Floor Statements

Madam President, as far as I am concerned, my distinguished friend from Ohio can still have the floor. I only wanted to take a moment to congratulate him on his remarks and to observe that when it comes to budget matters, he knows whereof he speaks. He not only has a distinguished record in the House of Representatives, but he is a leader in being a budget hawk and was an opponent of additional debt in the House of Representatives, and has had a distinguished career in the Office of Management and Budget. So I thank the distinguished Senator.

It may be that he has already asked for an opinion piece from today's Wall Street Journal to be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this time an opinion piece written by Kevin Hassett and Abby McCloskey on page 23 in today's Wall Street Journal entitled ``Obama Rewrites Debt-Limit History.''

I thank the Presiding Officer.

This article points out in a very detailed and annotated way a number of times when this Congress has made policy changes, important, far- reaching policy changes, in connection with negotiations on the debt ceiling increase.

So I join my friend from Ohio in saying it is absolutely incumbent on this Senate--Republicans and our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle--as well as Members of the House of Representatives and the President of the United States, our Commander in Chief, to, once again, negotiate in good faith.

The President may feel we are entirely unreasonable in our position. Frankly, there have been times during my 19 years in the House and now in the Senate when I felt the Chief Executive was completely wrong in his viewpoint on how we should address our national debt. But at no time in my recollection have the parties been simply unwilling to sit down and talk at all or to have meetings in the White House and in those meetings to basically say we are not going to make counterproposals or to say publicly: Why should I offer them anything at all? I think the American people see that is an unworkable approach.

So I point out to my colleagues, and I thank the Senator from Ohio in

pointing out that very important fiscal decisions, very important debt- related decisions have absolutely been made in our Nation's history, and I am glad they have been made in connection with this debate on the national debt.

I yield back to my friend from Ohio and thank him for allowing me to intrude on his time.

Madam President, the Senator from Ohio mentioned the Budget Control Act of 2011. It wasn't a particularly pretty way to do debt reduction, but it did give us the spending levels we are operating under now.

The authors of this opinion piece go on to point out that according to the Congressional Research Service--an independent arm of this government--Congress voted 53 times from 1978 to 2013 to change the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling has increased to about $16 trillion. In at least 53 votes, 29 occurred in a Congress run by Democrats, 17 in split Congresses, and 7 in Republican-controlled Congresses. It goes on to point out time and again how important policy changes were made in connection with this debate.

So I thank my friend for yielding.

The distinguished Senator from Ohio is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, the American people are alarmed, actually, at the level of debt this government has run up, particularly in the last 4\1/2\ to 5 years. It has been astounding. We cannot continue to add debt upon debt for the next generation, many of whom are within the sound of our voices and some of whom are employed as our pages. The Senator has already referred to them today. We owe them a government that grows our debt at a much slower rate.

We have done it before. When the distinguished Senator and I were in the House of Representatives, we were told we could not balance the budget within 10 years. Actually, with the leadership of my friend from Ohio, we passed legislation. We had the cooperation of the President of the United States who negotiated with us, and that divided government balanced the budget not within 10 years but within 3 or 4 years, and we fulfilled that until the terrorist attacks of 2001.

So, yes, the American people are concerned. I think we would be doing a disservice to them, simply to go along with a debt increase without addressing the underlying problems. As my friend from Ohio knows, the President of the United States himself in this budget has proposed very significant changes in the growth rate of certain of our entitlement programs, which would go a long way toward getting us to a bipartisan resolution on this issue.

The amendment I have introduced with Senator Landrieu addresses a number of issues that are important to America's forest products industry. In particular, the amendment specifies that the Department of Energy and the General Services Administration must allow the use of multiple green building rating systems. A voluntary standard endorsed by the Federal Government can wield immense influence over green building specifications in the Federal sector and broader commercial marketplace. DOE and GSA must support competition and allow the free market to produce the best energy-efficient buildings at the lowest costs.

The intention of section 406(3)(G) of our amendment is to direct GSA and DOE to adopt a policy that provides equitable treatment to all domestic sources of sustainable wood. It is simply unacceptable for the Federal Government to endorse a standard that discriminates against domestically sourced, sustainable U.S. wood.

Wood is an ideal green building material because it is renewable, stores carbon, and is energy efficient. According to objective criteria, the majority of the domestic wood products industry is sustainably managed and endorsed internationally. In addition, the forest products industry employs nearly 1 million men and women in well-paying jobs, including more than 123,000 in my home State of Mississippi. There is no reason to shut out the wood products being produced in our own backyard in favor of imported substitutes. Our intention is to provide an equal playing field that keeps Mississippi wood--as well as wood from other states--a vital component of federal green building policy.

I thank the Senator. We believe this amendment is a step forward to ensure GSA and DOE's green building policies support domestically sourced wood. I look forward to working with the Senator and committee leadership as this legislation moves forward.

Would the distinguished majority leader yield for 30 seconds?

I would ask the majority leader, in an hour or so Democrats are going to have lunch with Democrats, and Republicans are going to go to another room and have lunch with Republicans and talk to each other about what the other side is doing. This is such a serious matter. It may be the wise thing to do. I totally disagree. But I think the majority leader will agree that this is a watershed moment.

Could it be that early next week, just once we could all meet together, perhaps in the Old Senate Chamber--every Democrat and every Republican--for a caucus where actually Republicans listen to Democrats as to what they perceive as the grievances and rank-and-file Democrats listen to our side?

People are off in classified briefings right now. People are in committee meetings. People are doing the work of the Senate whether the public realizes it or not.

We are not listening to each other as rank-and-file Members. I would implore the leadership of this body, next Tuesday let's clear the Old Senate Chamber and get every Republican and every Democrat who wants to be there and actually quit talking past each other and see if there is a way for us to avoid this pivotal watershed moment in the history of the Senate.

Just to understand, is that a yes on trying to get us together, as Republicans and Democrats, as early as lunch Tuesday to see if there is some way we can talk about this?

Would the distinguished leader yield on simply one further matter?

Did the majority leader understand, as I did, Leader McConnell saying just a few moments ago that the Secretary of Labor nominee is likely to go forward very soon?

And that the EPA Administrator is likely to go forward almost immediately? So we really are down to the three positions where there has been a U.S. appeals court decision, which arguably could be viewed as an extraordinary circumstance.

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

Mr. President, last week I led a bicameral delegation that visited the Syrian border with Turkey. What we witnessed on the ground highlighted the critical nature of events and the desperate need for American leadership and eventually a negotiated resolution to the Syrian civil war.

This civil war is now in its 29th month. More than 100,000 people have been killed, including at least 36,000 civilians, and 1.7 million people have been forced from their homes, fleeing for their lives as the chaos escalates. To describe this conflict as anything less than a regional disaster is to ignore the magnitude of its impact.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the violence has pushed over 400,000 refugees to Turkey, almost 500,000 refugees to Jordan, 160,000 to Iraq, 587,000 to Lebanon, and 88,000 refugees to Egypt--a stunning development. The people of Turkey and Jordan, including Prime Minister Erdogan and King Abdallah, should be specifically applauded for their generous support of these refugees.

I also point out there are now secure locations inside Syria where refugees can be housed within their own country.

There is noted international support to prevent the spillover of violence. At the request of the Turkish Government and in fulfillment of our NATO obligations, the U.S. Patriot missile batteries at Gaziantep are one example of efforts to deter the threat of ballistic missiles beyond the Syrian border. Additionally, the Dutch and Germans have deployed batteries to Turkey.

American troops are working diligently to strengthen our regional security and protect innocent lives in harm's way. Our delegation was able to meet and visit with troops in Gaziantep last week. These highly educated and motivated men and women are proudly serving American interests, and I commend them for their dedication to a critical mission.

Turkey must have the support it needs to defend its population and territory from the raging civil war next door. Without robust cooperation among NATO allies, the stability of this entire region is at risk.

During our visit to a refugee camp in the town of Killis near the Syrian-Turkish border, roughly 40 miles from Gaziantep, we saw firsthand the dire situation facing the countries that have accepted Syrian refugees and the challenges these individuals now face. At the refugee camp, our delegation met with a women's group, children in school, and with the elected camp council. Our conversations were insightful--and heartbreaking. Over and over, the same question emerged: Why aren't the Americans helping to bring down Asad? Why are the nations of the world allowing the slaughter of innocent people to continue? Is there no outrage over the displacement of more than 1.5 million people from their homes?

Frankly, these questions are very difficult to answer.

So far, the Obama administration has been reluctant to help in contrast to the aggressive military and humanitarian aid provided by some of our NATO allies such as Britain, France, and Turkey. I wish to emphasize: No one is asking for American boots on the ground. No one is asking President Obama to put troops in Syria. America is understandably war-weary from Iraq and Afghanistan, but our hesitation to provide adequate arms to the anti-Asad rebels is hard to justify, especially when multiple red lines have been crossed.

Those who share President Obama's reluctance to assist opposition forces point to the uncertainty surrounding those who might assume control of Syria if the rebels win. They ask: Which faction will emerge? The more moderate rebels under the Free Syrian Army or a radical Islamist band of opposition rebels?

While caution is definitely called for in this dangerous and volatile situation, our reluctance to act reminds me of Shakespeare's Hamlet who once observed that men ``rather bear those ills we have, than fly to others that we know not of.''

I would remind Members--and the administration--that Hamlet's hand wringing and indecision ultimately led to his demise. In bowing to a fear of uncertainty and choosing disengagement, the implication is essentially that the world is somehow better off with a known quantity--even a known quantity in the person of Bashar al-Asad. I disagree.

Here are a few facts about the ``ills'' we know regarding the Syrian dictator known as Bashar al-Asad:

No. 1, Asad is supported by the extreme Islamist regime in Iran, with a supply of Iranian Revolutionary Guards to embolden his rampage.

No. 2, his grip on power has been serviced by Syria's client-state relationship with Russia, which continues to defend its military aid to him. President Vladimir Putin refused to join other nations at last month's G8 Summit in explicitly calling for an end to the Asad regime.

No. 3, Asad has tolerated--if not overseen--the killing of at least 36,000 civilians in his own country, and this is according to numbers from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. More than 3,000 of these have been women and more than 5,000 were under the age of 16.

No. 4, under Bashar al-Asad's rule, the number of refugees has topped 1.7 million, with thousands more seeking safety every day.

No. 5, Bashar al-Asad has targeted the villages of his enemies in a merciless attempt to eradicate any who oppose him.

No. 6, following in his father's ruthless footsteps, he has shown that he is willing to use every tool at his disposal to hang on to power, and that includes the use of chemical weapons, a development President Obama once called a red line, as well as rocket attacks on his own people.

No. 7, we have every reason to conclude that Bashar al-Asad is a calculating strategist and student of history who has learned from what he views as the mistakes of Iraq's Saddam Hussein or Libya's Muammar Qadhafi.

With Russian and Iranian assistance and arms, Asad has succeeded in stopping the momentum of the rebels. But with sufficient military support, the pendulum can, in fact, swing back toward the rebels.

I strongly disagree with those who suggest that the opposition rebels could somehow turn out to be worse than the nightmare that has unfolded.

Increasing America's assistance to Syrian rebels, short of boots on the ground, must be decisive and strategic in order to be effective. That does not mean we send arms freely to all rebels. I challenge the notion that in sending military aid, we forfeit the authority to choose which rebel leaders to support. I would also point out to Members that both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that within the administration, they argued in favor of arming the rebels.

General Salim Idris, chief of staff of the U.S.-backed Supreme Military Council, has emerged as anything but a

radical Islamist in presiding over the armed opposition and serving as a conduit for military aid. A New York Times profile described him as ``soft-spoken and humble compared with many military men.'' He defected from the Syrian military after an attack on his village last year--the same village where he and his eight siblings were raised by a grain farmer.

In a recent letter to the United Nations Security Council, General Idris's pleas for the Syrian people were clear and simple: ``Syria should not be allowed to become the Rwanda of the 21st century.''

As I emphasized when speaking with Syrian refugees at the camp in Killis, a negotiated settlement will ultimately require reconciliation by representatives of all factions of the Syrian society--Alawites, Sunni, Shia, and Christians. They must be prepared to negotiate with and eventually forgive their fellow Syrians who have made war against them. But I do not believe that can happen as long as Asad and his Russian and Iranian backers see the momentum going their way. Russia will never agree to back a meaningful peace negotiation if the Russian leadership thinks Asad can win outright. A leading-from-behind strategy will not expedite the overthrow of the Asad regime. There is still an urgent need for American leadership.

There is no peaceful future for the Syrian people if Asad remains in power--only one of more violence, oppression, and regional instability. Should he prevail, the impact could have drastic implications on America's national security interests, including the prospect of increased sectarian violence in the region, the rise of al-Qaida- affiliated groups in Syria, and the expansion of Iran's extremist influence. The United States must not shy away from our potential to make a meaningful difference.

Our Nation led an international coalition to act in Bosnia and Kosovo, and we did so with success. We did not do so, regrettably, in Rwanda--a mistake President Clinton has called his greatest regret.

I do not suggest that one visit to a refugee camp is by any means a comprehensive assessment of U.S. foreign policy in Syria. Military assistance would be fraught with difficulties, and it produces a host of conflicting viewpoints among people for whom I have great respect. But my visit to the refugee camps does have a profound effect, and my observations of what is happening on the ground certainly bring home the enormity of human suffering and devastation this conflict has caused.

Most of those unfairly caught in the crossfire just want to get on with their lives and protect their families. Instead, they have been forced from their homes and from their livelihoods--their entire way of life ripped apart by the bloodshed that no human should endure.

I invite the American press to visit Gaziantep and the refugee camps nearby. The American people are entitled to know what is happening to 1.7 million people. After more than 100,000 deaths, with so many people left without a home, we should not stand by as the horrors continue to mount. The administration's hesitation leaves the fate of Syria's war- torn people to a regime willing to kill and destroy to stay in power.

In summary, we know too much about Bashar al-Asad to maintain the status quo. Backed by Russia and Iran, he has overseen the massacre of innocent lives, boldly crossed red lines, and violently suppressed any who challenged him. To suggest we cannot do any better--that Asad is somehow more acceptable than the opposition forces--falls short of taking an honest, realistic look at what is happening.

The question now is not whether America puts boots on the ground. We should not and will not do that. The question is whether the administration will strengthen the capabilities of Asad's adversaries. The question is whether the administration will trade its reluctance for resolve and--like that of our NATO allies--respond with robust military aid. So far, efforts in Geneva have failed to bring about a consensus among major world powers that outlines a lasting political transition. Without changing the momentum back to the rebels, the current situation will not change, and the threat to regional stability and to American interests will continue.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I was scheduled to come in at 2 o'clock. I appreciate the leader accommodating me 5 minutes early. There is talk about an imminent compromise among the Gang of 8 and perhaps a couple of others that would move this bill along. I have made it clear that the bill, as currently written, is flawed and would not be something that would get my vote. So anything that would move us toward a better solution, toward better enforcement of the border, such as 20,000 additional security agents on the border, would be a positive step.

I do wish to make it clear, however, that the bill as written would not stem the tide of illegal immigration. The bill as written would not provide a solution to our broken immigration system. Without further amendment, my understanding of the new compromise that is about to come forward also would be deficient.

I appreciate people working toward a consensus. I look forward to reading the amendment as it is presented, if it is indeed presented later this afternoon or later this weekend. But there are still changes that need to be made so we can improve the bill. I would point out to my colleagues that a Congressional Budget Office report released the day before yesterday indicates that border security components of the immigration bill as written will not stem the tide of illegal immigration in a meaningful way, because large numbers of people are projected still to overstay their visas.

Should the legislation pass in that form, even the Congressional Budget Office, a bipartisan, independent call-it-by-the-numbers office, predicts that the reforms agreed to by the so-called Gang of 8 would reduce illegal immigration by only 25 percent, far short of what the bill's supporters have contended.

Dependable border security and interior security are crucial to the success of the entire immigration system. This means putting in place the proper infrastructure and technology, including a national E-Verify system for employers. I congratulate and commend and encourage the junior Senator from Ohio Mr. Portman for his efforts to move toward a consensus in that very important area of the bill too. These steps, securing the border and strengthening E-Verify, should proceed efforts to grant legal status. I think most Americans agree with that.

I have offered a number of amendments. I wish to take these few minutes to make my suggestions about how to improve this bill. But first and foremost, I wish to urge my colleagues, urge the leadership of the committee on both sides of the aisle and the leadership of this Senate to give this Senate an opportunity to speak on the issue of sanctuary cities.

Most people are aware that one of the great ways to flout the law, as it has been, has been for a local jurisdiction to say to people who have overstayed their visas, to people who have come here illegally or stayed here illegally: Come to our city and we will provide you sanctuary. Come to our city and we will ignore the law of the land and make sure we do our part that it is not enforced against you--so-called sanctuary cities.

As a Member of the other body, I voted for legislation and amendments to crack down on this.

If this bill works as it should work, then there should be no illegals in the country seeking sanctuary in a sanctuary city. My legislation to prohibit the practice of sanctuary cities, in my view, should be accepted by consensus. If the authors of this bill believe it is a solution to our broken immigration system, then there should be no need for a city to say we are going to take in people who are not here legally because, by definition under this bill, we will have said the system is fixed.

Under my amendment, these jurisdictions would be denied State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funds if they insist on continuing to be sanctuary cities. We would deny, under my amendment, law enforcement grants from the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice for the continuation of so-called sanctuary cities.

My amendment would also encourage information-sharing by law enforcement officials and stipulate that individuals who violate the immigration law should be included in the National Crime Information Center database. Why would that be the least bit controversial? It would also ensure States have access to Federal technology that is helpful in identifying immigrants

who are not here by permission and who are deported.

I would say to my colleagues, any bill that comes out of the House of Representatives will almost surely have a sanctuary cities provision. We need a vote on this Senate floor so our constituents back home and our individual States can know where we stand on this issue.

I would again emphasize if we believe the law will work, if we believe this new plan will fix the broken system, then there should be no need for any jurisdiction to call itself a sanctuary city.

Secondly, I have a separate amendment that would double penalty fees. It would double from $1,000 to $2,000 the fee illegal immigrants must pay at various steps of the process. We all know $1,000 amounts to far less than what is often paid to so-called coyotes who smuggle people across the border. Penalties are supposed to hold people accountable for breaking the law and not serve as merely an inconvenience.

I have a second amendment that would increase the penalty in the legislation from $1,000 to $2000.

I have a third amendment that would require the Secretary to adjust these statutory fees and penalties for inflation, index them for inflation. What could be simpler than that? A $1,000 penalty in 2013 might not amount to the same degree of penalty in 2015 or 2019. We index many of our amounts and figures under statute according to inflation. My third amendment would simply allow for annual inflation adjustment.

Fourthly, I have an amendment that would strike the ability of illegal immigrants to apply for provisional legal status if they have previously filed a frivolous application for asylum, one that has been determined by the authorities to be frivolous. By law those who have knowingly filed a frivolous application, for example, containing statements that are deliberately fabricated, or responses that are deliberately fabricated, should be permanently barred from receiving any benefit under the new act.

Another amendment I have would expedite removal proceedings of illegal immigrants with serious criminal offenses. What could be simpler and more straightforward than that. It would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to initiate expedited removal proceedings against those who are deemed ineligible for provisional legal status, for example, by law, because they would belong to a gang or they have committed an aggravated felony, committed an offense against a child or a domestic violence offense. It would seem to me this sort of an amendment should be the sort of amendment the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, was speaking about only a few moments ago that should be accepted by consensus through a voice vote.

Finally, I have an amendment to ensure that those found ineligible have their provisional legal status revoked. If an application is submitted and the duly constituted authorities under this new act determine the individual is not entitled to the relief requested, then provisional legal status should be revoked. For example, this would be if he or she is found to be ineligible, if he or she used fraudulent documentation or did not fulfill the continuous physical presence requirement of the bill, then that status is denied and the individual should then have conditional status revoked.

I conclude by saying I appreciate the good-faith effort that has been made by the leadership on both sides of the aisle, by the leadership of the committee, and by people acting ad hoc as a self-appointed group of 8 or group of 10. We need to make it clear that any agreement announced with great fanfare this afternoon, or perhaps this weekend, is not the end of it.

We have a lot of time left for excellent ideas to improve this bill, to bring it around to the point where people such as myself could vote for it, where people such as my constituents back home can feel that it is, in fact, a solution to a broken system, and we can forward this legislation on to the House of Representatives with a national consensus behind it.

No great changes have been made in the Congress to broad policy disagreements without bipartisan consensus. I hope that amendments such as the six I have described, particularly my amendment with regard to sanctuary cities, would be adopted so we can move toward a consensus that we do not have at this point.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to continue this debate on one of the great issues of our time, immigration, the bill that is before us. I thank the ranking member Mr. Grassley for allowing me to jump ahead of him in the

schedule. I have a markup in the Armed Services Committee, and I need to get back.

Let me say that in the next few weeks the Senate will have an opportunity to discuss, clearly and resolutely, America's broken immigration system. Part of that means seeking policy solutions that will not only make our country stronger for decades to come but make our country safer going forward. Partisan politics should not derail the pursuit of an honest and good-faith approach to solving national problems, problems such as our broken immigration system. Americans are right to demand better from their elected representatives, and there is merit in allowing this legislation to proceed in an open and transparent manner.

In doing so, we rightfully recognize that there is widespread and bipartisan consensus for lasting immigration reform. That consensus exists in this Chamber and it exists across the country. For that reason yesterday I voted in favor of cloture on this bill and in favor of the motion to proceed. So here we are, about to consider, I hope, amendments that would improve the bill.

We cannot ignore the reality that there are 11 million undocumented immigrants in America today. We cannot dismiss the economic implications of a failed immigration system. Disagreements are part of the legislative process, and we will have disagreements over the next several weeks on this issue. I do not expect our work on this issue to be seamless, I do not expect it to be easy, but robust debate has always been central to the Senate's function and purpose. We would do well to uphold that proud tradition now. Lasting and effective immigration reform requires a willingness to work on issues collaboratively and constructively--and in a bipartisan manner. An issue of this magnitude that touches on so many aspects of our society and economy cannot be done on a solely partisan basis. We must have a wide, large, bipartisan majority for anything that moves out of this body and down to the House.

I am a long-time supporter of reinforcing our borders, of increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and using surveillance technology to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing into our country. I support policies that come with enforcement and accountability, where those who have broken the law face consequences for their wrongdoing. I believe measures to strengthen employment verification are important to making sure American jobs are held by American citizens and by those who live and work in our country legally.

In my view the immigration bill, prepared by a bipartisan Group of 8 and supported by the Judiciary Committee, is a start but it is lacking in many ways, and I cannot support it in its current form. More should be done to ensure, first and foremost, that our borders are secure. Without this fundamental first step, true reform remains elusive and the problem of illegal immigration will persist.

As we proceed with this bill, I look forward to amendments that would implement a stronger border security strategy, interior security protections, and processes for honest employers to assess employee work rights. A responsible way forward must recognize past failures, and we have certainly seen that--past failures, for example, to secure the border and unfulfilled promises for better enforcement. We need to recognize those failures of the past. A comprehensive plan must include mechanisms to track those who unlawfully overstay their visas just as it seeks to remedy gaps in border security.

Over the course of the past few weeks, Mississippians have contacted my office and spoken to me directly regarding their concerns about whether the bill will offer amnesty; whether it will offer Federal benefits to illegal immigrants. Let me be clear that I will oppose legislation if it grants legal status without penalties or if it issues welfare benefits to individuals who have broken the law to live and work in this country. These individuals should not go to the front of the line, ahead of those who have patiently waited to become Americans.

We are a country of immigrants. Throughout American history people of all nations have recognized the promise of opportunity and freedom in the United States. Legal immigration has sustained and advanced our communities in a positive way. Whether our immigration system is going forward in a way that benefits our society depends on how we act in the coming weeks. I hope we can do so thoughtfully and meaningfully as we seek solutions to a flawed system.

This bill in its current form does not contain the reforms we need. Efforts to amend it should be seen as an opportunity to get a bipartisan consensus of Senators to a ``yes'' vote. They should not be seen as poison pills or as efforts to hurt the process. This bill serves as a vehicle for continued discussion about the future of U.S. immigration policy. We should welcome this debate, and I do welcome this debate. We should confront the challenges of our day in a way that is deliberative and principled.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is important for the United States to continue its efforts to promote a close relationship with Puerto Rico and its citizens. That includes supporting a fair and democratic process for Puerto Ricans on the perennial and controversial issue of statehood.

I commend Puerto Rico's new Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla on his work to tackle the current challenges facing the island, particularly on the economic front. Congress has long supported reciprocity between Puerto Rico and the United States, with very positive results. When the Puerto Rican economy flourishes, trade with the United States increases, helping promote job creation here at home.

I am disappointed the most recent budget proposal submitted to Congress by the White House recommends $2.5 million in fiscal year 2014 to conduct yet another referendum on Puerto Rico's political status. Allocating U.S. taxpayer dollars for this purpose is wasteful and unnecessary, since a plebiscite was just held in Puerto Rico last November on this very question.

The vote on Election Day specifically called for Puerto Ricans to express their views on the island's political status. Its backers sought to show that popular support exists for turning Puerto Rico into a State. But it is widely acknowledged that the ballot was not developed in a fair and inclusive manner. It instead presented statehood alternatives with a predetermined result in mind, to force Puerto Ricans toward an option they have rejected time and again, and to stack the deck in favor of statehood.

The first part of the ballot asked whether or not Puerto Rican voters wanted to continue their territorial status. The second portion then provided three different non-territorial alternatives: statehood, sovereign free associated state, or independence. Keeping the island's current Commonwealth status was not even listed as an option in the second round.

As expected, a slim majority--nearly 51.7 percent of the 1.9 million who voted--opted for changing the current status. However, in response to the second question, 834,191 voters chose statehood, 498,604 left the second question blank, 454,768 selected sovereign free associated state, and 74,895 favored independence. Any way you slice it, 1,028,267--or nearly 55 percent--of the Puerto Ricans who traveled to the polls voted for options other than statehood.

As Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, the first woman of Puerto Rican heritage elected to the United States House of Representatives, correctly pointed out: ``Casting a blank ballot is part of traditional form of objecting to an unfair process in Puerto Rican political history.'' In accordance with this tradition, the Commonwealth Party in Puerto Rico adopted a resolution calling on Puerto Rican voters to protest last November's plebiscite process by casting blank ballots.

When you include the nearly half a million voters who left the second question on the ballot blank, it is clear--despite the claims of some statehood proponents--that a majority of voters do not support statehood for Puerto Rico. In fact, more than 1 million, or nearly 55 percent, of Puerto Rican voters who participated in the plebiscite actually demonstrated support for something other than statehood.

A concurrent resolution was adopted last week by the legislature in Puerto Rico stating that the plebiscite on November 6, 2012, portrayed a false majority in favor of statehood and prevented an accurate vote on the option of Commonwealth status. I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the text of that resolution.

The Senate and The House of Representatives of Puerto Rico

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this resolution because Iran represents the single largest threat to freedom and peace in the Middle East. Our State Department classifies Iran as the most active state sponsor of terrorism, period.

A troubling news account from Reuters released just yesterday reveals a United Nations nuclear agency report due this week is ``expected to show Iran further increasing its capacity to produce material that . . . could eventually be put to developing atomic bombs.''

The clock is ticking. This is a moment to be resolute. The forceful words we just heard from the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and previously from the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona, demonstrate our firm bipartisan position on this matter. The world can ill afford the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. That is why it is incumbent on the Congress and the President to take every action necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring a weapon of mass destruction. All options must be on the table, as the resolution indicates, to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.

Israel is a nation under siege by terrorist organizations, many of which are being directly funded by the Iranian regime. The United States must not waiver in its support and obligation to our friends in Israel. I am pleased this resolution reaffirms our commitment to Israel, particularly in the event

Israel is forced to exercise its sovereign right to defend itself.

I urge my colleagues to take a firm stand against nuclear proliferation by voting for strengthened sanctions and for the adoption of this resolution.

I yield back whatever time I may have remaining.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ian Mulcahy, Emily Smail, and Donald Rausch, legislative fellows on my staff, be granted

the privilege of the floor during the remainder of this Congress.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to discuss a disturbing pattern of behavior, a culture of intimidation that continues to emerge from the Obama administration.

For the past few days, headline after headline has revealed one new controversy after another. In every case Americans are right to wonder what kind of leadership led to this and just how far this culture of intimidation goes.

Americans need to learn the extent to which this misconduct has occurred by the heavy hand of the executive branch of government.

The first indication was on Friday of last week, and it involved the Internal Revenue Service issuing an apology for targeting conservative groups seeking nonprofit status and treating conservative groups more harshly than other groups.

These groups were excessively scrutinized if they used the words ``patriot'' or ``tea party.'' As we would later learn from the inspector general report, not only were these groups targeted, but senior officials knew about it for at least a year and made no report to the Congress. It has also been confirmed that confidential information about some of these groups was leaked to the liberal nonprofit group ProPublica.

The whole situation disgraces the basic constitutional freedoms to which every American is entitled. It is appalling that Americans have been deliberately targeted for IRS scrutiny based on their political beliefs or affiliations. No American should fear arbitrary government harassment simply because of the expression of his or her views.

The administration needs to be held accountable for its failure to protect Americans. An apology is not sufficient in this instance. An internal inspector general investigation talking about mismanagement errors will not suffice in this instance. The acknowledgement that mistakes were made and that changes, indeed, need to be made will not, in and of itself, rebuild the public trust that has been broken.

Particularly troubling is that the IRS is not the only agency in which these types of abuses have occurred. Americans are also right to be outraged by the news that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been fundraising among the industry people she regulates on behalf of the President's health care law.

As reported in the Washington Post on May 10, Secretary Sebelius ``has gone, hat in hand, to health industry officials, asking them to make large financial donations.''

Presumably these donations are being collected in order to pay for an advertising campaign in the media, including television. Further investigation is necessary to determine the extent to which these solicitations constitute a conflict of interest. It is curious that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is seeking support from the health industry now when these affected parties were largely ignored or in many cases intimidated during the debate on the President's health care law.

Meanwhile, questions remain about the administration's handling of the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. During his recent news conference, the President tried to deflect serious concerns about altered talking points by calling it a political ``sideshow.'' I do not think the American people are going to be convinced that it is a sideshow. The real sideshow is the President's attempt to distract from an unraveling narrative that began with the administration wrongly casting blame on an inflammatory YouTube video. Subsequent testimony from State Department whistleblowers, who came forward despite administration pressure, has only expanded the controversy surrounding the administration's apparent misrepresentation of the terrorist attack to the American people.

Let's not forget that it was President Obama who promised, after he took office, that his administration would be ``the most open and transparent in history.'' It is increasingly clear that the President's rhetoric does not match this reality.

Whether these scandals continue to make mainstream news, our questions and inquiries will not stop until we get answers. The administration's conflicting storylines and blame games are inexcusable in the wake of serious allegations. In America, those in power are not above the law, and those responsible must be held accountable. A Member of this body on the other side of the aisle asked publicly on the radio this morning: What does it take to get fired in this town? A good question coming from the other side of the aisle.

What we are continuing to see is a culture of intimidation, a pattern of big-government heavyhandedness and overreach by the administration. What is lacking is credibility and integrity from those elected to serve.

Each scandal is distinct in its grievances but not isolated in its impact. A New Yorker article published yesterday by Amy Davidson noted ``the Obama Administration's strange belief that if it can just find the right words, that reality will comply and bend to meet it--that its challenges are so extraordinary that the use of any exceptions built into normal processes should be regarded as unexceptional.''

Americans deserve direct, straightforward answers, and they deserve the facts. They deserve to know why the IRS deliberately targeted conservative groups and gave liberal groups a pass, why Secretary Sebelius solicited the health care industry to help implement ObamaCare, and why the administration downplayed the atrocities in Benghazi and pressured fact witnesses to stay silent. It time for the President and his inner circle to provide a full explanation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

This amendment simply puts us back where we were several years ago, at a 60-vote point of order for unfunded mandates. Washington should not use extensive unfunded mandates to shove the weight of irresponsible government growth down to State and local governments. The threshold now is 51 votes to wave a point of order on unfunded mandates. This amendment would simply put it back the way it used to be in the law to 60 votes.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Division. Mr. President, the Chair accepted the amendment. If we are going to start enforcing this, I will marshal my forces and we will learn to yell louder. But the Chair accepted my amendment.