carbon 
Economy Act. That same year Senator Alexander introduced the Clean Air/
Climate Change Act of 2007. Each of these bills sought to reduce carbon 
emissions through a cap-and-trade mechanism.
  Said Senator Alexander:

       It is also time to acknowledge that climate change is real. 
     Human activity is a big part of the problem and it is up to 
     us to act.

  That bipartisan heartbeat remained strong in 2009. Senator Mark Kirk 
of Illinois, while he served in the House of Representatives, was one 
of eight Republicans to vote for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade 
proposal. In that same year, 2009, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, then 
representing Arizona in the House, was an original cosponsor of the 
Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act to reduce payroll taxes for employers and 
employees in exchange for equal revenue from a carbon tax. On the House 
floor then-Representative Flake argued the virtues of this approach. He 
said:

       If we want to be honest about helping the environment, then 
     just impose a carbon tax and make it revenue neutral. Give 
     commensurate tax relief on the other side. Myself and another 
     Republican colleague have introduced that legislation to do 
     just that. Let's have an honest debate about whether or not 
     we want to help the environment by actually having something 
     that is revenue neutral where you tax consumption as opposed 
     to income.

  It was a good idea then and it is still a good idea now. Senator 
Flake's words were echoed that year in the Senate by Senator Collins, a 
lead cosponsor of the Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal 
Act, Senator Cantwell's carbon fee bill.
  ``In the United States alone,'' said Senator Collins, ``emissions of 
the primary greenhouse gas carbon dioxide have risen more than 20 
percent since 1990. Clearly climate change is a daunting environmental 
challenge,'' she said, ``but we must develop solutions that do not 
impose a heavy burden on our economy, particularly during these 
difficult economic times.''
  Madam President, 2009--think of it. There was once not too long ago a 
clear and forceful acknowledgment from leading Republican voices of the 
real danger posed by climate change and of Congress's responsibility to 
act.
  What happened? Why did the steady heartbeat of Republican climate 
action suddenly flatline?
  I believe we lost the ability to address climate change in a 
bipartisan way because of the evils of the Supreme Court's Citizens 
United decision. Our present failure to address climate change is a 
symptom of things gone awry in our democracy due to Citizens United. 
That decision did not enhance speech in our democracy. It has allowed 
bullying, wealthy special interests to suppress real debate. I have 
spoken before on the Senate floor about the Supreme Court's Citizens 
United decision, one of the most disgraceful decisions by any Supreme 
Court, destined ultimately, I believe, to follow cases such as Lochner 
v. New York onto the ash heap of judicial infamy, but we are stuck with 
it for now. In a nutshell the Citizens United decision says this: 
Corporations are people. Money is speech. So there can be no limit to 
corporate money influencing American elections.
  If that doesn't seem right, it is because it is not. Phony and 
improper fact-finding by the five conservative activists on the Supreme 
Court concluded that corporate spending could not ever corrupt 
elections--just couldn't do it. By some magic it is pure. That is a bad 
enough finding on its face, but they also didn't get that limitless, 
untraceable political money doesn't have to be spent to damage our 
democracy.
  Unlimited corporate spending in politics can corrupt not just through 
floods of anonymous attack advertisements, it can corrupt secretly and 
more dangerously through the mere threat of that spending through 
private threats and promises. The Presiding Officer was the attorney 
general of her State, and she well knows how much mischief can be done 
in back rooms by threats and promises. That is what attorneys general 
see when they go out and investigate.
  As we are evaluating the effect of Citizens United on our climate 
change debate, let's remember this: A lot of this special interest 
money has been spent against Republicans. I have had Republican friends 
tell me, ``What are you complaining about? They are spending more 
against us than against you.'' There have been times when that has been 
true.
  When the Koch brothers' polluter money can come in and bombard you in 
a small primary election, that is pretty scary. When the paid-for 
rightwing attack machine can be cranked up against you in your 
Republican primary, that is pretty scary too. What the polluters can do 
with political spending, they can threaten or promise to do in ways 
that the public will never see or know, but the candidate will

[[Page 12991]]

know. The candidate will know for sure.
  So I wrote a friend-of-the-court brief to the Supreme Court with 
Senator John McCain to highlight for the Justices some of the failings 
and pitfalls of their shameful Citizens United decision. ``The 
dominating influence of super PACs,'' we wrote, ``makes it all the 
easier for those seeking legislative favors and results to discreetly 
threaten such expenditures if Members of Congress do not accede to 
their demands.'' I think we were right.
  How does this bear on climate change? All that bipartisan activity I 
talked about preceded Citizens United. After that, polluter attacks 
funded by Citizens United money and the threat of those polluter 
attacks--perhaps promises not to make those attacks if you behave--cast 
a dark shadow over Republicans who might work with Democrats on curbing 
carbon pollution. Tens, perhaps even hundreds of millions of dark-money 
dollars are being spent by polluters and their front organizations, and 
God only knows what private threats and promises have been made.
  The timing is telling. Before Citizens United, there was an active 
heartbeat of Republican activity on climate change. Since then, the 
evidence has only become stronger. But after Citizens United uncorked 
all that big, dark money and allowed it to cast its bullying shadow of 
intimidation over our democracy, Republicans--other than those few who 
parrot the polluter party line that climate change is a big old hoax--
have all walked back from any major climate legislation.
  We have Senators here who represent historic native villages that are 
now washing into the sea and needing relocation because of climate 
change and sea-level rise. We have Senators here who represent great 
American coastal cities that are now overwashed by high tides because 
of climate change. We have Senators representing States swept by 
drought and wildfire. We have Senators whose home State forests by the 
hundreds of square miles are being killed by the marauding pine beetle. 
We have Senators whose home State glaciers are disappearing before 
their very eyes. We have Senators whose States are having to raise 
offshore bridges and highways before rising seas. We have Senators 
whose emblematic home State species are dying off, such as the New 
Hampshire moose, for instance, swarmed by ticks by the tens of 
thousands that snows no longer kill. Yet none will work on a major 
climate bill. It is not safe to, ever since Citizens United allowed the 
bullying, polluting special interests to bombard our elections, and 
threaten and promise to bombard our elections with their attack ads.
  Despite all the dark money, despite the threats and intimidation, I 
still believe this can be a courageous time. We simply need 
conscientious Republicans and Democrats to work together in good faith 
on a common platform of facts and common sense to protect the American 
people and the American economy from the looming effects of climate 
change in our atmosphere, on our lands, and in our oceans. We simply 
need to shed the shackles of corrupting influence and rise to our duty.
  In courageous times, Americans have done far more than that. It is 
not asking much to ask this generation to stand up to a pack of 
polluters just because they have big checkbooks. In previous 
generations, Americans have put their very lives, fortunes, and sacred 
honor at risk to serve the higher interests of this great Republic. We 
know it can be done because it has been done.
  We do not have to be the generation that failed at our duty. We are 
headed down a road to infamy now, but it doesn't have to be that way. 
We can leave a legacy that will echo down the corridors of history so 
that those who follow us will be proud of our efforts. But sitting here 
doing nothing, yielding to the special interest bullies and their 
Citizens United money, pretending that the problem isn't real, will not 
accomplish that.
  As I have said before, 74 times, and as I say tonight for the 75th 
time, it is time for us to wake up.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor and 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. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Supporting Israel

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, yesterday Secretary of Defense Chuck 
Hagel wrote to the majority leader seeking $225 million in additional 
U.S. funding for the production of Iron Dome components in Israel so 
they can maintain adequate stockpiles and defend their population. 
Republicans are united in support of our ally Israel. We have 
legislation that would allow Congress to meet the Secretary's request, 
and we hope our friends on the other side will join us in coming to a 
sensible, bipartisan solution that can be passed quickly.
  As most Senators know, the Iron Dome missile defense system has 
played a critical role in defending Israel's population from rocket 
attacks launched by Hamas from within the Gaza Strip.
  While our friends in Egypt are working to bring Hamas to a cease-fire 
and end this mirage of rocket attacks--attacks that indiscriminately 
target the civilian population of Israel--the Iron Dome system will 
remain critical to Israel's security until a true cease-fire is 
achieved. It will remain vital afterwards as well, because this 
defensive system helps blunt the impact of one of Hamas's preferred 
tools of terror.
  By passing a bipartisan measure to meet the Secretary's request, we 
can send a message to Hamas that its terrorist tactics and its attempts 
to terrorize Israel's populace will not succeed. And we can help Israel 
defend its civilian population against indiscriminate attacks as it 
continues its campaign--Operation Protective Edge--to destroy the often 
Iranian-supplied weapons stockpiled within Gaza, as well as to 
eliminate the tunnels that allow terrorists to infiltrate into Israel 
and smuggle arms into Gaza.


                                 Burma

  Now, on a different matter in a different part of the world. For more 
than two decades I have been coming to the Senate floor to discuss the 
latest events in Burma. Typically, in the spring, I would introduce 
legislation to renew the import sanctions on the then-Burmese junta 
contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. In addition to 
pressuring the junta, the annual renewal of the import sanctions 
provided a useful forum to focus public attention on Burma.
  After much deliberation, last summer Members of Congress chose not to 
renew these sanctions for another year as Burma had demonstrated 
progress toward implementing governmental reform. That said, Burma's 
path to reform is far from complete. Much work remains to be done. As 
such, it is important to continue focusing attention on the country in 
a regular fashion. That is what I wish to do today, to highlight an 
important, immediate, intuitive step that the country can take to 
reassure those who wish the country well, that it remains on the path 
to reform.
  In many ways the Burma of 2014 scarcely resembles the nation that 
existed in 2003 when Congress first enacted the BFDA against the 
Burmese junta. Beginning about 3 years ago, Burma began to make 
significant strides forward in several key areas.
  Under President U Thein Sein, the Burmese Government began to 
institute reforms that surprised virtually all of the onlookers. In the 
following years, the government granted numerous amnesties and 
political pardons to political prisoners and has released more than 
1,100 political prisoners to date.
  As a result of the new government's actions, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, 
the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, was released from house arrest after 
spending 15--15--of the previous 21 years in detention. Since her 
release from House arrest, Daw Suu has been permitted to travel abroad. 
Moreover, a by-election

[[Page 12992]]

was held in April 2012 and she was elected as a member of Parliament 
along with a number of her National League for Democracy colleagues. In 
fact, when she did travel abroad back in 2012, at my invitation she 
came to Louisville, KY. It was an incredible experience to have her in 
our State and in our country.
  In light of these democratic reforms--many of which I witnessed 
firsthand when I visited the country in January of 2012--I believe that 
to no small degree Burma has been a remarkable story among many dark 
developments in the world today.
  However, even though the country has made incredible progress in a 
relatively short period of time, to many Burma of late appears stalled 
amidst a score of pressing challenges. These include continued conflict 
between the government and ethnic minorities, governmental restrictions 
on civil liberties, and ongoing humanitarian issues in Rakhine State. 
All are serious concerns that command close attention. And related to 
all of these issues is the need for Burma to continue to bring the 
military under civilian control if it is to evolve into a more 
representative government.
  With the by-election in Burma scheduled for late this year and a 
parliamentary election scheduled for late 2015, reformers in the 
Burmese Government have an opportunity to regain their momentum. To my 
view, the time between now and the end of 2015 is pivotal--pivotal--for 
Burma. The elections will help demonstrate whether the country will 
continue on the reformist path.
  With that in mind, the Burmese Government should understand that the 
United States, and the Senate specifically, will watch very closely at 
how Burmese authorities conduct the 2015 parliamentary elections as a 
critical marker of the sincerity and the sustainability of democratic 
reform in Burma.
  President U Thein Sein has made public assurances that the upcoming 
parliamentary election will be ``free and transparent.'' However, his 
pledge has already been challenged by several campaign restrictions.
  One of those restrictions is a simple one. It involves who can be 
chosen for the most important civilian office in Burma: The Presidency.
  Burma has several requirements governing who can hold this highest 
office. Some of them make sense. For instance, like the United States, 
Burma has a minimum age requirement for its highest office. Its 
President must be at least 45 years old. I suppose that helps assure 
that only someone with a fair amount of life experience can be 
President.
  In addition, the Burmese constitution stipulates that the President 
must be a citizen who is ``well acquainted'' with the country's 
``political, administrative, economic, and military'' affairs, and is 
``loyal to the union and its citizens.'' This requirement helps ensure 
that a president is knowledgeable about public affairs and has a vested 
interest in serving in Burma's executive office.
  However, Burma's constitution also includes a deeply disconcerting 
limitation on Presidential eligibility. Section 59 stipulates that the 
Burmese President may not be a foreign national and may not have any 
immediate family members who are foreign nationals.
  This limitation on the home nation of a candidate's immediate family 
has no bearing on an individual's fitness for office. This restriction 
prevents many, including Daw Suu herself, from even being considered 
for Burma's highest office. Daw Suu, for example, would not be 
permitted to run because her deceased husband was, and her two sons 
are, British nationals. To think that the nationalities of family 
members have relevance for fitness to hold office or allegiance to 
Burma is dubious at best.
  Not only is Daw Suu discriminated against but so are the Burmese who 
fled or were exiled from the country during the junta's rule. Many of 
them were out of Burma for years--not by choice, I would add--and 
during this time many became naturalized citizens in another country 
out of necessity. These men and women are also ineligible to be 
President.
  Deciding who will be the next Burmese President is obviously up to 
the people of Burma through their elected representatives and not up to 
the international community. But, at a minimum, I believe that 
otherwise qualified candidates should be permitted to stand for office.
  More important than the provision's unfairness for certain 
Presidential candidates is that this provision restricts the ability of 
the people of Burma, through their representatives, to have a choice in 
who can hold their highest office. This is profoundly undemocratic, and 
it is profoundly undemocratic at a time when Burma's commitment to 
democracy is actually open to question.
  It is notable that one apparent roadblock to amending the 
Presidential eligibility requirement is the fact that the military 
holds de facto veto power over constitutional amendments. Under the 
constitution, the military controls a block of 25 percent of the 
parliamentary seats and in excess of a 75-percent vote is required for 
a constitutional amendment to go forward. The military controls 25 
percent of the Parliament; they need over 75 percent of the Parliament 
to change the constitution. It becomes clear what this is about.
  I understand the Burmese parliamentary committee is in the process of 
finalizing plans for the implementation of constitutional reform, but I 
am concerned that eligibility changes will apparently not--not--include 
amending the narrow restrictions of the constitution that limit who can 
run for President. To me, it will be a missed opportunity if this 
provision is not revisited before the 2015 parliamentary elections.
  Modifying this provision is one way the Burmese Government can 
display to the world, in an immediate and clearly recognizable way, 
that it remains fully committed to reform. Permitting a broad array of 
candidates to run for President is an unmistakable symbol to the 
world--even to those who do not follow Burma closely--that Burmese 
reformers actually mean business; otherwise, such a restriction will 
quite simply cast a pall over the legitimacy of the election in the 
eyes of the international community and certainly to Members of the 
U.S. Senate.
  While Congress did not renew the BFDA's import ban last year and 
there is little appetite to renew the measure this year, several U.S. 
sanctions toward Burma remain on the books. They include restrictions 
on the importation of jade and rubies into the United States and 
sanctions on individuals who continue to hinder reform efforts. It is 
hard to see how those provisions get lifted without there being 
progress on the constitutional eligibility issue and the closely 
related issue of the legitimacy of the 2015 elections.
  As the 2015 elections approach, I urge the country's leadership--its 
President, Parliament and military--to remain resolute in confronting 
the considerable obstacles to a more representative government that 
Burma faces. That is the only way the existing sanctions are going to 
get removed--the only way.
  I wanted to highlight the eligibility issue as an example of an 
important step Burma could take to continue its reformist momentum. 
Such a step is of course necessary but not sufficient. As I noted, 
undergirding many of Burma's problems is the need to enhance civilian 
control over the military. This concern manifests itself in many ways, 
including the need to clarify that the commander in chief serves under 
the President and the importance of removing the military's de facto 
veto authority over constitutional amendments.
  One tool the United States could use to help reform Burma's armed 
forces is through military-to-military contacts. I believe that 
exposure to the most professional military in the world--our own--will 
help Burma develop a force that is responsive to civilian control and 
to professional standards. Security assistance and professional 
military education are not simply rewards to partnering countries, as 
some view such programs. They are tools with which we advance our 
foreign policy

[[Page 12993]]

objectives. Helping the Burmese military to reform is in our interest 
but it cannot be done through mere exhortation; it needs to be done 
through training and regular contact with the highest professional 
military standards. Only then, I believe, will the Burmese military see 
that being under civilian control is not--not--inimical to its 
interests.
  This realization by the Burmese military, coupled with a successful 
2015 election that is open to all otherwise qualified Presidential 
aspirants, will greatly enhance the cause for reform and peaceful 
reconciliation in Burma.
  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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________