Floor Statements

Mr. President, first I want to compliment once again my colleague, the senior Senator from Maine. She is always looking for a compromise. She is always looking to try to work in a constructive way. While I don't appreciate the results she has asked for--which I will talk about in a second--I always appreciate her efforts.

We have a very simple position here. It is a position that is logical. It is a position that even Republicans, as Leader Reid has mentioned, have talked about: Pass a clean homeland security bill and then go to the floor and debate amendments. Debate the amendment of Senator Collins, debate the amendment of Senator Cruz, and debate any immigration amendments you want.

To repeat, we will not be held hostage. The American people don't want a gun to their head, particularly when it involves security, to debate immigration. We know that. We know what the junior Senator from Texas is doing. Everyone on the other side knows it; and, of course, we are not going to go along.

So my dear friend from Maine comes up with a new solution. It is still hostage taking because it is attached to funding the Homeland Security bill. We are now only debating the size of the ransom. We will not do it. We are not going to be pressured, be bullied into doing this or that immigration reform as a price to funding Homeland Security.

Homeland Security is too vital to America. It is too vital to our country. It is not the way legislating should work. My dear colleagues on the other side should have learned this lesson a year and a half ago when they threatened to shut down the government unless they got their way. No matter how deeply they feel about the substance, they lose.

The junior Senator from Texas is leading his Republican colleagues at best into a cul-de-sac and at worst over a cliff, and I don't think they want to follow. But the House is in a box and says: Show us the Senate won't pass the bill. Well, we won't. We are not into hostage taking, we are not into being bullied, and we are not into legislating with a gun to our heads. And my guess is the White House would not support anything like this either.

So I say to my dear Republican friends, go back to the drawing board. You control the Senate. You are in charge. It is your responsibility to find a way out of this. Our way is simple, as Leader Reid outlined. First, pass a clean Homeland Security bill to protect our security, and then place on the floor immigration. We welcome the debate. We welcome the debate on the

amendment of Senator Cruz. We welcome debate on the amendment of Senator Collins--but not as a hostage taker. Again, all Senator Collins is doing is saying what the size of the ransom is, but we are still doing hostage taking.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, it is good to follow my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration, on which I am ranking member. I don't agree with him, but he is a fine man.

Now, I rise to dispel attempts by the other side of the aisle to dodge responsibility for funding the Department of Homeland Security in a responsible way. Here is what is happening. The rightwing of the Republican Party is risking a Department of Homeland Security shutdown to get their way on immigration. They are saying: Take our hard-right stance on immigration or we won't fund national security.

Most Americans don't agree with that view. Most Americans are for a rational immigration policy. A large majority in this body--bipartisan, led by Senator McCain and myself--voted on that in 2013. But we have a small group, led by the junior Senator from Texas, who say: It is our way or we are going to shut down one of the premier agencies dedicated to our security.

As I said when I engaged in a colloquy with my good friend from Texas, our Republican colleagues have the majority. They can debate immigration any time they want. In fact, we welcome that debate. We think the American people are on our side. We are willing to have that debate. We are eager to have that debate but not with a gun put to the head not only of us but of the American people. Do what we, a narrow minority, want or we are going to shut down the Department of Homeland Security--at a time when security is of utmost importance given what has happened around the world and what we just saw happen to the Jordanian pilot yesterday.

This strategy makes no sense. The junior Senator from Texas is leading his party at best into a cul-de-sac, and at worst over a cliff. We are not going to be taken hostage. If my good friend the majority leader, Senator McConnell, thinks that by bringing this bill up again and again it is going to change what happened yesterday, it is not. So we are saying to the other side: Now that you have seen the vote, now that you have shown Speaker Boehner that we can't pass his bill in the Senate, get real. I say get real, to my friend the majority leader and to the Speaker of the House.

Let's roll up our sleeves, and let's work out a Department of Homeland Security bill and pass it. Let's not hold that agency hostage. Let's not just renew them every couple of months. As the Secretary of DHS said yesterday, that is like getting a car and only giving it five miles of gas at a time. It just doesn't work. So get real. Let's negotiate a DHS spending bill.

I know our Senator from Maryland, the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, and the Senator from New Hampshire, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations, are eager to sit down and pass a bill that we can all agree on in terms of funding Homeland Security, and then we can debate immigration. Then we can debate immigration--but no hostage taking and none of this bullying. None of this: If you don't do it my way, I am going to hurt a whole lot of innocent people. That didn't work in 2013 when Republican numbers plummeted after they tried to shut down the government, and it won't work today.

We will not allow a government shutdown. We will not allow hostage- taking. We will ask our colleagues to get reasonable, do things the way they used to be done, debate each issue on the merits. They have the floor. They can debate any issue they want and move forward.

I will say one other thing to my Republican colleagues: The junior Senator from Texas has you tied in a knot. I say that to Speaker Boehner as well: Speaker Boehner, the junior Senator from Texas has you tied in a knot. Now you are going to have to find a way to untangle it. We will not be bullied. We will not be told we have to negotiate because you seek to hurt innocent people and hurt our security. We will move forward.

So let me suggest the way to go forward: Let's put a good, clean Homeland Security bill on the floor. Let's make America secure. Then, separately, we are happy to debate immigration to the Republican Party's heart's content, but let's stop this govern-by-crisis mentality, especially when national security hangs in the balance.

So I urge Speaker Boehner, I urge Senator McConnell to come to their senses, end this wild goose chase and let us vote on a clean bill forthwith.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, will my colleague from Texas yield for a question?

I thank my colleague. I just have a few more questions, and then I will say my piece.

First, I ask my colleague, is it his party that is in the majority in this body?

Indeed they are--sad, from our point of view.

Isn't it true that the majority has the ability to put any bill they want on the floor just about at any time? They can rule XIV. They can go through committee. There are many procedural ways to get a bill on the floor; is that right?

My final question is this: Since we have a Department of Homeland Security that needs funding and the issue of immigration is a controversial issue--one on which we relish a debate--wouldn't it be possible for the majority to pass a Department of Homeland Security bill without extraneous and controversial amendments, send that back to the House, and then move immediately to debate the immigration proposal that was added to the bill by the House or any other immigration proposal they wish to bring forward? I am not saying they will do it; I am just asking my dear friend, isn't that possible procedurally for the majority to do?

Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader has stated that it is possible within the procedures of this Senate to pass a homeland security bill, as negotiated by our Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs--and I see the able head of the subcommittee here on the floor, the Senator from New Hampshire--and then move to immigration and bring it to the floor. So all of his arguments that we are afraid to debate immigration, that we don't want to debate immigration are false.

There is not one choice, there are two. One is to debate immigration fully and openly. The other is to a play a game of hostage, to say: We are kidnapping Homeland Security, and now let's have a debate on how much the ransom should be.

No one in America wants us to legislate that way. I know my colleagues in the Senate didn't do that. It was the House that did it, led by thinking by the junior Senator from Texas. His view, as I have heard him say, is that what the President did on immigration is so awful that we should shut down the Department of Homeland Security as a way of forcing the President to go along with what the junior Senator from Texas wants.

When are our colleagues on the other side of the aisle going to learn? They followed Senator Cruz a year and a half ago when he wanted to shut down the government over ObamaCare. They actually did shut down the government for a few weeks and were so widely excoriated by just about all Americans that they backed off. But they haven't learned. They are following the junior Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz, into a cul- de-sac at best and over a cliff at worst.

We are happy to debate homeland security but not with a gun to our head or the President's head; not to say: If you don't do it my way, I am going to shut down the government. The vast majority of Americans-- Democratic, Independent, Republican, North, East, South, West--don't believe that is how we should legislate. I am surprised--I am almost shocked, with some of the wisdom we have in the leadership of this body, that they are allowing that to happen. We will not. We have the ability to block it, and block it we will. We will not play hostage. We will not risk shutting down Homeland Security--as I am sure my colleague from New Hampshire will talk about--a vital Department. We will not let their being upset with DREAM kids jeopardize our safety with ISIS. We will not let that happen.

I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to pass the bill that has already been put on the floor--a clean Homeland Security bill--then they may decide to put immigration on the floor, and we will be happy, happy, happy to debate it.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to urge my Republican colleagues to pass a clean bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of the fiscal year.

We are now only 1 month away from a shutdown of the principal Federal agency charged with keeping Americans safe from terrorism and prepared for natural disasters.

The President has said he will veto any funding bill that repeals or rolls back his Executive order on immigration, so anything but a clean bill to fund DHS means one thing and one thing alone. Republicans are unilaterally shutting down the agency.

No matter what your grievance is, we shouldn't be playing politics with national security. It is alarming that even as we can now count the days, 30, until a Republican security shutdown, so many on the hard right are ready to just dismiss the consequences.

Compared to their obsession with President Obama's immigration action and their desire to appease the tea party with radical and practical ideas that would not fix our system, to Republicans shutting down DHS is ``not the end of the world.''

So I will use my time to spell out what a DHS shutdown would mean for our country in the hopes that our Republican colleagues will be jolted back to reality and to common sense. Since this isn't the first time Republicans have put us through a shutdown, we actually have a very good idea as to what a DHS shutdown would look like.

Here are just some of the functions that would cease if Republicans failed to put a clean bill on the floor: The bulk of DHS management and headquarter administrative support activities would cease, including much of the homeland security infrastructure that was built during the 9/11 terrorist attacks to improve command, control, and coordination of disparate frontline activities. Securing the Cities, a critical post-9/ 11 funding program that helps pay for nuclear detection capabilities in New York City, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC, could not be awarded in fiscal year 2015. The DHS Nuclear Detection Office, which since 9/11 coordinates on a daily or weekly basis with local law enforcement, will stop operating.

FEMA's disaster preparedness unit would cease coordinating regular training activities for law enforcement for weapons of mass destruction events. FEMA employees in Washington and across the country who provide critical preparedness resources to local first responders would be sent home. Twenty-five percent of FEMA's headquarters and regional staff would be furloughed.

FEMA personnel working on grants programs, such as funds for intelligence analysts or firefighter needs, would be furloughed, and even those personnel deemed essential would be denied paychecks until a funding bill is passed. This means we are not paying the Coast Guard, we are not paying the TSA, we are not paying the Border Patrol, the Secret Service or FEMA aid workers.

So make no mistake, a DHS shutdown would hamstring our ability to combat threats to the homeland and to keep our citizens safe. The irony of course is that one of the programs that shutdown would close completely is E-Verify, which stops unscrupulous employers from hiring undocumented workers and cutting everyone's wages.

So in order to make a point on immigration, our Republican colleagues are actually going to stop the program which prevents employers from hiring undocumented workers. Essentially to make a point about needing more immigration enforcement, Republicans are willing to shut down immigration enforcement.

In short, I am perplexed as to why Republicans are playing this game of chicken with DHS funding because the only possible outcome that could come from withholding of a clean DHS bill is the shutdown of several critical post- 9/11 programs within the DHS and the furlough of thousands of workers paramount to our Nation's security and disaster preparedness.

At a time when we need all hands on deck to keep America safe, Republican efforts to politicize our security would tie DHS's hands behind their back. So I urge my Republican colleagues in the House and Senate to drop this fool's errand and put a clean DHS funding bill on the floor as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this morning I rise in support of two amendments that will make it clear to the American people exactly what this bill to authorize the Keystone XL Pipeline is all about and whom our Republican friends from across the aisle are trying to help.

The amendments offered by Senators Markey and Franken would ensure that the pipeline benefits the American consumer and the American economy. Without them, the bill to authorize the pipeline will benefit narrow special interests, such as foreign oil companies, not hard- working Americans.

We have heard from several of my friends on the other side of the aisle, including the lead sponsor, that the Keystone bill is a jobs bill and an energy bill. That may be true, but without Senator Markey's amendment it is nothing but a Canadian energy bill, and without Senator Franken's amendment it is a paltry jobs bill.

First, on energy, in short, the Keystone bill will allow one Canadian company to use the United States as a middleman to ship oil to the highest bidder abroad. The Canadian oil company, TransCanada, refuses to commit to keeping the crude oil or the refined products in America. Canadian tar sands oil is already traveling through gulf coast refineries on its way to foreign markets, and, as the Wall Street Journal has reported, much of the crude oil that would flow through the Keystone XL Pipeline would ultimately be exported as refined product.

Why not add to this bill a requirement that any oil products transported through the Keystone XL Pipeline be consumed in America? Plain and simple, that is exactly what Senator Markey's amendment would do. If Republicans are serious about improving our energy security, they will support Senator Markey's amendment.

Second, let's talk about whether this is a real jobs bill. Republicans and supporters of the project like to cite that building the pipeline will support American industries and American jobs in iron and steel, but a 2011 analysis by Cornell University found that 50 percent or more of the steel pipe will be manufactured outside the United States.

It is no wonder that even the most optimistic job projections about the Keystone Pipeline are a drop in the bucket compared to just 1 month of job growth in our country. In the final tally, the State Department report says it will create only 35 permanent jobs.

Why not guarantee in the bill that U.S.-made iron, steel, and manufactured goods be used to build the pipeline? That is exactly what Democrats have offered in an amendment worked out by Senators Franken and Wyden.

These amendments should be bipartisan. Republicans have supported several measures in the past. I know many of my Republican colleagues voted to ban the export of oil drilled in the ANWR in Alaska. I hope they will join us on this amendment as well.

If Republicans oppose us, they will be making it crystal clear to Americans that they are on the side of narrow special interests instead of on the side of America's middle class. They will be supporting special interests over American jobs.

Let me be clear. We think the Keystone Pipeline should not be built, and there are several reasons for that, among them that the pipeline may accelerate global climate change. Tar sands oil is far dirtier than conventional crude oil. Democrats would much rather see an energy bill that promotes clean energy sources such as solar and wind, industries which create far more jobs, both construction and manufacturing, using far cleaner energy than the pipeline.

Why not have a policy that produces many more jobs with the cleanest of energy rather than very few jobs with the dirtiest energy on the North American continent?

But if Keystone is going to be built, we think it shouldn't only benefit Canadian oil companies and overseas steel manufacturers but should actually benefit average families and the American worker.

To conclude, I note that instead of a real energy bill or a real jobs bill or a real infrastructure bill or immigration or any bill to address the greatest problems facing our country at the moment--the decline in middle-class incomes and the lack of middle-class jobs--for their first proposed action in the 114th Congress, S. 1, Republicans have chosen a permit for a foreign oil company that would create 35 permanent jobs. This is not an opening with a bang; this is an opening with a whimper. It is like leading off a new baseball game with a bunt.

Democrats can't change what bills Republicans put on the calendar, but our amendments will show a clear and stark contrast if Republicans vote no. On these amendments and more, Republicans are going to have to make a choice: Will they continue to fight for narrow special interests or will they work with Democrats to advance America's middle class by creating more jobs and putting more money in the pockets of American families? Time and these votes will tell.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, first, I wish to thank my colleagues who were here today. This is Senator Brown's first--just a day into the session as ranking member, and it is clear to all of us in the caucus that he is going to be a hard-working, conscientious ranking member, and I look forward to working with him and congratulate him on his new position. I thank my good friend Senator Crapo, who will be leaving as ranking member. We have the new ranking member and the former ranking member. I wish that were not the case but so be it. Senator Crapo has been a pleasure to work with on this bill and on so many other bills. I appreciate his hard work as well.

I rise today in support of reauthorizing the terrorism insurance program--a purpose that has brought me to the floor of this body several times in the last year. We all know what a crucial piece of legislation TRIA is for our country. It should be reauthorized and reauthorized without political jockeying and attempts at point-scoring that we have seen through several months. But the good news is that TRIA will pass today and millions of Americans can breathe a sigh of relief, not just those who insure buildings and build buildings but people who work in buildings, office workers, restaurant workers, those who work at shopping centers, sports fans, those who care about having new stadiums. All of those depend on terrorism risk insurance.

We all know the history. After 9/11, when my city was devastated, people could not get financing to build new buildings. Insurance said the damage from terrorism, both loss of life and property damage, is so great that they were not going to insure without a Federal backstop.

In a bipartisan way we came together in 2002 and passed the TRIA bill. It helped propel the economy for the last decade. Because some on the other side are not sure this should be a government function, we could not make it permanent. It would be a lot better if we could, but we extended it for periods of years. It came to pass that it expired on December 31 of this last year, 2014.

In the Senate the bill I was proud to sponsor, helped by my cosponsors, Senators Murphy, Jack Reed, Tim Johnson, Menendez, Kirk, Heller, Crapo, Blunt, and Johanns, we anticipated no problem. The bill passed 93 to 4. Senators from Bernie Sanders to Ted Cruz voted for it.

Everyone thought it worked. It has not cost the government a nickel. It will pass easily. But unfortunately it got caught up in the machinations of the House. There were some on the House side who did not want terrorism insurance at all and some who were extremely reluctant. I will say this: I believe Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader McCarthy understood the importance of this. I worked with them in the latter months of last year to try and get a bill done. At the end of the day I was able to negotiate a bill with the chairman of the House banking committee who was at best a reluctant supporter of terrorism insurance and came up with a proposal that made some changes but kept the program intact.

It was a good compromise. It is the compromise that is before us today. It is a little different than the original bill. Instead of 7 years, it extends us for 6 years. The $100 million limit has been raised to 200. But still, the program can function very well under these proposals. I am very glad we have brought it to the floor very early in this session. I am glad it passed the House. I am glad that hopefully by the end of today it will be moving to the President's desk.

But there is one sour note in all of this; that is, the attempt--and I agree completely with my colleague from

Ohio, the ranking member, Mr. Brown, that the idea to add extraneous measures to this provision is a wrong one. In my view, Dodd-Frank has strengthened the financial system, the banking system, and this country. The loose regulatory regime that was in place before, everyone agreed, helped cause the worst financial collapse we have had since the Great Depression.

There are some on the other side I understand who disagree with that view. That is something that will obviously be subject to debate. But to attach a provision at the last minute, which is what the House did at the end of last year, put it on the bill and said take it or leave it, is wrong and unfair. I think every fairminded person, whatever their view of Dodd-Frank is, would feel that we should debate an important amendment, any amendment, that would roll back parts of Dodd- Frank, given the fact that most everyone who has looked at it has thought it has been a success.

So that, plus a change in the NARAB provision, which my colleagues have mentioned, led to some problems. We on this Democratic side, while we do not like the rollback of Dodd-Frank in the end user provision, even last year were not prepared to stop the bill from going forward.

But the change our House Republican colleagues made was blocked by a Republican, Senator Coburn, and at the last minute, in the waning hours of the session, it was stymied. Today Senator Coburn, my dear friend whom I miss--and I wish him the best of health--is not here. He will not be here. He will not be here to object to the unanimous consent request that was made in a bipartisan way. So we were voting on this bill.

But the bottom line is simple. Republicans monkeyed around with the bipartisan compromise to earn a pound of flesh in what they knew was a must-pass piece of legislation. I am glad it will not kill the bill, but it never should have been there to begin with. The amendment that will be proposed will allow many on this side of the aisle who believe in TRIA but did not want to see at the last minute a rollback of Dodd- Frank, albeit one of the smaller rollbacks that has been proposed, to ride on the back of the important antiterrorism proposal.

Using must-pass unrelated legislation to chip away at Dodd-Frank piece by piece, even small pieces such as the end user provision, without debate or even in the committee process, is not how we should go about the business of considering important regulations on financial services. I join Ranking Member Brown in saying that should not happen in the future, and we should do everything to stop it from happening.

The good news is in this new session there were attempts by some on the Republican side to dilute the TRIA provisions further. From what I am told, Chairman Hensarling wanted to dilute it further, despite the negotiations we had. I thank our Republican leadership for not allowing that to happen, the Republican leadership in the House. So the same basic compromise that Chairman Hensarling and I negotiated in the wee hours of the last year's session will be on the floor today. TRIA will not be weakened any further. I am proud of the compromise Congressman Hensarling and I reached on the substance of TRIA. I am hopeful we can pass a bill without extraneous issues. I certainly believe TRIA should be signed into law as quickly as possible, because we all know that if we do not have terrorism insurance, it is going to greatly hurt our economy.

The damage has been minimized because most of the insurance clauses have 30- and 60-day notice provisions, so there has been no effect up to now. But if we dither any further, it will have serious effects on our rebounding economy, effects that I think no one who cares about jobs, who cares about working people, who cares about new construction in America would want to count.

I am glad TRIA will pass today. Our country needs it. I thank again all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in both Houses who worked hard to do this. I hope we will not find what happened today happening again, which is adding extraneous rollbacks to Dodd-Frank, without debate, without discussion, to future legislation.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let me congratulate my friend from Ohio on his ascending to the ranking membership of the banking committee. I know he will do a very outstanding job there and we look forward to it.

Before we vote on the amendment before us, which I urge my colleagues to support, I wish to reiterate the importance of reauthorizing the TRIA program.

Undoubtedly, TRIA is a national priority, but it is particularly important to my home State of New York, one of the world's most targeted cities. After 9/11, I helped introduce and pass the program as a solution to what was a vexing problem in the insurance industry--how to calculate the risks associated with a terrorist attack. It was an issue we never had to deal with before. Construction and economic growth did not depend on whether developers could ensure their property against a terrorist attack. But, of course, 9/11 changed that as it changed so many things that day.

TRIA emerged as a responsible partnership between the public and private sector, with the government providing a backstop for private insurers. As far as new programs go, it has been extraordinarily successful.

Over the past decade, TRIA fueled the rebirth of Lower Manhattan. I see it every time I drive through it. One only needs to look at the skyline because we now have a new World Trade Center which has emerged from the shadow of the old towers. One need only ask the construction workers who have helped rebuild the area or look at the tens of thousands of jobs that came back after we rebuilt. The redevelopment of Lower Manhattan is first and foremost a symbol of our city and our Nation's resilience, but it is also a testament to how effective TRIA insurance has been at creating the right conditions for growing our economy and creating jobs in our cities. Passing TRIA today will keep the program alive and continue the remarkable growth we have seen in New York over the past several years. It will do the same for the skyscraper in Los Angeles, the stadium in Nebraska, the shopping center in Tennessee. So this program affects the whole country. Any large project depends on terrorism insurance.

I know there are some of my colleagues, particularly those in the House, who say this isn't the government's role. Well, government hasn't spent one nickel on this program. It has been fully reimbursed, and it is the government's role to foster jobs, to foster economic development, to step in not when the private sector can do the job well but when the private sector can't do the job. After 9/11 people weren't building, construction wasn't going forward not only in New York but in the country, because people could not get terrorism insurance. That is why I am glad TRIA will pass today so we can put the temporary expiration of the program behind us.

I am proud to say that attempts by the other body to either not pass the program or so limit it that it would be ineffective, which happened as recently as within the last few days, have failed. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I thank Mike Crapo who was the ranking member of the banking committee, and I thank Speaker Boehner and Leader McCarthy for understanding the importance of passing this legislation. The negotiated bill between Chairman Hensarling and me preserves the terrorism insurance program largely intact--just about fully intact--to what it was before and has successfully worked. We did not back off on what we had to do.

As I have said before, it is regrettable that extraneous measures were attached. They should be openly debated. That is why I will be fully supporting the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Massachusetts. But terrorism insurance will be renewed, and I am very glad for that.

I thank Senator Johnson, the former chairman; I thank Senator Brown, the present ranking member, and all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly those who voted yes--from Bernie Sanders to Ted Cruz--who saw

the worthiness and the necessity of this program, which will now go forward.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

My good friend from Iowa is waiting patiently, so I will curtail my remarks. I would like to say to my dear friend Carl--whom we will all miss--if we had to put a headline on what is happening today, it is: ``Mr. Integrity Retires from the Senate.''

There is no one in this body on either side of the aisle whose integrity is more respected than yours. At these times in America, where people have such distrust of government and elected officials, to have somebody who is so widely trusted by his constituency and by the Members of this body who have worked with him closely over the years on both sides of the aisle is a real tribute. You are Mr. Integrity. That is one of many reasons we will miss you.

Again, I have more to say, but in deference to my dear friend from Iowa, who I see is ready to roll, I will yield the floor.

I will be very brief. I know people are waiting to speak.

I guess it would surprise the world in general to know that Tom Coburn and I are true friends, but we are. He is a man of integrity above all.

You don't have to agree with someone--we probably disagree on 90 percent of all the issues--to trust someone's integrity, to trust someone's

handshake, to trust someone that if you make a good argument, understanding their values, they will come along. That is just what Tom Coburn has done time and time again with this Senator from New York and countless others on the other side of the aisle.

On so many issues where Tom was opposed, I said: Let's just sit down and let me give you the logic and then you will make your own judgment. And I knew that would be good enough. Sometimes it didn't work. Sometimes he disagreed. But he always sat and listened. He always asked perceptive questions, not ``gotcha'' questions. He was trying to figure it out.

Of course the most well known was when we negotiated on the Zadroga bill. Thousands of New Yorkers had rushed to the towers and gotten poison in their lungs and their gastrointestinal systems, and we wanted to help them. We thought they were just like our veterans. Tom knew it was a big expense. He sat with us, listened, made suggestions to make it leaner and trimmer, and then supported the bill. So right now there are people alive throughout the New York area, heroes, because of the integrity of that man from Oklahoma.

Tom, I will miss you. This body will miss you. Regardless of our ideological views and perceptions, we will miss you. You are a great American.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 560, S. 1535.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute be considered; that a Schumer amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the committee substitute, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I rise today on a very important bipartisan bill that has just been approved by this body unanimously, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA.

I thank my cosponsor and partner in this and many other issues, I am happy to say, Senator Cornyn, the Senator from Texas; and I thank Chairman Leahy, our chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Under his leadership, it has twice been passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I feel so strongly about this bill because it would allow the victims of 9/11 to pursue some small measure of justice by giving them a legal avenue to hold foreign sponsors of terrorism accountable for their actions. This bill, quite simply, does right by the 9/11 victims.

We New Yorkers can never forget the terrible day 13 years ago when terrorists attacked our city and murdered more than 2,700 of our friends, neighbors, and relatives. We were shocked and our hearts were broken. The whole Nation mourned with us.

But I am proud to say that New York--and America--came back stronger after that horrific attack. I am also proud to say that Congress and Presidents Bush and Obama have been there to help New York heal, but never forget.

From the first days after 9/11, it has always been the families of those we lost who have been at the vanguard of advocacy. The families have accomplished so much along the way in terms of remembrance, and justice and change in national security policies. I so salute them, not only those who worked with me on this legislation but all the families who have worked on so many bills.

When something so evil and so terrible befalls you--when you lose a loved one through an abject act of evil, such as was committed on 9/11/ 2001--the natural reaction is to curse the dark, to say: Why me? Why was this so unjust? But the Bible tells us that it is the great part of humanity, almost saint-like, to light a candle, to try and rectify the injustice that you can never undo for the loved one you lost but might undo for others.

These families--and I know them well. I have cried with them, worked with them, and struggled with them--have all lit candles. They are amazing. They are saint-like. And there are so many families and loved ones who have stepped up and petitioned for help after 9/11. As I said, it would be easy for them to sit and curse the dark, but they have instead chosen to light that candle and shine a way forward--not back. The bill I hope the Senate will pass today helps victims of terrorism seek justice, one of our most cherished American values.

Let me tell you about Ms. Terry Strada, who is seeking justice for her husband Tom. Tom lost his life in the north tower on September 11. Terry didn't just lose a husband, she lost a father to a young son of 7, a daughter of 4, and a newborn baby boy. She lost a loving father and her best friend.

But Terry Strada is strong. She is a profile in courage, and she seeks what we all would be compelled to seek if we suffered such loss at the hands of hate and evil. She seeks justice.

Terry and her three children have championed this bill for over a decade now. I thank them and all the other families for their tireless advocacy and patience.

Of course, no amount of compensation will ever repair the broken hearts of a family who lost a loved one to mindless hate. But right now these families are being denied the ability to hold accountable foreign sponsors of terrorism because of a major loophole in our legal system.

The courts in New York have dismissed the 9/11 victims' claims against certain foreign entities alleged to have helped fund the 9/11 attacks. The courts are following what I believe is a nonsensical reading of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. But for the sake of these families, I want to make clear, without a shadow of a doubt, that every entity, including foreign states, will be held accountable if they are found to be sponsors of heinous acts such as 9/11.

Our bipartisan legislation that Senator Cornyn and I are so proud to support closes that loophole and amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act to allow victims and their families to sue foreign states and financial partners of terrorism.

Terrorists need an unfathomable amount of hate in them--but they also need a great deal of money and material support--to carry out attacks such as what occurred on 9/11. And, unfortunately, some countries provide that lifeblood with no legal repercussions.

For countries to aid the evil of terrorism and walk away scot-free while families suffer silently every day with the loss of loved ones is wrong, it is unfair, and it is unjust. It adds insult to an unimaginable injury to these families.

JASTA, our bill, hopefully to become law soon, will finally help the victims of 9/11 pursue justice by allowing them to sue countries that fund terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. The Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act has been amended, and amended again, in its relatively short life, in order to continue to strike the proper balance between our interests abroad and the rights of our citizens to obtain redress when they are a victim of wrongdoing, no matter who the perpetrator is.

Specifically, our bill brings the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act closer to that balance by ensuring that victims of terror inside the United States receive the same protections of victims of terror outside the United States; that liability clearly exists for aiders and abettors of terrorism; and that foreign states that commit terrorist acts can be held accountable under the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Cognizant of that ideal balance I just mentioned, we have extended legal protections for victims and expanded liability in a very focused way.

In response to concerns from the business community as well as Members of Congress, we have made substantial changes to the bill so that those who are liable under the changes to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act are only the really bad actors.

We have worked hard so this bipartisan bill enhances the original aim of the Foreign Service Immunity Act: to create a uniform and predictable means for protecting the immunity of sovereign states with limited exceptions that are consistent with our own national, as well as international, norms.

JASTA is a long overdue fix--a responsible fix--to a law that has extended too large a shield to foreign actors who finance and enable terrorism on a massive scale. The victims of 9/11 and other terrorist attacks have suffered such pain--physical pain and heartache--but they will not be denied justice.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act will take measured steps toward making sure these bad actors are held accountable and that victims can pursue justice where justice is to be had. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that it becomes law.

I know Senator Cornyn will want to say a few words, but first I wish to enter into a colloquy with my friend from Texas because it is important to underscore one point: The purpose of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act is to hold foreign sponsors of terrorism that target the United States accountable in Federal courts.

One thing that has come up in our discussions of this bill is whether the bill's provisions would extend civil liability under the Anti- Terrorism Act to situations where someone has been forced to make payments or provide aid to a foreign terrorist organization under genuine duress or, for example, as ransom payments for the release of someone taken hostage. This type of conduct is outside the scope of traditional aiding and abetting liability, and our bill does not seek to change that.

I recognize Senator Cornyn.

I thank Senator Cornyn for his good work.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, I wish to salute my friend and colleague from Oklahoma. I don't agree with probably 80 to 90 percent of what he says, but I really respect him. He is a person of integrity who really cares. When you shake his hand and make a deal, a deal is done, which is a rarity around here, and we wish him the best.

Today I rise to discuss the recently released report by the Senate Intelligence Committee. As a representative of one of the most targeted cities in the world, I feel compelled to speak about this report. I want to say clearly that I am troubled by many of its findings.

First, the many members of the CIA and the intelligence community selflessly serve this Nation and put their lives on the line. They are patriots who are committed to protecting and serving America, keeping her safe from those very real enemies who are actively seeking to do the unspeakable in terms of harm. We owe the members of the CIA and the Intelligence Committee their due recognition and gratitude. We salute them for protecting us. In many cases, they risk their lives to protect us and our freedom.

But as with many institutions in our society, be it part of the government or part of the private sector, transparency and accountability for mistakes are an essential part of the process that preserves the balance in our democracy. The fact of the matter is this report lays bare some very troubling activities on the part of the CIA. It warrants a close examination. When we find the conduct of the CIA to be grossly counter to the Nation's ideals, we must reckon with that and make sure we never go back to the days when our government sanctioned torture.

Here, I agree with my colleague and friend from across the aisle, Senator McCain. He has been an unimpeachable voice on this topic, and has said time and again that these actions were torture, and that torture besmirches the honor of this great Nation.

I also agree with the remarks made by Vice President Joe Biden, that only a great Nation and only an open and free society can forthrightly take ownership of their mistakes, find ways to change those policies, and move positively forward on both the domestic and international levels.

It is doubtless this report contains lessons that our intelligence community must take to heart--for their goal must be to protect our Nation without sacrificing what it stands for.

Before I go any further, I wish to recognize the many years of hard work, diligence, and courage--yes, courage--on the part of my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee and their staffs for putting this report together.

I particularly wish to recognize my dear friend and colleague, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, for her work with

this report. She has been a fearless, yet level-headed chair of the committee for many years now. She is just what you would envision as an ideal chair.

I thank her for her excellent report, where once again, she has been both fearless and level-headed.

An extensive report like this one deserves careful review, but at first reading, two things have been made very clear. First, the CIA undoubtedly went too far in its pursuit of intelligence from captured sources abroad.

As I have said in formal proceedings in this legislature before, I am absolutely opposed to waterboarding and deplore some of the tactics depicted in this report.

I believe our intelligence community can obtain information using methods that are not anathema to our Nation's values.

Second, the report makes it clear that there was a breakdown of communication between the CIA and the administration at the time of these events.

There is no doubt we live in a dangerous world. There are threats abroad and threats here in the homeland. We cannot expect to counteract these threats and protect our people and to do so in a responsible way if the CIA and the executive branch are not effectively communicating with one another.

I was astounded to learn that the report asserts that over 4 years went by without the President having full knowledge of some of the CIA's actions detailed in this report. That simply cannot be the modus operandi for the CIA. They are accountable to the government and to the people and cannot behave without proper oversight. There is so much to unpack in this report. I urge my colleagues patience and a careful examination of the work produced by my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee. It should be out in front of the American people, and now it is. We must take a very, very close look at it.

The United States, its government, and its people must take stock of this account and reckon with the conclusions of the study. We have hundreds of thousands of brave men and women posted around the world, tasked with the difficult job of keeping us safe. We should always be mindful of their dedication and thankful for their sacrifice. Their mission is demanding. It is never-ending and nearly all of them perform with a level of professionalism beyond reproach.

However, from time to time, it is important for us to review those actions to make sure they meet the hard scrutiny of our Nation's ideals while still protecting its people.

In that light the Senate Intelligence Committee report is an extremely important document for us all to examine.

Again, I thank my colleagues, especially my friend Senator Feinstein, for their exhaustive and exemplary work on this report.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to remind my colleagues that it has been over 500 days since the Senate passed a strong bipartisan bill to fix our broken immigration system.

There is a lot of hand-wringing going on on the other side of the aisle about the President taking Executive action, as he has now announced he intends to do. Republicans are saying that anything and everything is on the table to stop the President from taking Executive action. Well, if the bounds are anything and everything, I have a suggestion. Pass our bill. It is a very simple suggestion.

If the House votes on our bipartisan bill, the discussion about Executive action would be made moot. It is the other body of Congress that has led us to the point where we are today. The only reason the administration has to take Executive action is because the

House has failed to address our broken immigration system. I think everyone on our side agrees it would be far preferable to pass the bipartisan bill that passed the Senate 68 to 32 than any Executive action.

Let me say a few things. The bill is a bipartisan bill with support from every corner of the political map--business, labor, evangelicals, Catholics--and it has been sitting on the shelf gathering dust for 500 days. So it is the absolute height of hypocrisy for House leadership to say that now Congress should be in the driver's seat on immigration reform when they refused to take the wheel.

And let me say this, Mr. President. I don't think anyone has any faith that if they were given another 3 months or 6 months or 9 months that they would come to any kind of real bill. They can't. They have the tea party. Such a high percentage of their primary voters strongly argue against doing a bill. In fact, many of those tea party types are saying shut down the government.

The dithering and dawdling on the House side is particularly perplexing because our bill would achieve so many goals the Republicans claim are part of their agenda. It would secure the border, create jobs, add economic growth, and cut the deficit.

The bipartisan bill that passed the Senate provides more than $40 billion to secure our border. This would mean more than doubling the Border Patrol presence on our Southwest border, completing the border fence, setting up much more surveillance technology--sensors, drones, many of which are so good they can detect--these are the drones that surveil, not shoot--they can detect the difference when a deer or a person crosses the border. They are not on the border now.

Yes, the border needs help. Blocking our bill, not passing our bill, keeps the status quo, which nobody likes. Passing our bill solves the problem. With a Republican amendment authored by the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Corker, and the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven, that tightens up the border tougher than it has ever been.

The bipartisan bill also strengthens interior enforcement of our immigration laws. So many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep saying E-Verify, E-Verify, E-Verify. Well, it is in the bill to crack down on unscrupulous employers requiring an entry-exit tracking system at our airports and seaports to catch people who overstay their visas, and reforming and clarifying the list of violent crimes that make an immigrant deportable so law enforcement officials have the tools they need to keep us safe.

For America to remain competitive, we must have a legal immigration system that works. Right now we have it backwards. We turn away people who would create jobs. Our bipartisan bill will change all that for farm workers, tech firms, entrepreneurs, and so many more, while leveling the playing field for American workers. Because of internal enforcement, when someone crosses the border and doesn't have a real job available and has no family connection, they can't stay. They won't get a job.

Many of our labor friends are for this bill. The construction trades, which probably suffer more from illegal immigration than any other, are strongly for our bill. The bill clears the employment and visa backlogs so American businesses can have access to the workers they need and their families will be united, decreases family wait times at our bridges and ports of entry. It is great for the tourism industry, making it easier for foreign travelers to spend their dollars here instead of somewhere else and, finally, a tough but fair pathway to citizenship.

The other side says it is amnesty. They are listening to Rush Limbaugh--amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. Amnesty means you get away with it without paying a price. Here is the price someone has to pay if they cross the border illegally: No. 1, they have to pay all their back taxes; No. 2, they have to keep working; No. 3, they have to admit wrongdoing; No. 4, they have to pay a fine; No. 5, they have to learn English; No. 6, they have to go to the back of the line, which is what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have always asked for.

This system was set up by none other than Marco Rubio in our Gang of 8, and it says: If somebody crossed the border illegally in 2008, but someone else has waited patiently at the Embassy since 2007, the 2007 person gets to come into this country before the 2008 person.

Because of all this, here is what the bill does:

First, it would grow the economy by 3.3 percent over the next 10 years and 5.5 percent over 20. No Republican tax cut, no Democratic spending program would have that effect--and without any cost to the deficit. In fact, at the same time we are growing our economy with this proposal--this is CBO, not Chuck Schumer--we reduce the deficit by $150 billion in the next 10 years and $900 billion over the next 20 years. So $1 trillion in savings, as we benefit America.

The bill has unprecedented support: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the guardian of business interests; the AFL-CIO, the protector of American workers; the faith community, evangelicals, Protestants, Mormons. The liberal and conservative religious sectors in America are for our bill, America's farmers, growers, and American farmworkers, law enforcement, the immigrant rights community.

So the historic coalition came together because again this bill strengthens our borders and national security, provides an enormous boost for the American economy, fairly and conclusively addresses the status of people here illegally, and prevents future waves of illegal immigrants.

When we got this bill passed we were almost certain the House would pass it. It is a conservative bill, and try and try and try as they might, they couldn't. So now we are up to the last hours of this Congress and there is one more chance. Just put the bill on the floor, Speaker Boehner. You don't have to twist a single arm. It has the votes to pass. It will do America so much good.

I love America. I want to see us stay No. 1 in every way and economically above all. This bill will do it more than anything else we could do.

I would say to my colleagues, don't be afraid of the Tea Party. They are afraid of the word ``amnesty,'' even though the bill is not amnesty at all as I mentioned. But Rush Limbaugh says ``amnesty'' incessantly, and I know my Republican colleagues--I am a political guy in some ways--they are afraid primary voters that skew far right believe it is amnesty. The Tea Party may be a sliver of the American public, but they are a huge percentage of primary voters in too many Republican districts and that is what they are afraid of. Talk about courage. Talk about loving the country. Talk about doing the right thing. We have to pass the bill.

The real Republican Party position on immigration is pretend to be pro-immigration reform rhetorically but never allow immigration reform to come to a vote. That is the bad news.

The good news is there is still time to fix it. So I urge my colleagues, avoid this conundrum, avoid your dilemma that you will create. Pass the bill, and we will not even have to debate Executive action.

I yield the floor.

I yield back all time.