Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 19, S. 16, the Inhofe-Toomey bill on flexibility, with an amendment that reflects the current changes for sequestration; that the bill be read three times and passed, as amended, with no intervening action or debate.

I object.

Madam President, earlier this year the Senate voted on dueling responses through the sequestration. Democrats had a balanced plan--half revenues, half spending. Republicans tried giving flexibility with, of course, no revenues whatsoever. The Senate voted both of these down. We know these plans won't work so there is absolutely no need to repeat what has already failed. So let us try to solve the problem.

I appreciate the mini lecture of my friend from Oklahoma, but it is wrong. It is good to go back and talk about what has happened. When President Bush took office--and I hate to keep bringing this up; his library is going to be dedicated in a few days--he had a surplus over 10 years of $7 trillion. When he left office, he had a debt of almost $2 trillion. Why? Was it because government got bigger? Well, it got bigger because we had two wars, paid for with the $7 trillion that should have been surplus, but it was all borrowed money. All borrowed money.

During the Clinton years, when Bush stepped into office, President Clinton had created 22 million jobs in 8 years. During President Bush's 8 years, we lost 8 million jobs and lost our entire surplus. So of course those two wars and the tax cuts that were unpaid really created some problems.

The Senator from Oklahoma complains about government is larger than it was 2 years ago. Well, I have talked about that. But one thing my friend fails to acknowledge is Simpson-Bowles. By the way, he voted against that--is that right?

That is right. You were with Senator Durbin and voted for that. Most Republicans voted against that. My liberal friend Dick Durbin voted for that.

The reason I mention that is because Simpson-Bowles wanted to arrive at a savings of $4 trillion, as I understand it. We have already done $2\1/2\ trillion. It is not as if we haven't done anything.

I would also talk about my friend from Oklahoma. I know he is smart, and I understand that, but just because you are smart doesn't mean you are always right. We have a situation where this country has been driven by the tea party for the last number of years. When I was in school, I studied government and I learned about the anarchists. They were different from the tea party because they were violent. But they were anarchists because they did not believe in government at any level, and they acknowledged that. The tea party kind of hides that. They do not say we are against government, but that is what it amounts to. They are not doing physically destructive things to buildings and people directly, but they are doing everything they can to throw a monkey wrench into any form of government, whether it is local, State, or the Federal Government. That is what it is all about. So anything they can do to throw a monkey wrench into the wheels of government, they are happy doing that. And I am sorry to say my friend from Oklahoma is helping them, maybe not directly but indirectly, and that is wrong. Government is not inherently bad. Government is inherently good. That is why we have a Constitution, and we direct the activities of this government based upon that Constitution.

We have a situation here that is not good. We have programs being cut all over America. Rather than doing things with a meat cleaver, as my friend from New York said, we should be doing it with a scalpel--doing things that are fine-tuning and working to eliminate these programs.

My friend asks why doesn't the FAA cut other programs? Listen to this: He wants to cut airport improvement programs. These are job creating. They create jobs at airports--runways, terminals. These are programs that create jobs. Essential Air Service may not mean much to him, but we had a program where--I don't know if it was my friend from Oklahoma but some Republican Senator offered an amendment to get rid of Essential Air Service. One of the places they indicated should be cut is Ely, NV. I said okay, too much per passenger, I will go along with that. I could have stopped that but I didn't do it.

We have had this debate previously. Essential Air Service has been whacked on a number of occasions. There are places in America where Essential Air Service is just what it says, it is essential, to give those rural communities the ability to have an airplane come in there once in a while.

The Congressional Budget Office would give us credit--it wouldn't be toward the deficit--to do something for 5 months and take a little money out of Overseas Contingency Operations. We are going to cut money from that. We are not going to spend all that money that has been set aside to take care of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is too bad we are right here with competing unanimous consent requests and the American people are going to continue to suffer-- whether it is some little kid not able to go to a Head Start Program or some senior citizen who will miss his Meal on Wheels or the other programs--in addition to the devastation that is going to take place at airports.

Sure.

That is true.

In addition to that, I say to my friend from California, there is research dealing with dread diseases, in addition to cancer, which research is being curtailed.

Five months.

Madam President, there are a number of people on the floor who have been here for some time, and I thought I would try to add a little order to this.

I think Senator Manchin got here first. How much time does the Senator from West Virginia wish to take?

How much time for the Senator from Alabama?

And Senator Boxer, 15 minutes, I understand.

We have a deal. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alabama be recognized for 5 minutes, the Senator from California be recognized for 10 minutes, and the Senator from West Virginia for whatever time he needs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Augustus Ilag, an intern for the Finance Committee, be allowed on the Senate floor for the remainder of this calendar year.

Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:30 this evening. Senators will be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. At 5:30 there will be a vote on the motion to proceed to S. 743, the Marketplace Fairness Act.

I now ask unanimous consent there be a moment of silence at 2:50 p.m. today for the purpose of honoring the victims of the Boston bombings.

Mr. President, I commend the law enforcement officials at the city, State, and local level for their incredible response to last week's traumatic and horrifying events at the Boston Marathon, and for hours following that all over the Boston metropolitan area.

A week that began with this unspeakable tragedy, the death of three innocents, ended with the death of one suspect in the Boston bombing marathon and the capture of the other. Capturing those suspects would have been impossible without the hard work and bravery of countless law enforcement personnel as well as the cooperation and fortitude of the people of Boston. They are Boston strong.

Our hearts extend to the family of 26-year-old Sean Collier, the young MIT officer who was simply sitting in his car and was so callously killed by these bombing murderers. Our thoughts this week are with Richard Donohue, the transit police officer who was wounded during the manhunt by these terrorists.

We once again extend hope for recovery of those injured in last week's senseless bombings and our condolences to lost loved ones. The U.S. Government and Americans across the Nation pledge our continued support for the people of Massachusetts as they recuperate from a truly trying week.

Mr. President, Americans arriving at the airport--almost any airport in America--to take off on their summer vacations already face long lines at security checkpoints. Soon they will be facing long waits at the terminal as well. Last week the Federal Aviation Administration announced that starting this week thousands of flights every day will be delayed for up to 3 hours.

Because of the devastating, arbitrary cuts of sequestration, the FAA is forced to furlough tens of thousands of workers. These furloughs could lead to

6,700 flight delays every day this summer. I repeat, every day, 6,700 delayed flights. By comparison, the worst travel day of last year, 2012, was about 3,000 flights being delayed. That was after severe thunderstorms accompanied by 2-inch hail and a 90-mile-an-hour wind that ripped across the Midwest and Northeast and a tornado touched down in New York. That caused 3,000 flight delays. On any day this sequestration kicks in, it will be double that. Travelers were stranded at airports across the country during that very bad day we had last year. Some were stranded for days. It is going to be worse than that. As I said, this summer more than twice that number of flights will be delayed every single day.

While major airports such as LaGuardia in New York and O'Hare in Chicago will see the worst delays, furloughs will impact every airport in the Nation. So whether Americans are traveling to Orlando, Las Vegas, San Diego or Seattle, Maine or Montana, they should expect a long wait for a flight.

This will make air travel frustrating, to say the least. It is bad enough now. It will be worse. It will be time-consuming for millions of Americans, whether taking the family to see the Grand Canyon or heading to New York for business. It will cover everything. At airports across the country, millions of Americans who fly will get their first taste of the pain of sequestration.

Many Americans have been feeling that pain for weeks. For example, in Rockland, ME, Meals on Wheels, a wonderful program, been in existence for a long time, decades--it is for people who are old and homebound. They bring them a meal, one meal a day, a hot meal. In Rockland, ME, Meals on Wheels has a waiting list for the first time in 16 years.

It is going to affect Meals on Wheels Programs all over the country. They have literally cut the size of meals they serve to the elderly in order to save money. Not only are they going to be able to do less meals, but those they serve are going to be smaller. This is the only meal most of these seniors get every day. They may have a bowl of cereal, eat a piece of toast. But as far as a hot meal, this is it.

In Fayetteville, AR, a Head Start Program will close 13 days early this spring, leaving hundreds of needy children without anywhere to go and without nutritious meals to eat. Nationwide, more than 70,000 little boys and girls will be kicked off Head Start, a program for low- income children who could not afford preschool.

As the name Head Start says, the purpose of it is for these tiny little boys and girls to have preschool programs so they can learn to start to understand what it means to read, to understand what education is all about. Economically burdened little kids, because of this program, who want to get a head start will not be able to; these programs will be savaged.

At Duke University, just one program out of hundreds at the School of Medicine program will have 50 people laid off. These are people doing some of the most important research there is in the world to cure diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes. All over the country, thousands of these researchers will be furloughed or they will be laid off.

The U.S. military has cut tuition assistance for soldiers and eliminated a program helping more than 100,000 homeless veterans get off the street and back on their feet. The U.S. Air Force has grounded one-third of its fighter jets and bombers because of the across-the- board cuts. These programs are to train our military so in a time of crisis they can be prepared. They cannot be prepared if they cannot practice. More than 1 million Federal workers, including hundreds of thousands of Defense Department employees, are preparing to take forced furlough days. This is not only a hardship for individual families, it is also a threat to our national economy and our national security.

In national parks across the Nation--Great Basin in Nevada, Bryce Canyon, UT, Mount Desert Island, thousands of miles away from those two places in Maine--employees face reduced hours, and closure will affect thousands of travelers.

Long delays at the airport will not be the only damper on summer vacation travel. For every person who loses work because of this sequestration, that is less they can buy to help people who are selling goods and services. We cannot and we should not only address the FAA cuts. As important as they are, we should look at the whole spectrum. We cannot ignore the sequester's overall effect on Americans and on programs that help small businesses grow, fund crucial medical research, and keep our children and seniors safe.

While airport delays are costly and frustrating, some would say they are not as severe as the pain of a senior citizen missing a meal, the only hot meal they would get that day, or veterans going without a roof over their head at night.

Families and businesses in every State in the Nation, in red States and blue States, are at risk because of these haphazard cuts. That is what they are. But Congress has the power to reverse these self- inflicted wounds without adding 1 penny to the deficit. We are winding down the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq has been wound down significantly. We have provided the money. The money is there. We have not spent it. We do not need to. We can use those savings from wrapping up two wars to avoid the full brunt of the sequester's arbitrary cuts. The Congressional Budget Office said that would score, that money is available, money we could use. Funding for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is kept in the so-called Overseas Contingency Operations Account. That is what it is called. Since the worst of the sequester cuts is creating an emergency situation, we should consider using these funds to offset their impact. These really are emergencies. We should do it. I am not proposing to use these funds to offset the entire sequester, but Congress has the power to avert the most painful and senseless of the sequester's cuts using these monies.

Twenty-eight Republicans in the Senate and 174 Republicans in the House voted to oppose these sequester haphazard cuts. If those same Republicans will work with Democrats, we could act now to protect families, businesses, ensure our national defense, and save Americans millions of hours spent waiting at the airport.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a moment of silence and that the Senator from Wyoming then be again recognized.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time during adjournment, recess, and morning business count postcloture on the motion to proceed to S. 743.

Mr. President, I designate the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as the floor manager for the consideration of S. 743.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, following leader remarks the Senate will resume consideration of the gun safety legislation. The time until noon will be equally divided and controlled for debate on the Barrasso and Harkin amendments.

At noon there with be two votes in relation to those amendments.

Following the votes the Senate will recess until 2 p.m. to allow for some important caucus meetings.

At 2 p.m. the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the Torres and Watson nominations.

At about 2:15 p.m., then, there will be a rollcall vote on confirmation of the Torres nomination and an expected voice vote on confirmation of the Watson nomination.

Mr. President, there was a new tragedy during the night, and our thoughts are with the people of West, TX. Our thoughts are with all of Texas in the wake of a terrible explosion of a fertilizer factory in the town, as I have indicated, of West, just outside of Waco. The extent is being estimated at this time--5 to 15 dead, a couple hundred who were injured.

But I am troubled and feel so badly about those who were hurt. They were working. They were sleeping. They were having dinner. I offer my condolences to those who lost loved ones and those who have people who were injured.

We will continue to follow the news from Texas as it develops today. I am going to do everything I can with my colleagues to ensure that this terrible tragedy has the resources of the Federal Government available to help the people of that city as they recover from this tragedy.

Mr. President, this Nation has simply dealt with too much-- too much--loss during these last few months. Once again I offer my condolences to the families who joined us here yesterday to honor the loved ones they lost to gun violence and to lobby for stronger background checks. The mothers and fathers of the murdered children from Newtown were here, family and friends of those who were injured and killed in Aurora, CO, were here. We had people here from the tragedy where 32, 33 people were killed in Blacksburg, VA, at Virginia Tech. They were here yesterday.

We knew the effort to keep America's streets safe from gun violence would not be easy. I commend Senator Manchin and others for setting aside partisanship to negotiate this compromise. Unfortunately, even though we got a strong, strong majority vote--well over 50--55 Senators voted in favor of this. And Frank Lautenberg came. He had not been here for a while. He has been ill. He voted. We voted with a strong majority to change things here in America so that people who have serious mental illness would have to have a background check before they can buy a gun or that criminals would have to have a background check before they can buy a gun.

Even people who are selling the guns think there should be some background check. The man who sold the gun to the man who walked into the courthouse in Las Vegas and blasted away--

that man who sold that gun said he sold guns to lots of people who were bad people, but he did it legally. He thinks the law should be changed. So the vast majority of the Senate agreed that should be the case. But we could not get to 60, the magic number here in the Senate.

Yesterday the families of gun violence victims watched as Republicans defeated a commonsense proposal to expand background checks that has the support of 90 percent of Americans.

But make no mistake, the debate is not over. This is not the end of the fight. Republicans are in an unsustainable position--crosswise with 9 out of 10 Americans.

In an event we did out this backdoor yesterday, Senator Schumer said--I think he summed it up about as well as you could when he said: America today on background checks is in about the same place America was a few years ago dealing with immigration, gay marriage, and things related to gender equality.

I believe Senator Schumer is right. This is the beginning, and it has to happen. Anytime in America, on those rare occasions when 90 percent of the American people agree something should be done, it should be done. And it will be done. It is only a question of time.

The brand of the Republicans is further tarnished by going against what 90 percent of the American people want. Democrats will continue to stand with the families from Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Carson City, and I assure the 90 percent of Americans who support meaningful background check legislation that I personally will continue this fight.

Mr. President, the Senate suffered a notable and stunning defeat of bipartisanship this week during the debate over background checks. They said a week ago we would never get on the bill, but the Senate joined together and we got on the bill. Then yesterday, as I have indicated earlier, we got a significant majority of the Senate voting to move forward on this background check. Ninety percent of the Democrats, which is in keeping with the American people, and four valiant Republicans joined to put us where we are today.

But the week did not bring only bad news from the legislative front. A bipartisan group of eight of my Senate colleagues--it would never have happened a few years ago, but it is going to happen now. As I indicated, quoting Senator Schumer, background checks is about where immigration was just a few years ago. A bipartisan group of my Senate colleagues--four Democrats and four Republicans--from all different political persuasions introduced a comprehensive plan to reform our broken immigration system. Senators Schumer, McCain, Durbin, Menendez, Graham, Bennet, Rubio, and Flake worked very hard on this legislation. All one needs to do is look at the legislative pedigree of these eight Senators. They are all over the book--liberal, conservative, moderate. And that is the way it should be.

I commend each of them for setting partisanship aside--both Democrats and Republicans setting partisanship aside--on an issue that is critical to our great Nation. The four Democrats did not get everything I wanted in that legislation they now have before the American people. They did not give me, they did not give Democrats everything they wanted in these negotiations. But, as I have said on this floor numerous times, that is what legislating is. It is the art of compromise. It is not the art of getting everything you want.

I have been in this body a long time, and I have been very fortunate to put my name on things that have passed here, and I have helped guide things through this Senate in the last many years. I have to on occasion swallow hard and say: Well, we are going to have to compromise here to get this done.

That is what we need to do. People have been in a situation where they have been unwilling to compromise. There are things that have happened in the great history of this body that have come by compromise. I have never ever gotten everything I wanted. Republicans in these negotiations dealing with immigration, I guarantee you, did not get everything they wanted, just as Democrats did not.

But I am satisfied with this legislation. It continues to secure our borders, the northern and southern borders. It improves our dysfunctional legal immigration system. Our immigration system is broken, and has been for quite some time, and needs to be fixed.

Another thing that is important, it requires 11 million people who are undocumented to pass a criminal background check, pay fines, start on a path to citizenship, and, yes, learn English. It does not put them at the head of the line; it puts them at the back of the line. It takes about 12 or 13 years to finally get up there. But at least the program is moving forward. I look forward to hearings on this measure that will be led by Senator Leahy.

Mr. President, I want to take a minute to commend Chairman Leahy. He is the most senior Member of the Senate, he is the President pro tempore of the Senate, but he also has an important responsibility as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

The reason we were able to get the legislation on the floor that we have been working on this past few weeks is because of Senator Leahy, because he had his committee--even though, as I have just indicated, Senator Leahy did not agree with everything that came out of that committee of his; he comes from the State of Vermont which is much different than other places people on that committee come from around the country, but he brought it forward, and everything we voted on as the base bill came out of that committee.

It is the same as is going to happen on immigration. Senators--these eight--a significant number of them want to do hearings. They want to have a markup. Other Senators said: Let's just move to the floor. Well, there are a number of Senators who believe it should come out of the committee first, so that is what is going to happen. So I commend Senator Leahy for agreeing to do this.

He is going to have a hearing tomorrow and another one on Monday. He has estimated a time for the markup. So I commend him for his leadership with Judiciary.

I repeat, I look forward to hearings on this measure before the committee, and to a thoughtful debate on the Senate floor.

We are going to have ample time to discuss and consider this legislation. I am going to do what I can to get this bill across the finish line, which I think we are going to do. I think we are going to do it pretty soon.

Mr. President, we deal with a lot of controversial things. That is the way it has always been here. We deal with controversial issues that elicit passionate responses, including the immigration proposal I just outlined and the antiviolence legislation I talked about earlier. We try to deal with these issues thoughtfully and with respect. Those who serve and work in the Senate do so out of a sense of patriotism and a love of country.

I disagree with a number of my Republican Senators. Jeff Sessions and I--I do not think we have ever voted on anything the same way, but I have tremendous respect for him as a person. He does what he believes is right. His colleague from Alabama, Richard Shelby, is one of my dear friends. He and I do not vote much alike, but our relationship is one of respect and admiration for each other. That is what we have to do in this body.

I never question the patriotism or love of country of any Senator because if I did, I would be wrong. So it was deeply disturbing that an anonymous individual would attempt to send deadly poison to Senate offices as well as the White House. It appears that with the swift action of the Capitol Police and Federal law enforcement officials, the suspect in these cowardly, anonymous attacks has been apprehended. I hope he will be brought to justice very soon.

We should all understand that incident does not appear in any way to be related to the tragedy in Boston. Nevertheless, it is a reminder to the Senate community and to all Americans to remain vigilant during these unsettling

times. It is also a reminder that Senate offices should continue to follow the mail policies that are in place for their safety in this investigation.

Fortunately, the system in place to protect the Senate community worked. Maybe people say: Well, it is not good enough. It is good. I remember what happened when we had anthrax with Senator Daschle and Senator Leahy in previous years. So the system that is in place to protect the Senate community has worked. That is good. These suspicious letters were found and intercepted before they reached the Capitol.

I applaud the postal employees and law enforcement officials who detected and neutralized this threat. I commend the Senate Sergeant at Arms, Chief Gainer, and the Capitol Police for their diligent work to keep the Senate community safe. I rest easier knowing the safety of everyone who works and visits the Capitol is their first priority. I know that to be the case.

I apologize to my friend the Republican leader for talking longer than I usually do.