Floor Statements

I would ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I wish to share with my colleagues some recent developments that I believe are important on the immigration front. My office did a report and an analysis recently that pointed out that this administration, unlike what had been done historically, has been counting border apprehensions as ICE deportations from the United States. Classically, before that ICE officers--the Immigration Customs Enforcement officers--apprehended people inside the border and did removal proceedings and that was what was counted. So they have used those numbers to create the impression that a great deal more removals are occurring than actually are. That is not good. The administration should not be doing that, and it has created confusion. It is just one more example of this administration's willingness, unfortunately, to misrepresent and twist numbers to advance an agenda they believe ought to be advanced.

We are a nation of immigrants. We believe in immigration, but we believe in a lawful system of immigration. Most Americans believe the lawlessness should end and we should have a system that creates a mechanism by which people apply and they are admitted based on a fair evaluation of the people most likely to be prosperous in America and do well and contribute to the Nation and should be given priority--and we are just not doing that.

So the administration contends and says openly that we will not deport people, except those who commit serious crimes, which apparently does not include DUI's. The crimes almost always have to be a felony, it appears, in order for people to be deported, according to the administration. We will ignore the law for that company down the street in a high unemployment area which has five employees working illegally. They would not be removed. They will be allowed to stay and continue to work unlawfully, while Americans who cannot get a job are drawing unemployment insurance and other subsidies. This is happening all over America.

So getting to this fundamental point: Government is not being operated in ways that it should, conducted by a President who is charged to see that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. He has issued prosecutorial removal policies that go beyond creating a mechanism to enforce the law but in fact wipe out the law, eliminate the law.

There has never been a requirement in the law that if someone is in the country illegally, they can stay as long as they don't get convicted of some other felony unrelated to an immigration violation. Indeed, under the policy as it is being executed, if an individual has false documents, which is a felony for an American citizen, that doesn't count as a deportable crime. It is only drug dealing or a crime of violence or robbery under the policies that we are carrying out.

They say they are faithfully executing that policy in part, deporting the individuals who are convicted of serious crimes. A study came out from CIS, Center for Immigration Studies, that found 1 in 3 criminal alien encounters last year resulted in a release. They are being released, in one form or another, and are remaining in the country.

We have so much going on that is very troubling to me. Former ICE Director John Sandweg said recently:

If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your

odds of getting deported are close to zero--it's just highly

unlikely to happen.

Now that is the truth. I was a Federal prosecutor. I know how the system works and I have worked with ICE officers and Border Patrol officers and prosecuted their cases. This is what the reality is, and it is not right. It should not be.

When we have the Vice President of the United States saying recently he considers the 11 million people here illegally as citizens anyway, what message does that send, colleagues, to an individual who would like to come to America permanently but has a visa to work so many months or be a student for so many months and the visa is over? What does the statement of the Vice President mean to him? It means he doesn't have to go home. All he has to do is just stay in the country. If he is in the interior and not caught at the border and came in by airplane, flew into Philadelphia or Denver, he gets to stay. As long as he doesn't get convicted of a felony, nobody is ever going to bother him. So this is an open border.

If they get past the border, get into the interior, go to St. Louis, go to Salt Lake City, go to Little Rock, Arkansas, then they can stay. That cannot be the policy of the United States of America. It cannot be the policy of a nation that expects its laws to be respected that if someone can get past the border or they can get a visa into the country and overstay, nobody will have any intention of removing them or enforcing the agreement they made or enforcing the law. I feel strongly about this issue.

People are unaware of how this is happening. I see in addition to the fanciful claims about who is being deported or removed, this was on the front page of the Washington Times today. Steven Dinan says the projections of the Washington Times show that Federal agents are `` . . . on pace this year to remove the fewest number of immigrants of President Obama's tenure.''

It goes on to say:

That slower pace contrasts with the President's argument

that he is enforcing the laws to the fullest extent possible

by targeting criminals and recent border crossers.

The article goes on to say that the ICE officers are fully funded to remove at least 400,000 people, and at this rate they will be well below that figure. Why? Because it is the policy not to enforce the law. This is what is going on in this country.

On the same page there is the headline of an article that ``Sheriffs warn of violence from Mexican cartels deep into interior of U.S.''

It goes on to say:

Outmanned and outgunned, local law enforcement officers are

alarmed by the drug and human trafficking, prostitution,

kidnapping and money laundering that Mexican drug cartels

are conducting in the U.S. far from the border.

Not just at the border but away from the border. It goes on:

U.S. sheriffs say that securing the border is a growing

concern to law enforcement agencies throughout the country,

not just near the U.S.-Mexico boundary.

``If we fail to secure our borders, then every sheriff in

America will become a border sheriff,'' said Sam Paige,

sheriff of Rockingham County, NC. ``We're only a two-day

drive from the border and have already seen the death and

violence that illegal crossings brings into our community.''

Other sheriffs joined in expressing that similar concern.

We are not where we need to be. Since the President took office, interior removals have been cut nearly in half. They have dropped by 44 percent. More than half of the ICE removals since 2009 are the border apprehensions, where they just caught them at the border and sent them back. These are not interior deportations as the statistics used to be focused on. Two-thirds of all ICE removals last year were border apprehensions. So--I said ``half'' earlier--it is two-thirds of the numbers that they are counting as deportations and removal are border deportations that weren't previously counted as such.

Ninty-four percent of the people removed last year--get this--were either apprehended at the border, which is not attributable to apprehension, or were convicted of a crime while in the United States.

Do you hear that, colleagues? Ninety-four percent of the people who were removed were either people captured at the border or committing a serious crime, and even those who commit serious crimes are not deported. Most of the rest were repeat violators or fugitives.

So 99.9 percent of the 12 million illegal immigrants and visa overstays, without known crimes on their record, including those fleeing from authority, did not face removal last year. So if someone was here as a visa overstay or an illegal entrant inside the country and did not commit a crime, 99 percent of that--99.92 percent of the 12 million here were not involved or no action was taken to remove them. It just goes to show our law enforcement system is in a state of collapse. It is a deliberate plan by the President of the United States, and it is wrong. People need to be aware of it and need to stand up to it and I think the American people are beginning to do so.

This administration has effectively declared that anyone in the world who illegally gains access to the interior of the United States through a border, through an airport, through a seaport, is free to illegally remain in the United States, free to claim certain tax benefits, free to work and take jobs that unemployed Americans need. This deprives millions of Americans of their jobs, wages and represents a dramatic, breathtaking nullification of Federal law.

This law enforcement collapse is evident everywhere--872,000 aliens have been ordered removed but haven't left. So we order people removed. They get released on bail or get released in order to remove themselves or show up for removal. How many are showing up? Not many. It is called a catch and release, as has been referred to.

There are 872,000--almost 1 million--who at one time or another have been ordered removed but haven't left, and 68,000 potentially deportable aliens deemed criminal by type were released by immigration officials last year. These were people who were charged with crimes and still didn't leave.

The chief of the Border Patrol--this is the guy who runs the border effort with his team--predicted a tenfold increase in the presence of illegal youth crossing the border between 2011 and 2014. They have been told: Come on down, nothing is going to happen, and it has created more people coming, this lack of enforcement.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the number of asylum claims at the borders have increased sevenfold since 2009. Well, the administration developed a policy of stopping everything. All someone has to do is say, I am claiming asylum, and the whole process stops. Time goes by. Often the individuals who claim asylum are released on bail and then they don't leave. We don't know where they go. This is in effect a postmodern view of challenging the very idea that we are a nation-state with real borders. Attorney General Holder and Cecilia Munoz, who is the President's Assistant and Director of the Domestic Policy Council, who used to be with La Raza, described amnesty as a civil right. If you come into the country illegally, the Attorney General of the United States declares that these individuals have a civil right to amnesty. How can this possibly be? This is the chief law enforcement officer in America?

Vice President Biden recently said:

You know, eleven million people live in the shadows. I

believe they're already American citizens . . . eleven

million undocumented aliens are already Americans.

Goodness. The Vice President of the United States would make such a statement. It is stunning beyond belief. Apparently, if somebody is supposed to get on an airplane to leave this country because their visa is up and then they read the Vice President's statement, they could just say: Well, I will just stay. Why should I go back? I would rather stay now. I kind of like this place. If I go back, I will have to wait in line. I will have to compete within the system like everybody else who comes lawfully. Since I am here, I am not going to leave.

Is it any wonder we have more people staying, as the border patrol chief said?

President Obama made a series of nominations--Mr. Jeh Johnson, the head of Homeland Security, a lawyer at the Department of Defense and a political campaigner. He heads the Department of Homeland Security, which is a huge department. He can be counted on to know one thing: He is very close to the President, and he is to carry out the President's wishes. He doesn't know anything else about running a big, major law enforcement operation such as this. Mr. Perez, the former Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, was very active with the pro-amnesty group in Maryland before this. Mr. Rodriguez, who has been nominated to be the Director of USCIS--they were installed not to be good and smart law enforcement officers but to effectuate the President's agenda. You want to know the truth? That is the truth. They were put in there to carry out the agenda, not to carry out law enforcement.

The morale at Homeland Security is the lowest of any major entity in the U.S. Government. They have actually sued supervisors because they are being blocked from enforcing the law as they have taken oath to do.

I see my colleagues are here, and I will yield the floor. First, I will conclude by saying that I hope my colleagues will look at this. These facts are not disputed. This is not acceptable. It cannot be that the U.S. Government would carry on its business in this way. It is dangerous not only on immigration law but any other law that might come up in the future.

Presidents cannot, Attorneys General cannot, and Homeland Security people cannot fail to enforce plain law without creating serious damage to the great American constitutional legal system that has protected us and produced our prosperity.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss S. Res. 414. I am pleased the Senate has unanimously declared April as National Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness Month for the second consecutive year. I thank my friend and able colleague, Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, for joining me in this legislation. This resolution is very important to me and my family, as my grandson, Jim Beau, is a CDH survivor.

CDH is a birth defect that occurs when the fetal diaphragm fails to fully develop. The lungs develop at the same time as the diaphragm and the digestive system. When a diaphragmatic hernia occurs, the abdominal organs move into and develop in the chest instead of remaining in the abdomen. With the heart, lungs, and abdominal organs all taking up space in the chest, the lungs do not have space to develop properly. This may cause the lungs to be small and underdeveloped.

A diaphragmatic hernia is a life-threatening condition. When the lungs do not develop properly during pregnancy, it can be difficult for the baby to breathe after birth or the baby is unable to take in enough oxygen to stay healthy.

CDH will normally be diagnosed by a prenatal ultrasound, as early as the 16th week of pregnancy. If undiagnosed before birth, the baby may be born in a facility that is not equipped to treat its compromised system because many CDH babies will need to be placed on a heart-lung bypass machine, which is not available in many hospitals. All babies born with CDH will need to be cared for in a neonatal intensive care unit, NICU, and most will need extracorporeal membrane oxygenation,

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

Madam President, I come to the floor today to address the unemployment benefits legislation. This legislation is, frankly, an admission that after 5 years of spending more money for costly government stimulus--all of it borrowed--to try to increase employment in America, we still have an unemployment crisis.

Not long ago at the White House, Mr. Sperling said that there are three applicants for every job in America and wages are down. In effect, this legislation is an admission that taxing, spending, regulating, and borrowing has not worked. Indeed, those policies will never work. More regulation, more taxing, more borrowing, and more debt will not improve the economy. We know that. Despite what some so-called experts say, we know that is not a policy that will work, but urgent action is needed.

According to testimony we heard this week in the Budget Committee, if you adjust for the retirement of the baby boomers, the labor force is still short 4.5 million people, the equivalent of $500 billion in national income lost each year. But the majority has circled their wagons around this spend-and-borrow agenda.

For instance, our friends are blocking a Republican amendment requiring companies to hire legal workers, not unlawful workers. The E- Verify system should be required nationwide. It would simply check the Social Security number of applicants, which would identify many people who have no right to be employed in America because they are not here lawfully. In a time of high unemployment, we ought not to be filling our jobs with people who are not lawful and not lawfully able to work in America, while at the same time financially supporting people who are unemployed in the country. At the same time, congressional Democrats have pushed for a bill that would more than double the future H-1B guest worker visas that are frequently used for offshore jobs.

As ranking member of the Budget Committee, I have to inform my colleagues that this unemployment bill is not honestly paid for, and that it violates the Ryan-Murray budget agreement that was signed into law just over 3 months ago. We said we were not going to spend above a certain amount.

Actually, Ryan-Murray raised the amount the Budget Control Act had limited spending to when we were in a tight fix. I think this year in particular was probably the toughest year under the Budget Control Act, so relief was provided and it raised the spending limits for a fifth year and it helped. Just 3 months ago we reaffirmed those spending limits and said we were not going to go above them.

Yet just this past Monday, the Senate passed the so-called doc fix which exceeded the Ryan-Murray spending limits by $6.1 billion this year alone. We adopted a limit, and what do we do? We want to help our doctors, but instead of reducing spending somewhere else in this massive government, we come up with a gimmick argument to say we are paying for it and add, in effect, $6.1 billion to the expenditures this year. We objected to that, but people voted to waive the budget with an up-or-down vote. Do you want to stick by the agreement we reached 3 months ago or do you want to raise it and spend more? The majority in the Senate voted to spend more, and this is why we have such an extreme debt threat in America today.

The bill that is before us now is the unemployment insurance legislation, which exceeds the 2014 limit on spending by another $9.9 billion. Our Federal budget is $3.5 trillion--$3,500 billion--and we can't find some other reductions if we want to fund a new expenditure, such as unemployment compensation? We can't find someplace that we can tighten our belts and pay for it?

My colleagues say that while spending increases this year, the bill is paid for over the next decade. They promised that although we will spend more this year, a decade later--10 years--we are going to get around to paying for it. There are three major problems with this contention, and we just have to address them so there is no mistake about it. This is not legitimate, and it threatens the financial integrity of the country.

The Ryan-Murray budget deal established spending limits. You cannot get out of those spending limits by raising fees and taxes. Taxing more to spend more was not the deal. The deal in the Budget Control Act said that we are going to reduce the growth in spending. We were on track-- over 10 years--to grow spending $10 trillion. Under the Budget Control Act, we were going to allow spending to increase, but it would only increase $8 trillion, not $10 trillion.

Now we are told that the Budget Control Act, which includes the sequester--we can't live with it. Growing and spending $8 trillion is not enough; we have to grow spending even more. Every time some worthy cause is brought before the Senate, we take the easy way out. We come up with a gimmick pay-for or we just violate the budget and spend the money anyway. What good is it to have a Ryan-Murray budget agreement or a Budget Control Act if nobody adheres to it?

Second, one of the big reasons our country is going broke is the philosophy of ``spend today and promise to pay for it tomorrow.'' Here is what a new Bloomberg analysis--an independent group--concluded:

Since December 2013 [three months ago] the Republican House

and the Democratic Senate have approved more than $40 billion

worth of spending ``offsets'' in the form of cuts that would

take place in 2023 at the earliest or timing shifts in policy

to bring savings into the 10-year window . . .

Both of these gimmicks are not legitimate, will not work, and have been criticized by independent groups that are concerned about the future of the Republic.

Third, the promised revenue offsets are phony savings. The offsets come from something called ``pension smoothing''--wow, what is ``pension smoothing''?--and ``prepayment of premiums to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.'' These are two popular schemes--double counting and timing shifts--that allow companies to prepay their payments for up to 5 years. In good times companies can pay ahead to the PBGC trust fund and Congress can take the money out the backdoor and spend it on--in this case--unemployment. In bad times this will leave the taxpayer further on the hook if PBGC has to take over a failed pension plan. It is taking money out of the plan that was supposed to be set up to guarantee and insure pensions.

I realize some of this sounds complex, but that is the problem: the big spenders in Washington have turned bilking taxpayers into an art form. Some spend their whole time trying to come up with a gimmick to get around the actual requirement, which is for us to set priorities and to recognize we cannot fund everything we would like to fund.

If we have a new idea for a new program, the Budget Control Act says: OK, do it, but you have to do it within the spending limits. You have to find some spending reduction to justify a new spending increase. That is what we agreed to, and that is what the President of the United States signed into law. He also signed Ryan-Murray into law. Is he here advocating responsible action? No, he is here supporting the Democratic leadership to push these budget-busting provisions and is not properly paying for them. Frankly, that is a disappointment.

The President of the United States is the chief person who talks to the American people. He has yet to look them in the eye and tell them we are on an unsustainable course, and we are going to have to tighten our belts. Instead, every time he talks, he talks about a new spending. A new program that spends more, in essence, is borrowing more and increasing our debt even further.

In the few months since Ryan-Murray was passed, the Senate--driven by a Democratic majority--has passed five bills that busted through the Ryan-Murray limits. There have been five bills that busted the budget. We just agreed to it, and they just voted for it 3 months ago.

They say these are all important measures and we have to pass them, so we should disregard those prior promises we made to the American people. The whole point of a spending limit is to make Congress set priorities. If you feel you have legislation that needs to pass, it is your duty to find a way to pay for it within the limits of spending we agreed to.

This is not a radical concept. This is responsible governance. It is done in cities and States all over America. They are living within their means. They are tightening up their efficiencies in productivity. People holler and wail whenever they make those cuts, but those cities, counties, and States are still standing. They have not been sucked into the ocean. They are still operating. They are going to be leaner, more efficient, and more productive as the result of going through a tight budget time. As money rises, and hopefully the economy bounces back, they will be in a better position in the future to serve the taxpayers of their communities efficiently.

Here are the budget violations in the pending bill, and these budget violations were all confirmed. I am the ranking Republican of the Budget Committee, and the Democratic chairman, Senator Murray, is a fine and fair chairman of the committee. Her team has acknowledged these violations of the budget, and as a result, it is subject to a budget point of order. There is not a dispute about what I am saying today.

There is $9.9 billion in spending in excess of the top-line outlays for fiscal year 2014 set by the Ryan-Murray spending agreement. There is also another violation of the Budget Control Act because there is $9.9 billion of spending in excess of the Finance Committee's allocations.

The committees have certain allocations. The Finance Committee has a certain allocation, and now it is spending $9.9 billion more. How much is $9.9 billion? Well, in Alabama we have a lean State government, and I am proud of it. My State's budget is about $2 billion. This is $9.9 billion, and it is in violation of our agreement.

Also, there is a $10.7 billion increase in long-term deficits in the decade beyond the budget window that is subject to a budget point of order, and that is in violation of the budget.

Ordinarily, we would be able to raise a point of order to enforce all three of these violations. However, two of these points of order were wiped away by a loophole created in the language of the Ryan-Murray legislation. I warned them that it was in there, and I urged my colleagues not to adopt it, but it was adopted anyway. Two of the budget points of order I just mentioned are not subject to floor action and have been eliminated, basically, through the use of the deficit- neutral reserve fund. At the time of the Ryan-Murray deal's consideration, the Budget Committee staff--my staff--did the work and we warned that the 57 deficit-neutral reserve funds in the Ryan-Murray bill would be used to increase spending above the spending limits. We warned that would happen. The way that works is the majority can get around the budget rules that limit spending if they propose to offset new spending with new higher taxes.

So we are witnessing today exactly what I warned would happen: The minority has lost the procedural tool to block spending increases as long as they pay for it with more taxes.

What we agreed to under the Budget Control Act was that we couldn't spend above this limit, and if we raised taxes, it would be used to reduce the deficit. So now we have been able to switch that around so the raising of taxes is allowed to increase new spending.

These deficit reserve funds have been used by Senator Reid and the majority to pass a proposed additional $13 billion in spending above the caps already. However, the unemployment bill still triggers a long- term deficit point of order because it uses revenue timing shifts to conceal long-term deficit impact. So it is still in violation of the budget, even though two of the points of order are gone.

We do need to look at the long-term deficit picture. It is good that we still at least have that point of order we can raise. We can't just spend today because it fits within the 10-year window and somehow looks OK, when we know in the outyears it is going to add to the deficit of the United States. So the budget drafters and the BCA people have language in to prohibit that, rightly so. The problem is we won't adhere to it.

Last year, we paid our creditors $221 billion in interest payments-- $221 billion on our roughly $17 trillion debt. That is a huge amount of money. The Federal highway bill is $40 billion. Aid to education--a whole bunch of programs we have--$100 billion in total. The Defense budget is $500 billion. We paid our creditors last year $221 billion in interest alone on the debt. That is enough to pay for 172 weeks of unemployment benefits for everyone collecting at the end of last year. Over the course of the next 10 years, according to CBO, we will spend a cumulative $5.8 trillion in interest payments on our debt. Over the next 10 years, CBO--our accounting firm that tries to do the right thing every day and tells us what is going to happen with our budget-- tells us we are going to spend over $5 trillion, almost $6 trillion, in interest in the next 10 years--money that could be used to help people, to rebuild our infrastructure, to fix crumbling roads and bridges. At today's levels, that $5.8 trillion could pay for a great amount of great things.

The CBO also told us that 10 years from today, the 1-year annual interest payment will not be $221 billion, it will be $880 billion-- $880 billion, an increase of over $650 billion in interest payments each year--not one time, but that year alone we will pay $600 billion more in interest. So how can we fund programs? Isn't it going to crowd out spending we need?

Washington is squandering our national inheritance. We are a nation deeply in debt. I would say to my colleagues that every time you violate our budget limits--because I am not voting for it--every time you add more to the Nation's credit card, you are increasing the interest burden that is crushing America, and you reduce the amount of money that will be available to spend on whatever program you would like to spend it on as the years go by. Interest costs represent the fastest growing item in our budget. How much money will there be left over for your chosen government projects when our interest payment reaches almost $1 trillion a year? CBO says that by 2024, it will hit $880 billion. How many more years will it take, 2 or 3, to reach $1 trillion?

We must help the unemployed, no doubt about it. We need to help them get better jobs, more jobs, and better pay, and we have to do so without adding more to the debt. That is what is placing a wet blanket over the American economy.

We need to produce more American energy. We can do that.

We need to streamline our Tax Code to lower rates, close loopholes, and boost economic growth. We need to eliminate regulations that are reducing productive activities and sending jobs overseas.

We need to endorse a trade policy that defends the American worker from unfair trade practices. Too much of that is occurring. We don't need to lose a single job to unfair trade practices.

We need an immigration policy that serves the interests of the American worker. At a time of high unemployment, the very idea the Senate would pass a bill that would permanently double the number of guest workers who can enter the country boggles the mind. That, in addition to the fact they would legalize 11 million and increase the annual flow of immigrants into the country from 1 million a year--the most generous of any Nation in the world--to 1.5 million. In effect, under the bill that passed this Senate, we would be providing permanent legal status to about 30 million people in the next 10 years. Our current law allows for 1 million a year--about 10 million over the next 10 years. Is it any wonder people are having a hard time getting a job today?

There is not a tight labor market out there; there is a loose labor market. How do I know? Because wages are going down. If employers are desperate and need more workers and can't find them, why aren't they having to pay higher wages to get good workers?

We have to stand up. The American people need to know what is happening to them.

What is the solution, our colleagues say? Well, unemployment is too high and wages are not going up; let's borrow more money and spend it by sending out unemployment checks to people who are unemployed because somebody illegally here took a job they could have taken.

There is no doubt about this: We need to create and transform the welfare office into an office that transforms the lives of people who are struggling today. We have 40 job programs, at least. We have more than 80 different

means-tested social programs. Those all need to be consolidated. There needs to be one central place where an American who is hurting, who is out of work and needs help, may be given financial help, but also counseled and provided training in the things they might need to get a job. Maybe instead of a subsidy while they're unemployed, individuals need help with transportation to go to work. Maybe they need help relocating to another town where the jobs are readily available.

This idea that we just continue to spend more and more on attempting to help people by giving them money without helping them transform their lives and become productive has to end. In fact, all the means- tested programs all added up amount to more than $750 billion, which is more than all the other individual programs we spend money on--more than Social Security, more than Medicare, more than Medicaid, more than the Defense Department.

This country has some challenges in front of it. If we would respond with classic American values of hard work, individual responsibility, and our technology and training, we could turn this country around. But we don't have any leadership in that regard. Any change, any suggestions that we would reduce a subsidy program in order to fund job training or even fund unemployment compensation is a nonstarter around here, it appears.

I am worried about where we are. This unemployment insurance violates the budget. We should not pass it. We should do it within the budget and we need to analyze it carefully to make sure we are doing it in a way that actually helps those we intend to help.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will be making a point of order in a moment against the bill before us because it violates the budget we agreed to. I will share briefly for a few moments--the order is that we are to commence voting at 2:30. I believe that is correct. I think I was approved for 5 minutes. If the Chair would notify me when my time is up, because others I see here might want to speak.

In August of 2001, this Congress--House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats--along with the President of the United States, agreed on the Budget Control Act. It limited spending--the growth of spending only. How much did it limit the growth? Well, at that time we were projected to spend $10 trillion more over the next 10 years than we were currently spending. So the Budget Control Act didn't cut the budget, really, although a few agencies in the short term have had reductions, Defense being the primary one. But over the 10 years, under the Budget Control Act we would grow spending $8 trillion instead of $10 trillion--not enough of a reduction in spending, I say to my colleagues, to cause this country to sink into the ocean; that is for sure. Really, not enough, because our deficits are so high.

In December of last year, this Congress passed the Ryan-Murray Budget Act which amended the spending agreement we struck in the Budget Control Act. The Ryan-Murray bill broke the budget agreement and allowed more money to be spent than we had agreed to in the BCA, but it capped overall spending for the next 8 years. So that was the agreement. It passed, and the President signed it 3 months ago. It is now the law of the land.

What I would say to my colleagues is this--today is the third or fourth time we will vote on legislation, since the Ryan-Murray spending agreement passed, that busts the budget--that busts the spending limits we agreed to.

There are multiple budget violations against this bill. Two of them are voided by loophole language in the Ryan-Murray legislation that people didn't fully understand at that time. That loophole language allows the use of a deficit-neutral reserve fund to, in effect, erase budget points of order. So two of the budget points of order that lie against this bill cannot be raised because a deficit-neutral reserve fund--which I think is a gimmick--essentially erases them. But one of the violations still remains, because this bill will add to the debt outside the 10-year window.

One of the things we have learned is that when we pass laws today that sound good--and sometimes those laws, even if they are within the budget window, they may, indeed, in the out years add to the debt of the United States. Kent Conrad, a Democrat and former chairman of the Budget Committee--it was his language that created this long term point of order, because he was concerned we were passing things that might be OK within the budget window but were adding to the debt in the long term. So that is why we have this point of order.

The cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office clearly shows that this UI bill violates that principle of the budget, and lays out the numbers that so say. Our chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Murray, has acknowledged that this bill does, in fact, violate the budget.

But we need to stay within our budget. Violating the budget agreement is simply a refusal to make tough choices. We spend $3,700 billion a year, and we can't find $8 billion or $9 billion in savings to fund a program that we think needs to be funded today like unemployment insurance? People want to deal with that and help people who are unemployed, and I understand that desire. But if we do so, we should do it by finding offsets, not spending more than we agreed.

People say we can raise taxes to pay for the new spending. Well, that violates the budget too, because our agreement says we can spend only so much. And if my colleagues want to raise taxes, I believe we ought to use that money to pay down the deficit, not grow the government.

This past year, we spent $233 billion on interest on the debt, an amount that is virtually half the Defense budget. The highway bill is $40 billion. In 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office--Dr. Elmendorf testified before the Budget Committee a few weeks ago--says that in 10 years, 1 year's interest payment on the debt of the United States of America would be $880 billion. That is over $650 billion more in 1 year on interest than we are paying today.

So you can see why we have to adhere to our promises to contain spending. We cannot continue to vote time and time again to violate the spending limits we agreed to. It just adds to the debt and to our interest payments on the debt. No wonder the American people are unhappy with us. This is irresponsible. I am confident we can find the $9 billion or whatever we need to fund any program in this bloated government of ours. But, no, it won't even be discussed. There is no discussion about finding honest reductions in spending from places where money is wasted. Instead, we just come up with a plan that gimmicks the spending and adds to the long-term debt of the United States.

In conclusion, I would say it is quite clear that this legislation-- the unemployment extension--will add to the long-term debt of the United States.

Mr. President, the pending measure, amendment No. 2874 to H.R. 3979, the vehicle for the unemployment insurance extension, violates section 311(b) of the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution by causing a net increase in the deficit over $5 billion in the 10-year period from 2024 to 2033.

Therefore, I raise a point of order against this measure pursuant to section 311(b) of S. Con. Res. 70, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009.

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

Mr. President, the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, voted out the nomination of Leon Rodriguez to be Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, also known as USCIS. This agency has been at the center of the collapse of immigration enforcement in America, and Mr. Rodriguez, if confirmed, will--it seems certain--continue to accelerate that collapse. I think it is an important issue for all of us to talk about. It is not so much about him personally, but it is what he is going to be asked to do.

This is about what has been happening at Homeland Security--and USCIS is an important part of that--and how it is impacting the rule of law in America and immigration enforcement in America--or nonenforcement. It is a very serious matter. What I am going to say today is based on my best judgment of how and why it is happening and why this Congress needs to speak up about it.

I have an article from the Washington Post, which is dated December 18, a few months ago. The article in the Washington Post is headlined ``Federal Workers' Job Satisfaction Falls, with Homeland Security Depart. Ranking Lowest Again.''

It goes on to say:

Federal employees who deal with homeland security matters

remain some of the government's least-satisfied, as overall

workforce morale hit its lowest point in a decade, according

to a report that began ranking agencies on such issues in

2003.

It goes on to say:

The Department of Homeland Security, a perennial bottom-

dweller in the ``Best Places to Work in the Federal

Government'' rankings, marked its third consecutive year of

decline and its second straight year of being last among the

19 largest agencies. This is not acceptable, and I raised

that issue with Secretary Napolitano repeatedly at the

hearings.

I will remind my colleagues that the officers association of another one of the three core immigration agencies--the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service--unanimously voted no confidence in their then- Director John Norton mainly because he refused to allow them to comply with their duty under the law to enforce immigration laws in America. We had the Director of ICE and--you will learn--the Director of USCIS, and I suggest the Homeland Security Director, investing their time and effort in seeing that the laws of the United States were not enforced rather than being enforced.

This gentleman is not prepared to lead this job if he were to be supported in his activity, but, in fact, he was sent here because he will not rock the boat. He will be given this position to continue this policy of nonenforcement, even against the will of the officers who serve under him.

The last thing we should do is put someone in a critical law enforcement position, as these are, who doesn't know anything about it, No. 1, and who is going to carry out President Obama's policies, which is fundamentally not to enforce the law. I know there are people who think that is an exaggeration, but I am going to talk about it, and we are going to keep talking about it, and we are going to show what the facts are. This is a serious matter.

Mr. Rodriguez is not a trained administrator. He has never led a police department. He has never led and managed a real law enforcement agency. He has been a prosecutor of white-collar crime cases. He served for several years in the civil rights part of Homeland Security, but he has not managed the officers out there on the ground who are trying to deal with violent criminal aliens and get them deported and all the gimmicks that they use to get around that. He was a chief of staff to Mr. Perez, the head of the civil rights division in the Department of Justice. Mr. Perez is nearly a radical pro-amnesty nonenforcement leader himself. They were both members of CASA de Maryland, which is very much a pro-amnesty activist group that proposes ideas that are outside the mainstream.

I assume Majority Leader Reid will bring this nomination up for a vote in

the Senate, and it will be an important moment. Will the Senators vote to defend the integrity of the immigration laws we passed or will they help install someone to one of the most important positions in government who will further erode and undermine those laws? This is the question we are dealing with. We need to be honest about it. I don't think there is any mystery here.

First, Mr. Rodriguez lacks the normal background and experience for a position such as this. He doesn't have it. I am not saying he is not a good civil rights lawyer or white-collar crime lawyer, but he doesn't have the leadership experience to lead an agency such as this. His only apparent encounter with immigration was his service on the board of CASA de Maryland, which encourages illegal immigrants to defy law enforcement. It has been a very active group.

Tellingly, Mr. Rodriguez refused to answer questions regarding whether he believes an illegal immigrant who is ordered deported or convicted of a felony criminal offense or convicted of multiple misdemeanors or convicted of a single sex-related offense or convicted of a single drunk driving offense or known to be a gang member should be eligible for legal status in America. That is a pretty fair question to ask a nominee to this important position because USCIS evaluates people as to whether they have the requisites to be given legal status and a pathway to citizenship in America.

Mr. Rodriguez would not even say whether someone who has been denied legal status should be deported. So they come in and ask for legal status, and it is turned down, and he was asked: Should that person get to stay in the country or should that person be deported? There is only one answer to that question. If you are not eligible to be in the country and you had your hearing and you have been denied legal status, there is only one answer, and that is you should be deported. These should not be difficult questions for someone who wants to head an agency that is charged with ensuring the integrity of our system.

The President has summarily suspended entire portions of immigration law, granting unilateral reprieve to people based on everything from family connection to age of illegal entry, and criminal record. He just issues an order.

The Los Angeles Times reported earlier this week on the collapse of interior enforcement. They reported that ``immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came into office.'' Boy, that is an understatement. That is an absolute fact. It went on to state:

Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the

United States have fallen steadily since his first year in

office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.

It is really a lot more than 40 percent. They went on to quote the former Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John Sandweg, who left a little over a month ago. He was a top official in the Obama administration. He said: ``If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero.'' This is a guy who held an important position in the Department of Homeland Security. His duty was to identify people who are here illegally.

In effect, the administration's policy is that unless you commit a felony or other serious crime, you are free to illegally work here, claim certain tax benefits, and obtain fraudulent documents so you can get a job. Apparently having a fraudulent document to get a job you are not lawfully entitled to get is not something that gets you deported in this administration. Not apparently, that is the policy if truth be known.

It is an open invitation to every would-be illegal immigrant to come to the United States unlawfully and to every visa holder who is here lawfully on a visa for a limited time to ignore the expiration date of their visa and remain unlawfully in the country. That is the law the President has set.

If the immigration laws are not enforceable by virtue of the plain fact that they are duly passed laws by the Congress of the United States, then there is no real immigration law. Anyone who wishes is free to come on visa, let the visa expire and never leave. If you can get past the border in some fashion unlawfully, they can stay and nobody is going to impact you.

Yet, on March 13, after meeting with representatives of various amnesty groups, the Homeland Security Secretary--the top man, Mr. Johnson--reaffirmed that he is working to fulfill the President's request to reduce enforcement even further. It is astonishing that the President would order a review of enforcement policies, not for the purpose of repairing enforcement flaws but to weaken it even more.

According to a March 14, 2014, Los Angeles Times article quoting administrative officials:

The changes under review would effectively stop most

deportations of [illegal immigrants] with no criminal

convictions other than violations.

So any fraudulent documents that are used to come here and violate immigration laws or get a job or get into the country unlawfully don't count. You can do this all day. Come on down. This means that even fugitive aliens, and those who have committed immigration felonies would now be exempt from enforcement. It would represent a total evisceration of immigration law, including those laws designed to protect the wages and jobs of working Americans.

I will say parenthetically--we just had a vote on unemployment insurance because we continue to have a very high unemployment rate. We extended the normal limit on unemployment benefits to people who don't have a job, and now we are doing nothing to protect American workers from people who are illegally here and taking jobs they need for their families.

In addition to that, the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill that would double the number of guest workers--the people who come here just to work--at a time of high unemployment.

We have a bill that will be coming up soon, I suppose, to raise the minimum wage. Why? Because wages have not risen sufficiently. We are not happy about that. In fact, wages have been declining for over a decade. This is a serious trend.

Dr. Borjas at Harvard attributes a good deal of that to the large flow of immigration, particularly in lower income Americans who are being hammered by this large flow of lower skilled foreign workers. It is supply and demand.

Why are wages not going up, colleagues? Do you believe in the free market? They are not going up because we have more workers than we have jobs.

Mr. Sperling, the President's former top economic adviser, admitted a few weeks ago that there are three applicants for every job in America. The last thing we need to be doing is doubling the number of foreign workers brought into the country and not enforcing the law with regard to people who have entered illegally, isn't that correct? I mean, can't we agree on issues such as that?

In 2012--go back to this, the problems--and people need to know this. The mainstream media does not want to talk about it. They don't tend to report it, but it has been out there for months--years. It is the reality. This is what a 2012 inspector general report of the Department of Homeland Security--this is their own inspector general, who serves at the pleasure of the Homeland Security Secretary. They issued a report which found that senior officials at USCIS--that is the Citizenship and Immigration Services, where this individual will be the head--they found that senior officials at USCIS have been pressuring employees to rubberstamp applications for immigration benefits despite obvious signs of fraud.

Kenneth Palinkas, president of the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council--the union representing 12,000 adjudicators, officers, and staff--issued a statement in May of 2013 that echoed the findings of the report. This is what Mr. Palinkas's group said:

USCIS adjudications officers are pressured to rubberstamp

applications instead of conducting diligent case review and

investigations. The culture at USCIS encourages all

applications to be approved, discouraging proper

investigation into red flags and discouraging denial of

applications. USCIS has been turned into an approval machine.

This is not acceptable. What are we paying 18,000 officers to do? Don't the

American people expect that they are supposed to be reviewing applications, not rubberstamping them; identifying people who may be terrorists or criminals or have no likelihood of producing anything worthwhile in America, who are not going to be successful in America, and who may be otherwise unlawfully eligible to enter, while we turn people down who have the lawful right to enter and put them on a backlog? It doesn't make any sense.

According to Mr. Palinkas:

USCIS has created an almost insurmountable bureaucracy

which often prevents USCIS adjudications officers from

contacting and coordinating with ICE agents and officers in

cases that should have their involvement.

Look, the ICE officers are kind of like the criminal investigators. They deal with people who are apprehended inside the country. They deal with people who have been arrested or in jail on one cause or another-- assaults, drugs, violence, criminality. So USCIS is evaluating paperwork to see if somebody is qualified, and they have some red flag, and they would like to call the ICE officers to see if this is the same guy who committed an assault or an armed robbery a few years ago, and they are being discouraged from doing that. What is this? It is exactly the opposite of what we are paying them to do.

Mr. Palinkas continues:

USCIS officers are pressured to approve visa applications

for individuals that ICE agents have determined should be

placed into deportation proceedings.

So they are pressuring them to approve these individuals who have not been approved.

I see Senator Warren is here, and I will wrap up. I didn't realize she had been approved to speak at this time, and I will wrap up briefly.

We need to put an end to this lawlessness, and the next Director of USCIS must ensure the integrity of our immigration system--it is just that simple--as his mission statement calls for him to do. They must be independent and able to stand up for the rule of law under what undoubtedly will be tremendous political pressure from an administration and pro-amnesty activist groups who seem to be dominating the agenda and who have little interest in seeing the great classical American rule of law enforced.

Mr. Rodriguez, unfortunately, I am convinced is not that person. He would not be the right person if he really had the support of his leadership. He just doesn't have the background. He has never managed a major agency with 18,000 employees or anything like it. He does not have any experience on the frontlines of what they do every day and how they do it. But it is even worse because--look, why didn't they choose somebody who is experienced in DHS? Why didn't they choose a police chief or a military officer, someone who knows how to lead and manage a big agency such as this one, somebody with independence and integrity? Why? Because they don't want somebody with independence and integrity committed to the enforcement of law. They have already decided they are not enforcing the law, and they want somebody such as this Casa de Maryland protege to go into that agency who is not going to enforce the law.

It is a serious statement I make, and I think it is fundamentally accurate. I am just buffaloed that this is the fact.

Mr. Jonathan Turley, a constitutional lawyer who has written about government issues and constitutional issues for quite a number of years--Professor Turley has written recently and participated in a discussion where he said that what the President is doing with regard to immigration is beyond any justifiable utilization of prosecutorial discretion, that it amounts to a nullification of law by the President, who takes an oath and is constitutionally required to see that the laws of this country are faithfully carried out.

This is a very serious matter. We need to talk about it. This nomination sort of provides us an opportunity to recognize what is happening, and the American people are going to need to speak up. We need to be able to change what is happening to restore the great American heritage of law.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Madam President, we are in the midst of a debate about extending unemployment insurance for millions of Americans who are unemployed, some of whom have been out of work for some time. It is a problem for the country.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of Americans who want to work but who have stopped looking for a job is 3.1 million. Over 91 million Americans are outside the labor force entirely. According to a recent report in CNN Money:

Only about 63 percent of Americans over the age of 16

participate in the job market, meaning they either have a job

or are just looking for one. That is nearly the lowest level

since 1978, driven partly by baby boomers retiring but also

by workers who had simply given up hope after long and

fruitless job searches.

As a matter of fact, we saw at our budget hearing this morning a chart which showed the decline in workers by age group, and it was interesting. The younger workers had the biggest decline in percentage working, and the older, 62 and above, are working at a greater rate than they were in previous years. So that is an interesting statistic. But we do have a problem, particularly among a lot of our younger people finding work.

At the same time we are having these difficulties, this administration has engaged in a systematic dismantling of the protections our immigration laws provide for American workers, producing for them--our workers--lower wages and higher unemployment. That is just a fact. Why are wages down? And wages are down, as we heard from all witnesses, Republican and Democratic, in the Budget Committee this morning. Wages have declined significantly in the last 5 years. They have been declining, just at a lesser rate, since 1999.

In fact, our review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement published statistics for 2013 reveals that under the guise of setting priorities for enforcement of our laws, this administration has determined that almost anyone in the world who can enter the United States then becomes free to illegally live, work, and claim benefits here as long as they are not caught committing some felony or serious crime.

Based on what the President has said, and what the Vice President has said, it would appear an individual could come to America on a work visa, and 1 day after the visa has expired just continue to stay in America and be able to work and could be confident that they will not be deported because the policy of this government is not to deport people unless they catch them at the border entering illegally or they have committed a serious crime.

A recent report this week shows that even the serious crime issue is cloudy. An independent report earlier this week said one-third of those--68,000--who had been involved in criminal activity in some way are not being deported. So this applies not only to

those who unlawfully enter our borders but also those who enter on a legal visa and don't leave when that visa expires.

The President and Members of Congress are arguing, it appears, based on the bill that cleared the Senate, for a historic surge in the amount of legal immigration into our country at a time of high unemployment. The White House has preposterously claimed, amazingly, that an influx of new, mostly lower skilled workers will raise wages. This is a conclusion not supported by any credible academic evidence or even the Congressional Budget Office's own report analyzing the massive Senate immigration bill. The CBO concluded the bill would add 46 million mostly lesser skilled legal immigrants by 2033 and that average wages would fall for one dozen years if it were to become law and unemployment would increase and per capita GDP--growth in America-- would decline, I think for 20 years.

And, apparently the House of Representatives is considering proposals to bring in hundreds of thousands of guest workers at a time when we are talking about extending unemployment for Americans who can't get jobs.

Dr. George Borjas at Harvard has found that high immigration levels from 1980 to 2000 resulted in an 8-percent drop in wages for American workers without a high school degree. Let me repeat that. This is Professor Borjas at Harvard, raised in Cuba and immigrated to America. He is perhaps the most authoritative academic in the world on immigration and its effect on wages and the labor force. He found that high immigration levels from 1980 to 2000--and he studied that carefully, using census and other data--resulted in an 8-percent drop in wages for American workers without a high school degree. Eight percent is a lot. It is several hundred dollars a month for a person who didn't graduate from high school. Actually, it is about $250 a month. So there is a reason workers who are earning $30,000 and less support a reduction in net immigration levels by a 3-to-1 margin. Working people know what is happening out there. They know their wages are going down. They know particularly lower skilled people, some young people who didn't get to graduate from high school or who got in trouble, are not having much success at all.

Average household income has fallen steadily since 1999, and only 59 percent of U.S. adults are now working. African-American youth looking for work cannot find jobs. We don't have a shortage of workers in this country--we do not have a shortage of workers in this country. We have a shortage of jobs. That is a fact.

Some might ask: How can you be so sure of that, Senator? I believe in the free market, and I tell the chamber of commerce and the big hotel magnates, if we have a shortage of workers, why aren't wages going up? Wages are going down. We don't have a tight labor market. We have a loose labor market, and it is impacting adversely American workers.

The idea that we ought to double the number of guest workers who come into the country legally when the President of the United States is not going to enforce immigration laws and we will not use comprehensively the E-Verify system indicates we are going to see a decline in wages for average Americans out looking for jobs.

The President's own economic adviser, Gene Sperling, former Director of the National Economic Council, recognized this, saying recently that ``our economy still has three people looking for every job,'' three people for every job. Majority Leader Reid has cited that statistic on the Senate floor as well.

So this Senate passes a comprehensive immigration bill that doubles the number of guest workers. Don't think these are workers who are going to work seasonal jobs in agriculture. They will be able to move throughout this country and take jobs from wherever, providing businesses with a ready source, a new source of additional labor that helps keep the labor market loose.

My amendment, the Accountability through Electronic Verification Act, is a proven way to help out-of-work Americans. This legislation was introduced in this Congress by Senator Grassley and cosponsored by myself and Senators Boozman, Corker, Enzi, Fischer, Hatch, Johanns, Lee, Vitter, and Wicker. So we have offered legislation to deal with this, and I have offered it as an amendment to this unemployment insurance legislation, but I have been told it will be blocked. We will not get a vote. The leader has filled the tree.

What this proposal would do is it would create some jobs for Americans who are out of work. It absolutely would. It would work, and it would immediately help create jobs. That is why the establishment doesn't want to see it happen, if you want to know the truth.

The legislation would permanently authorize and expand the E-Verify Program. That is a simple Web-based tool that allows employers to maintain a legal workforce by verifying the work eligibility of employees. E-Verify works by checking data against records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration. It is quick and easy. An employer simply puts in a Social Security number, it runs against the Social Security database, and an employer receives an answer as to whether this person is a lawful applicant for a job.

Although in 1986 Congress made it unlawful--in 1986--for an employer to knowingly hire or employ illegal aliens, these laws have never been effectively enforced. They just have not. They have gotten comfortable with this, not having it enforced. Under current law, if the documents provided by an applicant for a job to an employer reasonably appeared to be genuine, then the employer has met its obligation.

Incidentally, shortly after the 1986 amnesty law was passed, when it was promised amnesty would not be granted again, the now-assistant to President Obama and the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, Cecilia Munoz, who was then a senior policy analyst of La Raza, led the charge to undo these enforcement provisions. So the person chosen by President Obama to be the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and who has been given the responsibility to deal with immigration, use to work for La Raza where she sought to undo enforcement.

Ms. Munoz authored a report for La Raza entitled ``Unfinished Business: The Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986.'' In that report she argued that Congress had a moral obligation to ``repeal employer sanctions'' and that workplace enforcement is ``inherently discriminatory.''

Now think about that. The person the President has chosen, who is supposed to be helping us create a lawful system of immigration in the United States, has as her prior effort written a paper that says basically it is a moral requirement of America to repeal any employer sanctions. This is the mentality running our government today; that it is morally wrong to say to employers they should only hire people lawfully in our country. She went on to say that any kind of workplace enforcement--apparently in which our employers would be disciplined or punished if they violate the law--is inherently discriminatory.

Because identity theft and counterfeit documents became a thriving industry after the 1986 amnesty, Congress created an E-Verify program in 1996.

In 1996, after realizing this was turning into a joke--nobody was following the intent of Congress and anybody could produce false documents--Congress passed a law which said we would end this game and create a system that would work. Employers required to use E-Verify today include the Federal government, certain Federal contractors and employers of certain immigrant students. The program for other employers is voluntary and free for them to use, and it has been very successful throughout the country by any who use it.

According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in fiscal year 2012, 98 percent of queries resulted in a confirmation of work eligibility immediately or within 24 hours. So most of them overwhelmingly immediately access the computer system, put in a Social Security number and other data they require, hit the computer button, and it quickly comes back. On a few occasions there is a question and it may take up to 24 hours.

It is not slowing down employment, it is not a big burden on employers, and it protects them from being accused of deliberately hiring illegal

aliens if the report comes back that the Social Security number matches. According to a January 2013 USCIS customer satisfaction survey, E-Verify received an 86 out of 100 in the American customer satisfaction index scale--19 points higher than the customer satisfaction rating for the overall Federal Government.

There is no objection to this. The only objection to it is by certain business lobbyist groups and certain activist immigration groups who don't want it to work, and they want to keep other businesses from using it because it does in fact identify people in the country who are not allowed to take jobs and it would keep them from receiving these jobs.

This legislation would make the program mandatory for all employers within 1 year of enactment of the law. This legislation would also increase penalties for employers who do not use the system when it is mandated or continue to illegally hire undocumented workers.

Employers would be required to check the status of current employees--but within 3 years--and would be permitted to run a check prior to offering someone a job. In other words, they can run a check before they actually offered a job and determine whether the person was lawfully able to take the job. This could help them a lot.

Employers would also be required to recheck those workers whose authorization is about to expire, such as those who come to the United States on temporary work visas.

This legislation would require employers to terminate the employment of those found unauthorized to work due to a check through E-Verify, and would reduce employers' potential liability for wrongful terminations if they participated in E-Verify.

The legislation would establish a demonstration project in a rural area or an area without substantial Internet capabilities--although there are not many left--to assist small businesses in complying.

The legislation also addresses identify theft concerns by ensuring that the Social Security Administration catches multiple uses of Social Security numbers--different people using the same social number to get jobs with a fake document and a false Social Security number.

And for victims of identity theft, this legislation would amend the Federal criminal code to clarify that identity fraud is punishable regardless of whether the defendant had knowledge of the victim. So this provision addresses a 2009 Supreme Court decision holding that identity theft requires proof that the individual knew the number being used belonged to an actual person.

E-Verify has been proven to deter employers from hiring illegal workers and will help put Americans back on the payrolls.

Since I have seen legislation move through Congress--comprehensive reform legislation that is going to fix our immigration policies--one of the things I have observed is that whatever works is what gets objected to. If someone offers a bill which appears to work but doesn't work, that will pass. E-Verify has been proven and will work to deter employers from hiring illegal workers, and will help put Americans back to work. That is why we apparently don't have any ability to get it up for a vote. A number of States have enacted E-Verify laws, and it is working in those States with great results.

According to a 2013 Bloomberg government study entitled ``Early Evidence Suggests E-Verify Laws Deter Hiring of Unauthorized Workers'':

Soon after E-Verify laws were signed in Arizona,

Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina, unauthorized

workers in specific industries appeared to drop off employer

payrolls. This prompted employers in many cases to fill

positions with authorized workers, American workers who are

here lawfully, maybe a young 22-year-old African American who

needs a job, would like to get married, maybe raise a family.

With respect to my State of Alabama, the Bloomberg study says:

Employment trended lower immediately after the law was

enacted. Employers then added more crop production workers in

the months before [the law] took effect, when compared with

the same period the year before. That growth in production

jobs was among the largest in the nation. This study

hypothesizes that authorized hires probably filled the jobs

of unauthorized workers who had left the state.

Isn't that what we would like to see? Wouldn't we ask people to come to the country lawfully? We admit 1 million people a year for permanent residence on a guaranteed path to citizenship absent serious criminal activity. We are generous about immigration. Make no mistake about it. But we do need to make sure that people who don't follow the law, don't wait their turn, don't meet the requirements of American immigration law--they shouldn't be able to come unlawfully and take jobs when Americans are out of work in record numbers.

Regarding South Carolina's law, the study found this:

The number of crop production workers fell. . . . And then

hiring surged as the law took effect in 2012. Farmers say

they added workers because their normal labor supply

vanished.

The study also found that:

[t]he state's commercial bakery industry had been losing

workers, then gained them as E-Verify took effect.

So people who were unlawfully there couldn't get past E-Verify. It exposed them as being unlawful, and the businesses lost workers. But then they hired people back, and the people they hired back were lawful workers--either here as immigrants lawfully or native born.

The study, which is based on research from the Pew Hispanic Center, goes on to say this:

[t]he abrupt shifts in employment across multiple

industries convey a similar narrative: soon after E-Verify

laws are adopted, workers drop off employer payrolls and, in

a number of industries, new hires fill those vacant

positions. The robustness of this effect reinforces the

likelihood that this phenomenon is due to something other

than chance.

Our goal must be to help struggling Americans move from dependency to independence, to help them find steady jobs with rising pay, not falling pay. Making E-Verify permanent and requiring all employers to use it is one simple thing we can do to work towards that goal.

Let me just say, the E-Verify system is already established. The system is in place. It can accommodate the increase in inquiries. It is all a computer system. It is all done virtually instantly. It is not as if we have to create a new system or add tens of thousands of people to make it work. The system is already working and it can handle larger numbers.

Our policy cannot be to simply relegate more and more of our citizens to dependence on the government for assistance while importing a steady stream of foreign workers to fill available jobs. That is not in the interest of this country or our people.

I would just like to add that Senators Grassley, Lee, Vitter, Enzi, Boozman, and Hatch are cosponsors of this amendment. We know what is being said out there. We are being told that Americans won't work, they are not looking for jobs, and that businesses can't hire. The Bloomberg study on how the E-Verify system has been implemented indicates quite different.

According to a report on Syracuse.com on January 8, 2014:

In Syracuse [New York], thousands showed up for the Destiny

USA job fair on June 14, 2012. More than 50 employers

interviewed candidates for roughly 1,600 jobs.

On January 29, 2013, a Fox affiliate in Atlanta reported:

Northside Hospital held a job fair Wednesday, but had to

call it off early due to the overwhelming number of people

that showed up looking for work. The hospital was hoping to

fill 500 jobs.

On May 17, 2013, news outlets in Philadelphia reported:

More than 3,700 job seekers overwhelmed the Municipal

Services Building in Center City for a job fair Friday

morning intended for ex-offenders. . . . The city anticipated

a big crowd and therefore doubled the staff to handle the

responses, but the crowd was still too big to handle, forcing

the event to be cancelled and leaving hundreds on the plaza

outside.

We need to help ex-offenders find jobs. I am aware of a major corporation in Alabama, in talking to a Federal judge recently, which said they will start taking a chance on former offenders. Properly examined and picking the right ones, they found out they are doing fine. We shouldn't be denying young people--particularly young men--who may have gotten in trouble at a younger age ever being able to have a job. One of the goals this country has to have is to help our ex- offenders in employment.

On May 20, 2013, the New York Times reported in an article entitled, ``Camping out for five days, in hopes of a union job,'' the following:

The men began arriving last Wednesday, first a trickle,

then dozens. By Friday there were hundreds of them, along

with a few women. They set up their tents and mattresses on

the sidewalk in Long Island City, Queens . . . and settled in

to wait as long as five days and nights for a slender chance

at a union job as an elevator mechanic. . . . There were more

than 800 by sun-up Monday. . . . The union accepts 750

applications for the 150 to 200 spots in its four-year

apprenticeship program.

There are more examples, and I could go on. But I do believe this idea that Americans won't work is not correct. If we take a person who has been unemployed for a while and place them in a position where the labor is physical, it takes a while to get in shape. If you are going to play ball, it takes a while to get in physical condition. People going into the Army are not expected to meet the physical fitness test the first week. They build up to it.

Businesses have to participate in this effort, too. Businesses need to understand they are not entitled and cannot expect--for the government of the United States to produce perfectly fit, well-trained people for every single job they would like to fill. Sometimes they have to hire people, train them on the job, let them work into it and learn the skills on the job. It is some new idea, apparently, that businesses have to have so much training. We certainly need to use the job-training programs in this country to more effectively train workers for real jobs out there. It is a valid criticism of our trade schools and some of our community colleges that they are not focusing on reality. But my State has done a great job--a far better job than in most States--and I saw a report recently about how Mississippi is doing an excellent job. I believe our program is at least as effective, if not better. So we are doing better. But businesses have always had to bring people into their workplaces and train them to handle the physical challenges that some jobs require.

Madam President, I thank the Chair for an opportunity to share these remarks. I am disappointed that when we are talking about unemployment in America, we have a Congress and a Senate refusing to even allow this amendment to come up for a vote. Without a doubt it would work, be fair, and would simply make it more difficult for people who are not here lawfully, who shouldn't be able to get jobs in America--would make it more difficult for them to get that job, freeing that position up for unemployed Americans who need to get in the workforce and off the welfare rolls. That is the goal.

We have a huge number of welfare programs. We spend $750 billion a year on means-tested programs to help people who are lower income, and that is 50 percent more than the defense budget, more than Social Security, and more than Medicare. Those programs are not working well. They need to come together in a coherent whole with a unified vision. The vision should be to help people who are in stressful circumstances; help them aggressively, in a practical, realistic way; put them in a job-training program that would allow them to take a job. We could easily do that with the money we are spending now. We would have more Americans working and off the welfare rolls. We would save billions of dollars at the same time. They would make more money, be more fulfilled, have more self-respect, and reduce the budget deficit at the same time.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to mourn the passage of a friend and to pay tribute to a remarkable man. Jeremiah Denton once served his country as a pilot, a prisoner of war, a rear admiral in the Navy, and a Senator of the United States. He passed away Friday morning at the age of 89, having been active until near the end.

From time to time men and women are born into this world who are made of something special, individuals who seem to have an unlimited reservoir of strength and courage, who are made of sterner stuff. These people carry themselves with grace and dignity even as the world's weight rests upon their shoulders. Jeremiah Denton was such a man.

A proud son of Mobile, AL, he attended local Spring Hill College and the local Catholic schools and McGill-Toolen in Mobile, and he graduated later from the U.S. Naval Academy, becoming a pilot and commander. What happened next would etch his name into the annals of American history.

On July 18, 1965, Denton led a squadron of 28 jets on a bombing raid when he was shot down over North Vietnam. It was his 12th flight. Captured by the North Vietnamese, he would be a captive in prison camps for the next 7 years and 7 months. During his time as a prisoner of war, he endured virtually constant and excruciating torture. He was held captive at prisons the POWs called Hanoi Hilton, the zoo, and Alcatraz. He endured merciless beatings as well as solitary confinement for 4 years.

As a senior officer, he was a leader among the prisoners and rebelled against their brutal efforts to extract propaganda. Denton refused. Denton explained in an interview to the New York Times:

I put out the policy that they were not to succumb to

threats, but must stand up and say no. We forced them to be

brutal to us.

Denton wrote a memoir, ``When Hell Was in Session''--which is a fabulous book and too little appreciated, really--recounting his time as a POW. He describes a torture session in which his captors placed a 9-foot, cement-filled bar across his shins. He wrote that his captors ``stood on it and . . . took turns jumping up and down and rolling it across my legs. Then they lifted my arms behind my back by the cuffs, raising the top part of my body off the floor and dragging me around and around. This went on for hours . . . They were in a frenzy alternating the treatment to increase the pain until I was unable to control myself. I began crying hysterically, blood and tears mingling and running down my cheeks.''

In May 1966, Denton would defy and outsmart his Communist captors and display to the whole world the depth of American courage and ingenuity. His captors interrogated Denton for a propaganda interview. While answering their questions at this interview, filmed by a Japanese film company, Denton was simultaneously and repeatedly blinking out a message, letter by letter, in Morse code. The message was ``torture.'' It was the first official message informing Americans and the world that American POWs were being tortured by the North Vietnamese.

During the interview, he further displayed his unshakeable resolve by boldly declaring to his captors:

Whatever the position of my government is, I support it

fully . . . I am a member of that government, and it is my

job to support it, and I will as long as I live.

North Vietnam's most ruthless interrogators couldn't break the will of this rock-ribbed American and Alabama native.

More than 7 long years later, on February 12, 1973, Denton would be freed as part of ``Operation Homecoming'' following the signing of the Paris Peace Accords. He was the senior officer of the first planeload of released POWs at Clark Air Base in the Philippines. Denton brought tears to the eyes of the entire Nation at that moment as he walked from the plane. It was reported that he wasn't told to make any official remarks or make a speech, but he got off the plane and these were his powerful words:

We are honored to have had the opportunity to serve our

country under difficult circumstances. We are profoundly

grateful to our commander-in-chief and to our nation for this

day. God bless America.

Millions of Americans remember that day.

Denton earned the Navy Cross, the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Navy Distinguished Service Medal, three Silver Stars, the Distinguished Flying Cross, five Bronze Stars, two Air Medals, two Purple Hearts, and numerous other campaign awards. He rose to the rank of rear admiral and retired from the Navy in 1977.

In 1980 the proud and grateful State of Alabama would send our native son to the U.S. Senate. A man of deep faith, Denton believed in the dignity of public service and the selflessness required of those of us who serve. He believed that and he demonstrated it in his life.

He fought alongside Ronald Reagan to rebuild America's defenses and to fight the spread of communism and to help bring about the end of the Cold War. He was a firm believer in peace through strength. President Reagan recognized Senator Denton during his 1982 State of the Union Address. Many remember this. President Reagan said:

We don't have to turn to our history books for heroes. They

are all around us. One who sits among you here tonight

epitomizes that heroism at the end of the longest

imprisonment ever inflicted on men of our armed forces. Who

will ever forget that night when we waited for the television

to bring us the scene of that first plane landing at Clark

Field in the Philippines, bringing our POWs home? The plane

door opened and Jeremiah Denton came slowly down the ramp. He

caught sight of our flag, saluted, and said, ``God bless

America.'' Then he thanked us for bringing him home.

So said Ronald Reagan.

I had the privilege of getting to know Jeremiah Denton. He was a very special man. His word was his bond and his loyalty was unshakeable. He was modest. While he was a fierce advocate for his profound beliefs, it was never about him. In fact, he was very uncomfortable with the term ``hero'' being applied to him. His comeback was always: ``We were only doing our duty.''

They said, after his time in Communist prison, that he was out of

touch; he didn't know the 1960s had occurred. Perhaps so. In fact, it was so. In plain fact much had occurred while he was in prison and being tortured. It was, among other things, a culturally momentous time. Many of those changes he did not like. He said so in plain language. He didn't like the surge of crime and drugs. He believed in loyalty to one's spouse. He opposed abortion. He lamented the consistent weakening of family bonds, sexual promiscuity, the decline in decency. He cared enough to speak out and again give of himself for his faith and his country.

He represented the best America has to offer. His grit and bravery shined through from his dark prison cell deep in Vietnam, and it lit up the world. He loved his country. He loved his God. He loved his family.

In 1996, when I was considering running for the U.S. Senate, I sought his counsel. He graciously agreed to come by my house in Mobile. It was a very valuable discussion. Near the end, we talked of his service. He told me a story--and I think it may be appropriate to tell it now--of his time in prison that he had not put in his fine book. After President Nixon's bombing and strong military action had brought the North Vietnamese to the conference table, Denton was firmly of the belief that the Vietnamese were defeated and they knew they were defeated. Concerned over possible war crime trials, one of the prison officials demanded that Denton tell them all what he would say to the world about his treatment if he were to be released. Senator Denton sought to avoid the question, saying: Why are you asking me? I am not the senior officer in the camp.

But they pressed him again and again, and he kept saying: Why me? I am not the senior official.

Finally, the prison official looked at him and said: ``Because you are incredible, Denton.''

That is the flat truth. He was incredible.

When he told the world and his captors during that ``show'' press conference before the Japanese television where he blinked the word ``torture'' that ``whatever the position of my government is, I support it fully . . . I am a member of that government, and it is my job to support it, and I will as long as I live,'' it was a moment of great courage, historical significance, and fidelity to duty that few in this Nation would be able to match. He knew the captors would not like it, and they did not like it. They beat him brutally for the disrespect he showed by telling that truth, and they even did so before they knew he had blinked out ``torture.''

His family was his life. He was married to the late Kathryn Jane Maury for 61 years, with whom he had seven children. He is survived by his second wife Mary Belle Bordone and his children: Jeremiah, William, Donald, James, Michael, Madeleine Doak, and Mary Lewis.

The entire Senate sends our prayers to his loved ones, and we send our promise that Jeremiah Denton will not be forgotten.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to express my appreciation to Senator Wyden for his leadership. He is going to do a great job as chairman of the very important Finance Committee. He is active in all the issues before our Senate. But, regrettably, a number of Members on this side object to proceeding with his legislation at this point.

I would note that budget experts tell us that paying for this through OCO is the mother of all gimmicks. I just spoke about the passing of Senator Jeremiah Denton, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. We could use the savings from the Vietnam war that we are not spending today to pay for this bill.

So I would object, Mr. President. Hopefully, we can figure out another way to make this happen because Senator Wyden is correct, it is time to get a permanent fix of this matter done.

I would ask consent that S. 2122, Calendar No. 330, be proceeded to for immediate consideration. It would repeal the Medicare sustainable growth rate offset by repealing the ObamaCare individual mandate. I ask consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I did object, yes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 330, S. 2122, a bill to repeal the Medicare sustainable growth rate offset by repealing the ObamaCare individual mandate. This is proposed by Senators Hatch and McConnell and Cornyn. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his leadership and hopefully something can be worked out on this because it is important. But it is frustrating that there is no intention, it appears, to allow this provision, this fix to be brought up. Therefore, without that kind of consent, I think it is unlikely we will get a unanimous consent to move forward with Senator Wyden's fix.

Mr. President, I appreciate the work of Senator Wyden and others on this problem. It is a matter we need to fix.

The Senator from Maryland said the fix is signed off by the House too, so I guess we are supposed to know the fix is in. We are just going to take care of the doctors who need their money and we are not going to pay for it. We are not going to do it within the budget, again.

As ranking member of the Budget Committee, I feel I have a responsibility to report to this body the plain financial truth about the legislation that comes before us. The bill offered by our Democratic colleagues is worse than this one. I guess this is a Reid- Boehner bill that is before us now. But the Democrats' bill would claim to pay for it with OCO--the Overseas Contingency Operation--which couldn't be anything worse than the pay-for in this bill.

The Reid-Boehner doc fix legislation we are about to consider violates the spending limits we passed in December, the Ryan-Murray- raised spending limits--by $6 billion only 3 months after those limits were signed into law. Think about that. Bloomberg News released an analysis today concluding that:

Since December 2013, the Republican House and the

Democratic Senate have approved more than $40 billion worth

of spending ``offsets'' in the form of cuts that would take

place in 2023 at the earliest or timing shifts in policy to

bring savings into the 10-year window.

In other words, Congress has gimmicked an additional $40 billion in new spending in just a few months since Ryan-Murray was passed. That is just what it is. The Budget Committee and Chairman Murray, our Democratic chairman, has already ruled it violates the budget. It spends money we don't have. It is not a legitimate pay-for. So here we are again, proposing to bust the spending limits. This is the behavior of a profligate Congress.

How many of our Members were running for office 2 years ago, 4 years ago, 6 years ago, and they were talking to their constituents and they said that Congress is spending us into bankruptcy; they are irresponsible; they won't even write a budget; they spend, spend, spend; they don't worry about the deficit. The country is going into too much debt.

How many have said that in their campaigns--when I get there, I am going to do something about it. And what do they do when they get here? Some of our Members say, Oh, we have to take care of the doctors. And we do need to do that. But there is waste, fraud, and abuse and savings throughout this $4 trillion budget of ours that we could use to reduce that spending legitimately to pay for what we need to do for our doctors.

That is what we agreed to do when we passed the Budget Control Act. That is what the Budget Control Act did. The Budget Control Act in 2011 said this. The President signed it. It passed both Houses of Congress. It had Democratic and Republican support. The Budget Control Act says over the next 10 years we are projected to increase spending by $10 trillion; but we are going to be more frugal than that, we are only going to increase spending by $8 trillion. So spending would increase by $8 trillion.

What happens? As soon as it begins to bite a little bit, and we are challenged to make some priorities and to decide, for example, how we are going to help our doctor friends--who do need some relief--what do we do? We just violate the agreement, we spend money we do not have, and we say somehow it is paid for. That is what brought us the Ryan- Murray deal and now we are rewriting that agreement. Senator Murray agrees that this legislation currently before us violates the budget and is not paid for.

So last year we borrowed--think about this--$221 billion just to pay the interest on our debt. We have a debt of $17 trillion. We have to pay interest on it, colleagues--surely we all know that--and it was $221 billion last year.

Federal aid to education is $100 billion. The Federal highway bill is $40 billion. We spent that much on interest last year alone. But the worst news is, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that 10 years from today our interest cost will surge to $880 billion a year annually. That is more than $5,000 in interest payments for every American worker--$880 billion. Can you imagine that? That is over $400 a month for the average worker that pays taxes in America. That is how much their share is going to have to be raised in taxes to pay the interest in 1 year.

What do I say about that? This assumes, colleagues--this $880 billion in interest and the surge in our debt--this assumes that we will adhere to the Budget Control Act and the Ryan-Murray agreement, which this bill busts and violates. It is not the first time, and it will not be the last. They are going to come back again and again and again with gimmicks and violations because people in our Congress are unwilling to take the heat to find real offsets.

So we should keep that in mind as we consider this or any other legislation that will increase the amount of money we have to borrow.

I would like to call attention to three specific ways the proposed legislation violates spending and deficit limits. Each of these are points of order that lie against the bill confirmed by the majority on the Budget Committee. What I am saying is, each of these three points I am raising now represent points of order; in other words, the Budget Committee has ascertained that they violate the budget. We spend more than we are allowed to spend.

So No. 1, a $17.6 billion increase in the on-budget deficit over the 5-year period from fiscal year 2014 through 2018; and a $9.5 billion increase in the on-budget deficit over the 10-year period of 2014 through 2023--$9.5 billion.

No. 2, spending in excess of the top line total in the Ryan-Murray levels for fiscal year 2014. We just passed Ryan-Murray in December. The President signed it in January. This is going to add $6.1 billion more than we just agreed to spend in fiscal year 2014.

Oh, well, that is not a problem. I say it is a problem. I say it is the way a nation goes broke.

How about this? Spending in excess of the Finance Committee's allocation. The committees are allocated so much money. They are not entitled to spend above the allocated amount. So this spends $6.1 billion in budget authority and outlays in fiscal year 2014--this year we are in--above the Finance Committee's allocation.

Was there a time agreement, Mr. President?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes, and I will wrap up.

I thank my courteous colleagues.

Maya MacGuineas, at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget--a well-respected group--was quoted as saying, ``We are disheartened that, even in a 12-month `doc fix,' the legislation under consideration would use a budget gimmick to offset a portion of its costs. . . . Specifically, a portion of the bill's `savings' are achieved by simply shifting sequester savings set to

occur in 2025 into 2024, within the Congressional Budget Office's scoring window, but this has zero actual impact on the debt. . . . Congress should remove the phony savings in this bill and replace them with real cuts or shorten the duration of the `doc fix.' ''

That was an objective analysis of it.

So, Mr. President, that being the case, the pending measure, H.R. 4302, the Protecting Access to Medicare Act, would violate the Senate pay-go rule and increase the deficit. Therefore, I raise a point of order against this measure pursuant to section 201(a) of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would note that the resolution has not come out of the Judiciary Committee and

that Senator Vitter, who has filed an amendment to the resolution, asks that that amendment be accepted or voted on, which has been not agreed to. The amendment would say a couple things.

One:

Whereas Cesar Estrada Chavez strongly believed in enforcing

immigration laws, thereby reducing the deleterious effects of

inexpensive labor on the wages of farm workers in the United

States, as recognized by the Congressional Budget Office in

the June 2013 report entitled ``The Economic Impact of S.

744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and

Immigration Modernization Act. . . .

And he offers this ``whereas,'' a second one:

Whereas Cesar Estrada Chavez recognized the importance of a

secure southern border with Mexico, through citizen

participation in the enforcement of immigration laws, by

encouraging members of the United Farm Workers of America to

contact the Immigration and Naturalization Service to report

instances of illegal labor. . . .

So that not having been accepted, I would ask that be accepted. It is at the desk. I ask it be agreed to prior to adoption of this resolution.

I would object and would note I do have a different view on these issues. With regard to the impact of S. 744, had it passed, it would have been adverse to farmworkers who are in this country working hard, need pay raises, and need better job opportunities. I think these are important parts of Mr. Chavez's career. It seems to me that the Senator would be pleased to accept that, but I understand we have a disagreement. I express my respect for Senator Menendez and his leadership on the Foreign Relations Committee, but we disagree on this subject.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to commemorate and celebrate the life and contributions of Dr. Joab Langston Thomas of Tuscaloosa, AL, who served as chief executive officer of three of the country's well established public universities, including the University of Alabama, Pennsylvania State University, and North Carolina State University. We too often fail to appreciate the contributions our university leaders make to our State's and Nation's progress. We often think of these leaders as people unconnected to our States and constituents. But as I have known our university leaders in Alabama, such is not the case. They are men and women of stability, common sense, and management skills. Dr. Thomas was no exception.

Dr. Thomas was a native of the wonderful small Alabama town of Russellville. His integrity, work ethic, and native ability were outstanding, and he translated those qualities into three degrees in biological science from Harvard University, where he was a member of the Phi Beta Kappa and Sigma Xi academic honor societies. In 1961, he became a member of the biology faculty at the University of Alabama.

In 1981, Dr. Thomas became the president of the University of Alabama. Dr. Thomas is credited with tripling UA's research funding, leading a major fund-raising campaign, raising admission and curriculum standards, building economic development initiatives that saved local jobs and improving relations with the State legislature, resulting in increased State funding for the university. He also established a university-wide honors program and initiated the highly successful Presidential Scholars program to help recruit top students to University of Alabama.

In the words of University of Alabama's current chancellor, Robert Witt, ``From his days as a teaching fellow at Harvard to his tenure at the helm of three of America's premier public universities, Joab Thomas was at the forefront as a leader in higher education. His research focus and emphasis on excellence inspired all of us who were fortunate to follow in his footsteps.''

Dr. Thomas was an outstanding university president and was held in the highest esteem and affection by the many people he served so ably. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Dr. Thomas for his dedication and many contributions to public universities.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the passing of a great Alabamian, COL Ola Lee Mize, on March 12, 2014. Colonel Mize was a native of Marshall County and an American hero. He embodied the ideals of service and courage that make our State proud.

Colonel Mize was born on August 28, 1931, in Marshall County, and dropped out of high school after ninth grade to provide for his family. He was rejected for enlistment by the Army numerous times because he was blind in one eye and they claimed he was too small. Eventually he was accepted and joined the 82nd Airborne Division.

He is perhaps best remembered by his defense of Outpost Harry when it was attacked during the Korean war. Colonel Mize bravely protected injured comrades and held opposition forces at bay, valiantly risking his life for others. For this intrepid gallantry, Colonel Mize earned a Medal of Honor, which remains on display in the Guntersville Museum.

Colonel Mize went on to join the Special Forces and served 3\1/2\ tours in Vietnam with the Green Berets and then served as an Active- Duty advisor to National Guard Special Forces units. Throughout the course of his military career, he was awarded the Silver Star, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, and, of course, the Medal of Honor. Colonel Mize continued to be active in veterans' events and where he was known and honored by all. He retired in 1981 after 31 years of service.

Mary and I mourn his passing and send our condolences to his wife Betty, his daughter Teresa Peterson, and his six brothers and sisters. Alabama has lost a true hero and his legend will grow. I was honored to get to know him. He was a remarkable man whose courage on the battlefield extended to a determination to do the right thing in all aspects of life.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the passing of a great Alabamian, John Richard Miller, Jr., who died on January 26, 1024. Mr. Miller was a native and longtime resident of Brewton, AL.

After graduating from Culver Military Academy in Culver, IN, he attended the University of Alabama. Mr. Miller served as a pilot in the U.S. Army Air Corps, 8th Air Force, in the European Theatre of Operation during World War II, receiving the Air Medal, E.T.O. Medal, and a Presidential Citation, and was discharged with the rank of major.

After his military service, he returned to Brewton where, like his father and grandfather, was employed by T.R. Miller Mill Company where he held various positions including chairman of the board from 1986 to 2009, and chairman emeritus until his death. He also served on many other boards and was a founding member of the Bank of Mobile. He was the third generation patriarch of this family and its businesses. He was also very committed to

his churches, the First United Methodist Church in Brewton and in Destin.

Mr. Miller was a lifelong member of the Brewton Rotary Club, served on the Brewton City School Board, the president's cabinet and the business school's Board of Visitors at the University of Alabama, and was awarded an honorary doctorate degree by the University of Alabama. He also received an honorary doctorate degree from Mobile College, now the University of Mobile. He was inducted into the Alabama Business Hall of Fame, like his father before him, at the University of Alabama.

Mr. Miller was a great outdoorsman and excellent wing shot but also loved his fishing--particularly fishing Shipp Pond, Apalachicola Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico with family and friends.

Mr. Miller will always be remembered for his great humility, generosity, and love of his fellow man. He leaves behind his wife of 70 years, Virginia Earl Kersh Miller, and their four children, Nancy Miller Melton, John Richard Miller, III, David Earl Miller, and Jean Miller Stimpson, as well as many other family members and friends. They have been given a great legacy indeed.

Madam President.

Madam President, what has happened in Ukraine is a real disaster. It should never have happened. It is so bad, and it reflects a weakness in American foreign policy which goes deep. The American people understand that. I think the whole world is baffled at the lack of clarity in American foreign policy. I would say, if John McCain had been elected President and were President today, we would have never had this invasion by the Soviet Russians into Ukraine and Crimea.

This is a big problem. It is not going away. It is a very deep and serious problem.

The fundamental thing we can do today--and we should do today--is move forward with what the United States can contribute to this situation, which is to pass the $1 billion loan fund. The European Union is doing their $15 billion through the IMF. Why don't we do that? Why don't we do that?

The reason is, this leadership is determined to push forward a policy change in the International Monetary Fund which has been up here before the Congress since 2010 and has not been passed and does not have to be passed today. They have insisted on that.

They have placed Ukraine in second place through their reforms which they have been pushing for with the IMF, and there are serious problems with that. It gives Russia more clout, among other things; not a lot, but it gives them more clout in the International Monetary Fund. And it costs money and violates the budget.

I am the ranking member on the Budget Committee. It is subject to a budget point of order. There is no doubt about that. Anybody can suggest otherwise if they want to, but it violates the budget, and we ought not to be doing this in violation of the budget. We don't have to.

But this administration negotiated with Senator McCain and Senator Corker and the Democratic leadership in the Senate and they agreed this would be the policy. Not what the House passed. But they would add more to it, they would reform the IMF, and then we are all just supposed to accept it.

I told the Senator from Tennessee--a very fine Senator--I am ranking member on the Budget Committee. He knows that. We have worked together to try to adhere to the spending limits Congress has imposed on ourselves. We just voted on this. Ten weeks ago the President signed this reform which raised the spending but limited it, and they want to spend more in a way which is not legitimate. So I am baffled.

Why in the world would we not take advantage of the--yes, what the House has sent to us, pass this legislation, and allow us to make our individual contribution of $1 billion? And, by the way, we are scoring it at about $350 million because it is unlikely we will be fully paid back.

So why don't we do that? Is it pride? Is it pique? Is it politics? I can't imagine. So you don't get everything you want, colleagues. Take what you can get. It is really the only thing which amounts to anything now. The IMF has put up $15 billion. They don't need this reform to do their loan, their aid to Ukraine. They don't need this legislation for that. Why is it so important?

Senator Durbin said: Well, why can't we debate this another day. Right. Why can't we debate the IMF another day? But if his bill were to pass, the debate is over; the law the President wants to pass would pass, without congressional involvement in it.

Members of Congress have been dealing with these issues for a long time. It is a serious question. It does not need to be here today on this legislation. It just does not.

I have warned our colleagues that we do not need to be passing legislation which is not paid for in this fashion, and I would object to it. They had time here to fix it, but no attempt was made to fix it.

It is a little disturbing to me to see our colleagues, who have themselves decided what the best solution is, come to the floor and attack those of us who have a good-faith objection to it, when we are perfectly prepared to support the fundamental thing which needs to be done--and that is the $1 billion loan package the United States has agreed to fund, the House has agreed to support, I support, virtually every Member of Congress supports. But not this big reform package of IMF which is not justified.

I feel deeply this is a big mistake. Why in the world we wouldn't act today and take yes for an answer, I can't imagine. It goes beyond what I think is realistic.

I would conclude by saying again, something is very wrong with the foreign policy of the United States of America. Whether we reform the IMF is not going to send a message to Russia. The idea that somehow we are going to affect them by exactly what has passed here today I believe is incorrect. I believe fundamentally this package is what we can do, what we should do, and we should do it today. Then we should come back and be prepared to impose serious sanctions or whatever the President asks for.

Finally, I am disappointed the President of the United States is not more consultative with Congress in order to determine what legislation we need to pass and would continue to insist on passing reform legislation of the International Monetary Fund, which, in all likelihood, will be rejected by the House.

I feel as though we are through the looking glass here. I hate that tensions are so high. But if we would take yes for an answer, pass this House bill, come back and have a full evaluation of reform of IMF, and pass sanctions as we go forward, that would be the right thing for us to do.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Texas for his comments and for his eloquence. I believe he has touched on the right issues.

I would just add one thing. I was in Ukraine about 3 years ago; a delegation was there. We met with State Department people. We met with Tymoshenko, the fabulous leader of the Orange Revolution. She had those beautiful braids in her hair like peasants in the Ukraine wear, and she was concerned that she would be put in jail. I just couldn't believe it. The Ambassador told us she hadn't committed any crime, but she was placed in jail and served 2\1/2\ years. They have released her now. She was in a wheelchair, and you could tell she suffered from that.

I truly believe the people of Ukraine did a fabulous, wonderful thing when they stood for their country, for democracy. We need to stand with them. I stand with them just as I stood with and defended the people of Georgia when the Russians invaded Abkhazia and Ossetia.

I want to say unequivocally, bipartisanly, that this Congress--House and Senate--stands firmly with the people of the Ukraine. We want to help them. The one thing substantively we can do today that would make a difference for the people of Ukraine is to pass this bill that provides $1 billion in help to them. I truly believe we should do that. I am deeply disappointed that the majority insists that unless they get their reform of the International Monetary Fund that they want to see happen, which is unrelated directly to the needs of Ukraine, that they won't accept the legislation the House has already passed. I think that would be a mistake.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Madam President, as we wrestle with the Ukraine situation, I hope we can--I wish we could have gotten together to be able to pass the core responsibility of this Congress, which would be to allow the loan program to go through--a $1 billion loan program that I think everybody in the House and the Senate agrees on, Republicans and Democrats. It was, in fact, complicated and made impossible tonight because the majority insisted that IMF reform, which is opposed and is unrelated to the Ukraine, be a part of this legislation. The House has not passed it. I don't think the House will pass it. So why were they insisting on that and refusing to take the money we were able to give tonight? It is just baffling to me.

I appreciate Senator Menendez. He has shown real leadership and insight into international relations. He chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. I don't mean to attack his integrity or anything of that nature, but he is incorrect in saying this bill is paid for or doesn't violate the budget. It absolutely violates the budget. The Congressional Budget Office has analyzed the numbers, and they have concluded just what my Budget Committee staff has concluded, which is that it violates the budget. The numbers are plain.

Look, a lot of things around here are not perfect, but the idea that we would insist on passing International Monetary Fund reform that does not have to be a part of this bill and is not related to this situation, is going to cost $315 million to fund that program, that reform, which is very controversial, and half of the money explicitly comes from the Defense Department--Air Force missiles and Army procurement and aviation--at a time when the Russian army is occupying the Crimea in the Ukraine, we want to now cut the Defense Department and the Army of the United States even more.

The Budget Control Act has really tightened the military's defense budget. They are doing all they can do to meet that budget. I have tried to support the budget. I believe all of us need to tighten our belts. But I will just say this: We don't need to take more money out of the Defense Department budget at a time when we are already asking them to take unprecedented reductions. I feel strongly about that. It is disturbing to me that we have not reached that agreement.

In fact, what has happened is the Defense Department was forced to make some tough decisions, so they rescinded some of the money they had, and they intended to use it on other priorities, things they need to spend the money on. They made tough choices. What has Congress come in here now to do? Reach in there and take the money the Defense Department was trying to save so they can move it to something of high priority and spend it on this program. There is $4 trillion in U.S. Government spending. We can't find some other place to find this money? Aren't there legitimate offsets that don't violate the budget?

For the most part, all of these offsets for both programs are not legitimate. They are basically gimmes. We need to get away from that. We need honesty in budgeting. We really do need it. When we have a priority we want to act on, such as this Ukraine situation, there are plenty of opportunities for us to identify lesser priority spending and take that money and spend it. That is what the Defense Department was doing when they executed rescissions. They were making choices, setting priorities.

We should not do this. It is not a little bitty matter. Frankly, the House needs to be more careful about how they do their business. The bill they sent over here has problems with it. But to take another whack at a controversial program--$315 million--and take half the money from the military is really unacceptable.

I warned people about this in advance, but they persisted. They thought they could get to the last minute and they would stand here on the floor and emotionally argue that our objection had something to do with not caring about or being supportive of the people of the Ukraine, that we would just fold and give it to them. Well, that day is becoming a day of the past.

Somebody needs to stand here and say we are going to do these things right or we are going to have real problems on the floor of the Senate. If I have to do it, I will do it.

I am proud of the Senator from Wyoming, who sought to pass the House bill. We just have to accept it. That is something we could do and get it done tonight, and I would be willing to support that. I certainly want to help the Ukraine, and we can do it and do it in the right way.

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak tonight. I know we all love the country, and we are going to have to wrestle now with serious questions about Russia--what their agenda is, what kind of actions they may be taking. There needs to be no doubt that this Senator has no intention of standing idly by while Russia attempts to take over independent, sovereign nations on its border. It is absolutely unacceptable. We cannot accept it. It should not have happened. I believe if this President had been more firm and clear in his policies, it likely would not have happened, but it has.

The whole world now has to confront this crisis and deal with it. It is not going to be easy. I think all of us need to work hard to put our politics aside on this question and try to do what is in the national interests.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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

It has been reported that a number of our colleagues in the Democratic majority in the Senate intend to speak on the Senate floor tonight on the question of climate change. Sometimes they will say ``global warming,'' and I guess that is ceasing to be the No. 1 phrase now.

An article in the USA Today said this ``effort is cause for some confusion because these Senators are calling for action in a chamber they control but without any specific legislation to offer up for a vote.''

No legislation--this is, indeed, confusing. Why wouldn't the majority leader bring a bill to the floor of the Senate to expressly approve President Obama's climate agenda or to approve his rigorous regulations that constrict Americans with it.

Why not? The answer is it wouldn't pass. The American people do not support this and neither does Congress. A lot of his Democratic colleagues, I would suggest, don't want to vote on it. It raises a lot of questions about what the deal is and what we need to do as a Nation to handle pollution, carbon dioxide, climate change, and how we need to deal with it and how we should think about it. There was an article in today's Washington Times by Mr. William C. Triplett II that points out the following:

In mid-February, billionaire and major Democratic National

Committee donor Tom Steyer held a dinner at his palatial San

Francisco home for 70 of his closest friends. Former Vice

President Al Gore was the headliner, and in attendance were

Democratic Senators Harry Reid. . .

The Democratic Senate leader and four other Senators were present.

He has pledged to give $50 million to a campaign to defeat, mainly, Republicans because they don't agree with his global warming agenda.

Mr. Triplett says:

What has everyone's attention is this number: $100 million.

Mr. Steyer has announced that he intends to put $50 million

of his own money into Democrats' races in 2014 and has

challenged his fellow deep-pocket liberals to match it with

an additional $50 million of their own. His issue is

``climate change.''

We have to talk after this conference. We will have a lot of talk tonight about this question.

With regard to Congress, I will try to be as brief as I can. In 1970 Congress passed the Clean Air Act before global warming had ever been discussed. In fact, there was some discussion of global cooling in 1970. It passed.

Carbon dioxide is an odorless, tasteless gas that plants take in and breathe out oxygen; and people breathe in oxygen again and let out carbon dioxide. It is a naturally forming, odorless, tasteless, nonharmful gas.

It was contended that this gas was causing global warming. It made some sense to me. CO2 apparently is some sort of a global warming gas and creates a blanket effect and could increase the temperatures. Who knows--that was the argument and it seemed to make some sense.

However, John Dingell, a Democrat from Michigan who was there at the time of the Clean Air Act and was one of its authors said: ``I think the Supreme Court came up with a very much erroneous decision on whether the Clean Air Act covers greenhouse gases . . . ''

So what happened was the Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 vote--after it was contended through the International Panel on Climate Change that CO2 could be causing climate change--ruled this was a pollutant, as are particulates like NOX and SOX-- sulfur dioxide, and, therefore, under the 1970 law, which never mentioned CO2, the Environmental Protection Agency was required to regulate it. That gave these unelected bureaucrats--people in that agency--the power to regulate an individual American's barbecue grill, their lawnmower, and every major business in America the amount of CO2 they emit from their businesses and their plants. It is a remarkable development from a pure constitutional question. If the issue were brought up today it would not pass. There are not sufficient votes, apparently, to overturn it, but there would never have been enough votes to pass legislation to do what the Supreme Court said.

We are not looking at cost and benefits when we deal with this issue. We are talking about billions of dollars in cost and what kinds of benefits we get for that. Even if we were to reduce our CO2 emissions in the United States by 80 percent by the year 2050, in line with what the President says our goal should be, there would be virtually no reductions in predicted global temperatures if you take the models the experts utilize, even 90 years from today around the year 2100.

So it is not improper for us to raise questions about this, and as to how much power we should be giving to the Environmental Protection Agency, and how much cost can be pushed down onto the American people to pay for this agenda when there are some interesting facts that keep coming out.

In January of 2014, in the Scientific American magazine, which has been a staunch supporter of global warming legislation, it contained an article entitled ``The Long Slow Rise of Solar and Wind,'' which explains some of the reasons for the ``slow pace of energy transition.'' The article explains, ``each widespread transition from one dominant fuel to another has taken 50 to 60 years,'' and ``there is no technical or financial reason to believe [renewables] will rise any quicker.''

It just takes time to transition. Even if we can make this happen, we can't make it as fast as a lot of people would like it to see it. The article says:

From 1990 to 2012 the world's energy from fossil fuels

barely changed, down from 88 percent to 87 percent.

So we remained on the same path, even though we have been working on this for many years. The article concludes that ``energy transitions take a long time.'' They just do.

Then we have the problem of exaggeration to the point where exaggeration is really not a fair word to describe it, in my opinion. It becomes more than an exaggeration but a deliberate misrepresentation.

On November 14, 2012, President Obama said, ``The temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago.'' Increasing faster than even 10 years ago it was predicted to increase. So I wrote former EPA director, Administrator Lisa Jackson, in December of 2012 asking her to provide the best available data that EPA had and that they would rely upon to support the President's statement. I asked her to send us the data to support that claim.

A few months later, in February of 2013, Gina McCarthy, then Assistant Administrator of the EPA, wrote me a response but she did not provide any of the requested data relating to the average global temperature and the so-called increases.

Then in April, 3 months later, after she was nominated to be head of EPA, I asked Ms. McCarthy again and she said she would provide additional followup information to support the President's statement that global temperatures are increasing faster than what was predicted. On April 30 she responded in writing to me--I am on the EPW Committee-- but not with any requested analysis or the chart I asked for that would show official predictions versus actual global temperatures. She simply stated:

EPA has not produced its own analysis, but we expect a

definitive comparison in the forthcoming [IPCC] Fifth

Assessment Report.

Then on May 29, 2013, President Obama did it again. He claimed:

[We] also know that the climate is warming faster than

anybody anticipated 5 or 10 years ago . . .

This is the President. I challenged the statement at the committee before his top environmental official, Administrator McCarthy. She could not produce any information to back this up. And he repeats it again. This is very disturbing to me.

So on June 24, 2013, I was joined by all EPW Republicans in a letter to Ms. McCarthy to ask that she provide data supporting the President's claims, but she didn't provide any data.

Why? There is no such data. The climate is not warming faster than was predicted by the experts several or even 5 to 10 years ago. Nothing close. Let us look at this chart. On this chart the red line is a projection compiled of 102 predictive computer models. These models are used by experts at various universities and think tanks around the globe in trying predict what is going to happen. They believe with CO2 and other global warming gases the temperatures will increase and we have to take extraordinary steps, they say, to avoid this because it can be damaging to us.

This is what the average of those models predicted, going up substantially from almost a degree by 2020. That is 1 degree, in 20- some-odd years. That is noticeable. That is an impact, if it were to happen.

However, these two lines are actual temperature measurements starting in 1980 and through the current date, right here. And the temperatures haven't gone up. It has been an extraordinary thing. The computer models have been wrong virtually every year and experts are admitting, even the IPCC admits this is a problem for them. They do not know why the temperature hasn't been increasing. CO2 has been going up. Why isn't the temperature increasing, such as they predicted?

Yet the President continues to say the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago. It is hardly increasing at all in the last 17 years.

So we have to have some truth, and I hope, if our colleagues talk about this issue, they will ask EPA Administrator McCarthy what information she has that would justify such a statement. And I hope they do not make that same statement. Actually, I said to her it would be nice if she would tell the President to quit saying it. I will say he hasn't said it since last year.

Again, the facts, as I show them here, show a flat temperature. And those facts are pretty much undisputed.

Now we have all these allegations that say: Well, extreme weather. The problems from CO2 and greenhouse gases are causing extreme weather. We all heard that when Hurricane Sandy hit the northeast. We don't normally have one in the northeast, but it hit the northeast, and it was fairly strong. It was not an exceedingly powerful hurricane, but it did a lot of damage for people who have been living on the water and weren't prepared for it. It did a lot of damage.

Al Gore, former Vice President, recently asserted ``all weather events are now affected by global warming pollution.'' Senator Barbara Boxer, chairman of our committee--the EPW Committee--said Superstorm Sandy is ``evidence of climate change mounting around us.''

In January of this year, before the Senate EPW Committee, the administration's top wildlife official Dan Ashe declared there were ``more frequent and severe storms, flooding, droughts and wildfires.'' This is the top person in the wildlife department. He said we have ``more frequent and severe storms, flooding, droughts and wildfires.'' And he, therefore, supported President Obama's climate action plan. So I wrote him and asked him to provide any data he had personally evaluated that would support his claim. He testified before a U.S. Senate committee. I asked him if he had any data to back it up. And, of course, he didn't.

Dr. Holdren, the top science adviser in the country, also declared the President will talk about ``the connection between the increasing frequency and intensity of droughts and climate change when he speaks tomorrow. He has actually repeatedly talked about the connection between climate change and extreme weather.''

Well, what do we know about that? We have had experts before our committee to discuss that very subject. Dr. Roger Pielke, who is a climate impacts expert, agrees with the view that global warming is partly caused by human emissions. He testified in the EPW Committee last year. He talked to us. He talked about this very issue--extreme weather--and here is what he said:

It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that

disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or

droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the

United States or globally.

He said it is not true. It is misleading. It is false. Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville also testified before our committee last year saying:

There is little or no observational evidence that severe

weather of any type has worsened over the last 30, 50 or 100

years.

The American Enterprise Institute looked at the data on this question and this is what they found:

In brief, tornado, hurricane and cyclone activity are at

historically low levels, wildfires are in a long-term decline

except in government forests, there is no trend in sea-levels

related to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, the

record of the Arctic ice cover is ambiguous, there is no

drought trend since 1895, and the same is true for flooding

over the past 85 to 127 years.

When I asked Dr. Holdren--the President's science adviser--about this, he responded: ``The first few people you quoted are not representative of the mainstream scientific opinion on this point.''

That was a baseless accusation, as he had no data to dispute their information. Hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, and floods are measured every year. We have objective data.

Dr. Pielke went back and examined the hurricanes--with category 5 being the strongest, down to 1 being the least--and categorized them 50-plus years, and we are not having more or bigger hurricanes, we are not having more floods, we are not having more tornadoes. We had an outbreak of very severe tornadoes a few years ago in Alabama, but the data would indicate clearly that nationwide we are not having more. We have always had tornadoes, and this one did a lot of damage and got a lot of coverage, but it was not a trend. I was sort of surprised to see this idea.

There are a lot of things I think we can do which would move us in the right direction where we could have compromise, and maybe nuclear energy would be one which we have support on both sides of the aisle for and would be good for the environment and good for energy and keep costs at a reasonable level without any pollution. So there are a lot of things we can do.

As we discuss the hundreds of billions of dollars in costs which are being imposed on our economy as a result of some of the ideas to deal with climate change and extreme weather, I asked my colleagues: Would you please check the data; is it truly so that we are having more hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, or floods? Dr. Pielke says no. Let's see somebody dispute those numbers. They haven't been disputed.

Is it true the temperature is increasing faster than was predicted even 5 years or 10 years ago? The IPCC data doesn't show it and neither does any other objective data. So I asked the EPA Administrator to submit some data to show me if that is true: Do you have any? If so, won't you ask the President to quit saying that? Shouldn't the President lead us and tell the truth about the situation?

I don't suppose we know enough now to answer this question conclusively either way, but I would say there has been a lot of exaggeration and a lot of hype. The American people are feeling the crunch already in their electric and gasoline bills, and manufacturing costs are going up as a result of these efforts to stop storms, which seem to be down, to stop a rise in temperature which doesn't seem to be rising right now. We will have to evaluate overall what the right thing to do is as a nation, but I think it is time for us to be a bit more cautious, to be less alarmist, and to focus more on the science of the situation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, first, I commend the Senator from Hawaii for her work and her concern over the Philippines. That country has suffered dramatically from this typhoon. Having lived on the gulf coast and walked in the places where 18 feet of water from Hurricane Katrina flooded us, washed away whole structures, I can imagine what it was like to have lost 6,000 lives. And the country is hurting. It is a great country with great people. They are excellent allies of the United States. I am very sympathetic to their needs and appreciative of the Senator's efforts in seeking this way to further contributions for their relief.

The legislation has an emergency declaration in it. That requires going through the Budget Committee and requires other findings that I am not sure are available here. I think the legislation could be perhaps drafted slightly differently, I say to the Senator, that would avoid the emergency designation part, and maybe we could reach an accord to get this done quickly, as I know the Senator wants to move on it as soon as possible.

So, Madam President, I at this time say I will object. But our staffs will immediately begin to discuss if we can put this in a little slightly different way that would accomplish the Senator's goals without offending some of the budget niceties. Being the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, I feel very, very strongly that when we make agreements about how we are going to spend money and how it should be processed, the more we erode those agreements and the more we spend above the amount of money we agreed to spend or get around the spending limits we ourselves passed into law, the more we place at risk the financial future of the country.

This is not the most costly measure. It is a step that would help the people in the Philippines, I know. But with that explanation, I object.

Madam President, I thank the Senator, and I respect so much her effort in this cause and will do what we can to be cooperative.

Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to listen to Senator McCain. I think facts have proven him right for many over many years of warning this country about how we have to conduct international relations in a realistic way.

I had the opportunity to be in Georgia and Ukraine about 3 years ago. In Georgia, we went to South Ossetia where the Russians had moved in, against European international law, and had set in. Last week or so, we were informed by the Prime Minister of Georgia they were building barbed wire fences along that border, digging in even deeper than they had before.

In Ukraine, we met with some of the democratic dissidents who were trying to hang on to democracy there. They had beaten Shevchenko, the fabulous lady who helped lead the Orange Revolution. She was worried about going to jail. I didn't think she would go to jail, but they put her in jail and kept her in jail for years on what EU and NATO officials have all said were bogus charges. They told us some of the democratic activists were somewhat depressed because Putin, with his intel background, was using the Russian intelligence services in Ukraine to buy up media and buy up television to propagandize the country. They were hurting, and they didn't know if they would be able to successfully resist. It was such a delight for me to see this basically nonviolent revolution in which the people stood up for their country. Now we see Mr. Putin did not accept the sovereignty, and he is going to try to utilize military force in a way which is stunning. I have to say, Crimea is far larger and more strategically significant than South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but it is the same actions.

I thank Senator McCain for his leadership.