Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to talk about three young boys--three young boys who are now in the hands of terrorists. This should be on the front page of every paper in the United States because this is an issue that is as vital to us as it is to the nation of Israel.

On Thursday night, June 12, three Jewish teenagers--Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaar and Eyal Yifrah--were kidnapped. You can see all three of these boys in the photos beside me.

Today, Thursday June 26, marks the 14th day of their abduction. Just imagine if these were your children or any child you know. Just imagine if it were your child who was kidnapped for 14 days and you don't know where they are or even whether they are still alive.

These boys--all smart, hard-working, diligent students--were taken on their way home from school. They were waiting at the bus stop. They were only 5 minutes away from their school--one of the finest yeshivas in Israel. These boys weren't doing anything wrong. They are innocent schoolchildren.

Yet today it has been reported that Israel's Shin Bet identified two key suspects in the abduction. These two individuals are members of Hamas--a vicious terrorist organization that seeks Israel's destruction and has launched thousands of rockets into Israel, killing innocent civilians. These rockets have also killed dozens of Americans in Israel. Now they have kidnapped three school boys. Sadly, this is business as usual for Hamas. This is the same terrorist organization with which the Palestinian Authority recently joined in a so-called ``unity'' government.

Israel has been tirelessly looking for these two men since the kidnapping. They come from families who have broader ties to Hamas. In a telling statement to the Times of Israel, the mother of one of the two alleged terrorists claims she did not know of her son's actions, but she said she would be ``proud of him and hoped he would continue to evade capture.'' A mother, proud of her son for kidnapping three school boys.

Hamas leader Khaled Mashal spoke about the kidnappings on Monday, saying, ``I bless those who did it because it is a moral obligation to free prisoners from Israeli jails.'' This is a leader of Hamas now parked effectively in the unity government of the Palestinian Authority blessing those who have kidnapped three school boys because this is the kind of activity that Hamas terrorists support, the kidnapping of innocent schoolchildren.

Since the kidnapping, there have been no pictures or videos made available of the kidnapped boys. Their families are in the dark without any knowledge of where their boys are or what conditions they are being held in.

Rachel Fraenkel, the mother of Naftali Fraenkel, spoke before the United Nations Human Rights Council on June 24. Rachel said:

My son texted me--said he's on his way home--and then he's

gone. Every mother's nightmare is waiting and waiting

endlessly for her child to come home.

She then pleaded for more action to be taken to find the boys, concluding:

We just want them back in our homes, in their beds. We just

want to hug them . . .

All of us should stand with Rachel as she stands with her son who has been kidnapped.

I also want to tell the world about these three boys.

Rachel's son Naftali is 16 years old. His grandparents have lived in Brooklyn, and Brooklyn has been a second home to him. He is the oldest of seven children. He likes playing the guitar, basketball, and Ping- Pong. Indeed, there is even a video of him on YouTube playing Ping- Pong. I have to say he is pretty good. He is a talented and gifted student who is on track to take the biology matriculation exams. His teachers say Naftali is brilliant, one of the best they have ever had, and his mother said his personality is a delightful combination of both serious and fun.

Gilad Shaar, who was with Naftali that day--also coming home from school--was likewise abducted. Like Naftali, Gilad is 16 years old. ``Gil'' means happiness and ``ad'' means forever. His name literally means ``happiness forever,'' and he is a source of joy to those who meet him.

His aunt Leehy Shaar, whom I had the privilege of meeting and visiting earlier this week, said, ``He has a smile that brings light to the world''--quite fitting for a boy named ``happiness forever.'' She said, ``We want him home where he belongs, with his family, who so dearly loves him.''

Gilad has five sisters, and he is described by them as a caring and loving brother. He is the family's only son, and he has family in Los Angeles and in New York. Gilad is witty. He loves to read, watch movies, and recently he finished a scuba diving course, but he is also a talented cook. He enjoys baking his sisters cakes and pastries.

We don't know where Gilad is right now.

Then there is Eyal Yifrah, the third boy kidnapped that day. He is 19 years old and is the oldest of six children. He is a role model for their family, and he is loved by friends who say they would like to have him as a brother. He loves sports. He should be cheering the World Cup games today--like so many other teenagers--with his friends. A gregarious fellow, he likes to cook, travel, play guitar, and sing. Indeed, you can find videos of him on YouTube singing a song that he himself wrote. Eyal should be home singing again.

There can be no more illusions that Hamas has any role in any future government formed by the Palestinian Authority. They must not receive any further recognition or legitimization. Hamas is a violent terrorist organization ready and eager to brutalize the most innocent. Hamas is a terrorist organization that kidnapped three innocent school boys.

Hamas, give those boys back.

Hamas, give those boys back now.

The full weight of the world should bear down on Hamas to give them back safely and immediately. If they do not, we should use all available means to stand unequivocally with Israel for however long it takes to find these boys and to bring them home. These are teenagers who were targeted for who they are, who have done no wrong, who have done nothing that comes near to deserving what happened to them that day while waiting at the bus stop to go home from school.

It is easy for us to become desensitized to violence, desensitized to terrorism. It is easy for us to forget that these are three teenage boys whose families desperately want their boys back. I ask that all of us lift them up in prayer. I pray for their safe return. I pray they will soon be home with the families who so dearly love them and miss them, and I pray that God will cover them with a shield of heavenly protection. I pray that America will stand strong, will shine a light and do everything possible to apprehend the terrorists and bring these boys home.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 7 minutes.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss a heartbreaking tragedy that has focused the attention of people across America and people across the world. I rise today to discuss the plight of Meriam Ibrahim. Meriam is a young wife and a young mother. Meriam has two children. She has a son Martin, who is 20 months old, and she has a newborn baby girl Maya, who was just recently born.

Now, the birth of a little girl should be a cause for celebration. But I am sorry to tell you, Madam President, that Meriam gave birth to Maya while in leg irons in a prison in Sudan.

Meriam is married to a U.S. citizen, Daniel. Her two children are American citizens. Why was Meriam in leg irons in a prison cell in Sudan? She was

there because the Government of Sudan had sentenced her to receive 100 lashes and to hang by the neck until dead for the crime of being a Christian.

That is Meriam's only crime in Sudan, and for that crime she was sentenced to be tortured and executed.

Meriam was told by the Government of Sudan that if she would merely renounce Jesus Christ, she would be spared that horrible sentence. But Meriam told her captors that she would not and could not renounce Christ.

All of us value the religious liberty that is protected here in America that is precious to each and every one of us, and yet I would venture, very few, if any of us, have been tested in our faith the way Meriam has.

Now, 2 days ago, we had cause for celebration. Two days ago, the Government of Sudan--responding to the international outcry that this young wife and mother would be tortured and murdered for being a Christian--released Meriam. There were many prayers of thanksgiving 2 days ago.

Yet, Madam President, I am very sorry to tell you that yesterday, while Meriam was at the airport preparing to leave and come to America with her husband and her two little babies, armed thugs came to the airport and seized Meriam. She is back in a prison in Sudan.

This is wrong. This is an outrage. This calls for prayers across this country. And this calls for U.S. leadership.

I would humbly call upon President Obama to speak out for Meriam. There is no one who has a bully pulpit like the President of the United States. This is a case that cries for Presidential leadership. Her husband is an American from New Hampshire. Her babies are Americans. And this is a grotesque example of religious persecution. I would note that this should not be a cause for partisan division. Indeed, in this Chamber, I am pleased to have joined with Senator Shaheen, a Democrat from New Hampshire, and Senator Ayotte, a Republican from New Hampshire, in legislation that would provide immediate relief for Meriam to allow her to come to America.

It is my hope this body can operate quickly in a bipartisan, in a unanimous manner, to act on that legislation so we can stand together. I am encouraged that so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have stood and fought for Meriam. We need to speak with one uniform voice.

I hope, in particular--I would urge, in particular--President Obama to stand and add his clear voice, to say to the Government of Sudan: Free Meriam Ibrahim.

I would ask everyone watching this to lift her up in your prayers and to speak out.

Sudan, 2 days ago, responded to the international pressure and released her. Now that they have apparently had a change of heart and forcibly captured her, we need to speak even louder. We need to speak for Meriam Ibrahim because it is wrong for anyone--especially this young wife and mother--to be subject to torture and murder for being a Christian. That is unequivocally wrong, and we need to speak in one voice.

Thank you, Madam President.

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

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the deteriorating situation in Iraq. There has been considerable debate in recent days about what we want to achieve in that country and the importance of achieving so-called political reconciliation in Baghdad. I wish to propose three simple principles that should guide any action we take in Iraq.

No. 1, we should do everything possible to secure our people. No. 2, we should defend our national security interests. No. 3, we should not partner with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

First and foremost, we need to be certain we are doing everything humanly possible to secure the Americans who are still in Iraq. The instability of the situation in the north of that country could quickly devolve into nationwide chaos, and it requires our immediate attention.

We need to be developing and implementing an immediate plan to get out all nonessential American personnel, to get them to safety now. I am deeply concerned, as all of us should be, that our people on the ground will become pawns in a sectarian conflict we cannot control. I am concerned the up to 275 marines who may be deployed to assist in embassy security, along with the 300 additional military advisers that President Obama announced today, will also become targets, isolated in Baghdad.

It is not at all reassuring to have the security in Baghdad provided by either Shia militias, loosely controlled by the al-Maliki government, or by the Iranian Quds forces themselves or their agents. If we have to rely on either to keep our people safe, we should not be there. Let me repeat that. If we have to rely on either to keep our people safe, we should not be there.

Second, we need to define and then to defend the national security interests of the United States in Iraq. There has been extensive discussion of ``political reconciliation'' in Iraq and of making any American military action contingent on achieving that ephemeral objective. This makes no sense. Although a political solution to Iraq's troubles may have been an appropriate goal in 2005 or 2011, it simply may not be feasible in 2014. The time for this sort of argument would have been 3 years ago when America was the most influential voice in Baghdad and we were completing our largest embassy on the planet on the banks of the Tigris River.

But we chose to relinquish that influence when we did not successfully negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with the Iraqis. Much of the blame for that diplomatic impasse lies with the al-Maliki government, but the Obama administration bears considerable responsibility as well. The President campaigned on ``ending the war in Iraq'' which he defined by removing all of our forces, not winning. So immediate troop withdrawal, not negotiating a proper status-of-forces agreement, was the priority. In the words of Secretary Clinton on CNN on Tuesday, ``We did not get it done.'' The result is that today we have little or no influence in Baghdad.

It is not my purpose today to relitigate the history of U.S. involvement in Iraq but, rather, to propose what we can do with the circumstances in which we find ourselves right now. Given our current circumstances, any attempt to reconcile a Sunni-Shiite religious conflict that has waged for more than 1,500 years seems either the height of hubris or naivete or both.

Rather than prioritizing an unachievable political solution we have no power to effect, it seems much more practical to focus on what is in the actual national security interests of the United States of America. The most acute security threat to the United States in Iraq is the aggressive movement of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, ISIS, forces out of Syria and into Iraq over the last 6 months. These vicious Sunni fanatics may be relatively small in number, but they make up for it in shear brutality. Although President Obama dismissed their aggression into Fallujah in January of this year as the terrorist equivalent of the ``junior varsity,'' recent events suggest they are of a much higher capability.

Indeed, an obvious question the administration should answer is, has the Obama administration ever armed ISIS? Has the administration given lethal weapons to ISIS? We are doing so to rebels who are fighting alongside ISIS in Syria. It is an obvious question to ask, whether we have, in fact, armed these radical Islamic terrorists as well.

ISIS is much more than a local or even regional threat. They are among the worst of the radical jihadists who attacked us on September 1, 2001, and again on September 11, 2012. They are so bad, in fact, that the ``core Al Qaeda,'' as President Obama likes to call the terrorist cells in Pakistan and Afghanistan, have renounced them. Their goal is to establish a new Islamic caliphate in the Middle East and northern Africa, from Syria to Iraq. They have publicly announced that when they achieve their ambition in Syria and Iraq, their goal is to move on to Jordan, to Israel, and to the United States of America.

Because of their actions and their stated intent, it would seem a targeted mission to seriously degrade the lethality of ISIS could well be in the national security interests of the United States. Such an action would not require the commitment of American combat forces, but it would require a commitment from the Commander in Chief that this action would not be merely a symbolic message or an effort simply to perpetuate the al-Maliki government in Baghdad.

Instead, it would need to be an expeditious and emphatic demonstration of America's ability to strike at the terrorists at the time and means of our choosing. If the President needs to respond to an imminent threat to the national security interests of the United States, or to act to an imminent threat to the lives of Americans in Iraq, he has the constitutional authority to do so. However, Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war. So if the President is planning on launching a concerted offensive attack that is not constrained by the exigency of the circumstances, he should come to Congress to seek and to receive authorization for the use of military force. A precondition for any such mission in Iraq should be the utter rejection of any partnership with the Islamic Republic of Iran on which the al-Maliki government is increasingly dependent.

Iran has been the implacable enemy of the United States since 1979, when revolutionaries took 54 American citizens hostage for 444 days, some of the darkest days of our history. Earlier this year, Iran demonstrated that this rapid anti-American hostility is alive and well by trying to get a U.S. visa for one of those hostage takers to serve as their Ambassador to the United Nations, to live in Manhattan with diplomatic immunity. It was one of my proudest days in the Senate to introduce the legislation countering this action that passed unanimously through both Houses of Congress, and that was signed into law by President Obama, stopping known terrorists from entering the United States.

When push comes to shove, the American people understand that Iran

is our enemy. We need to bring that same clarity, that same bipartisan unity to current circumstances in Iraq.

Just because Iran fears ISIS jihadists, it does not follow that we should partner with them in this fight. The enemy of our enemy, in this instance, is not our friend. If we cannot secure our people absent Iranian involvement, we need to get them out. If we cannot strike ISIS in Iraq without Iranian involvement, then we need to look for another means of doing so.

ISIS consists of radical Islamist terrorists who seek to murder Americans. Yet the Iranian regime has over and over demonstrated the same hostile intent. Indeed, it is the leading sponsor of terrorism across the world.

It is deeply concerning that not only Secretary of State John Kerry but also former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel have all signaled in recent days they are actively interested in exploring a partnership with Iran to deal with Iraq.

Indeed, today President Obama publicly suggested: ``Iran can play a constructive role.'' This is the height of foolishness. It is deeply disturbing that so many current and former senior Obama administration officials would share this same misguided and naive view.

There could be no more ill-advised or counter-productive policy for the United States at this moment than to partner with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Rather than partnering with Iran, we should be all the more mindful of the dangers of taking our eye off the ball of Iran's nuclear program, as no doubt Tehran hopes we will in this most recent crisis.

As grim as the threat of ISIS is, it pales in comparison to the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, given their long and well-documented history of state-sponsored terrorism. Indeed, Iran is working now and has been working for years now to develop nuclear ICBMs for one reason and one reason only, and that is to strike at America and potentially murder millions of Americans. It would be the height of folly to take any action in Iraq that would further embolden Iran, which is already moving to make Iraq a client state in its pursuit of regional hegemony.

We already know how that script plays out. We have seen it in our ally Ukraine, where former President Viktor Yanukovych acted as Vladimir Putin's stooge and planted pro-Russian agents throughout the Ukrainian government and armed forces. But the Ukrainian people refused to accept Russia's attempt to reintegrate them into a 21st century reincarnation of the Soviet Union.

They stood in the Maidan Square, a place I visited just a few weeks ago, and they braved the freezing cold. They braved the murderous army snipers who shot the protesters down in that square, and they stood and demanded freedom. They demanded to stand with America, with Europe, and the West.

Iran, in its attempt to create a modern version, a new version of the Persian Empire, has attempted a similar play on behalf of so-called Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei through the means of the Iraqi regime of Nouri al-Maliki.

Sadly, Iranian forces today permeate both the Government of Iraq and the Iraqi security forces.

America has demonstrated, beyond any shadow of doubt, our offer of liberty to the people of Iraq. Indeed, thousands of our sons and daughters have given their lives in pursuit of freedom in Iraq. But if the Iraqi Government is more interested in forging a relationship with Iran than with the United States, we should not and we cannot attempt to force them to adhere to our political goals for them.

Absent active partners in Iraq who want a closer alliance with America and with our allies, our key objective should be, quite simply, to secure our people, to counteract terrorist threats to our national security, and to make sure that we do not further embolden the Islamic Republic of Iran.

These objectives--not the fantasy of resolving the Sunni-Shiite conflict that has been raging since the death of Muhammad in 632 A.D. or the illusion that we can magically find productive common ground with Iran--should define our policy toward Iraq.

I would like to make one final note. It is my hope that my colleagues will think more broadly about what is happening in the world in Iraq, in Iran, in Russia, and in Libya. We are being faced with options of options of options that have been created by the bad choices our leaders make.

Those guiding our foreign policy at the White House, the State Department, and even, unfortunately, in the Senate have refused to address true dangers posed to Americans at home and abroad. Bad choices inevitably leave us with bad options.

Refusing to recognize the radical religious extremism of individuals who are committed to jihad and have pledged to murder Americans is a bad choice. Refusing to utter the words ``radical Islamic terrorists'' is a bad choice. Negotiating with terrorists to release terrorist leaders is a bad choice, and considering any kind of deal with Iran is a very bad choice.

In the last 5 years America has receded from leadership in the world. Into that vacuum have stepped nations such as Iran, such as Russia, such as China. As we have abandoned our allies, the consequences have been to make the world a much more dangerous place. America's leadership has never been more critical than it is today.

Until the leaders of our government stop making these bad choices, we will continue to be left with bad options.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today to raise an issue that has been of growing concern to the American people: the exchange of the so- called Taliban five--five terrorist detainees from Guantanamo--in exchange for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl.

Let me say from the outset, this is not about Sergeant Bergdahl. The circumstances under which he became a prisoner of the Taliban is an issue for the Army. There was an investigation into this matter in 2010, and hopefully the Army will be able to bring clarity to that situation soon. What I wish to speak about today is keeping the American people safe from the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001, resulting in the deaths of 2,977 innocent people.

The Taliban five are among the worst of the worst. They were all high-level officials in the Taliban regime who gave aid and support to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the period leading up to the 9/11 attacks. These five were designated ``high'' risk by the Guantanamo Review Task Force convened in 2009 on the orders of President Obama, whose report was published on January 22, 2010. Two of the five are wanted by the United Nations for war crimes against Afghan civilians.

Khairullah Khairkhwa, for example, was described in his GTMO case file as ``a hard-liner in Taliban philosophy'' with ``close ties to Osama bin Laden.'' Mohammad Fazl was second in command of the Taliban army in 2001. These were not junior-level players.

Capturing these five men was a priority when our troops participated in the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban in 2001, where our sons and daughters bled and died to free Afghanistan and to exact punishment on those who carried out a horrific terrorist attack on the United States of America. We cannot know for sure how many American soldiers paid the ultimate price to capture these five senior terrorists.

Even as many other detainees at GTMO have been released, up until now, these five have been considered too dangerous to let go. Given the level of threat they represent, any proposal to release them should be of the utmost seriousness. Unfortunately, by all indications the administration's release treated their threat as anything but serious.

Americans need to know how the Obama administration thinks it has made our Nation safer by negotiating with terrorists to release these five dangerous terrorist leaders. Until President Obama can make his case and convince the American public that this swap was in our national interests, prudence dictates that all further transfers and releases from Guantanamo Bay should be off the table.

Unfortunately, there have been no answers from this administration on how this deal furthers the national security interests of the American people or why the deal was so urgent that the administration refused to comply with its legal obligation to inform Congress 30 days before the transfer. Instead, the administration has vilified those who would raise questions about it as somehow not being concerned about securing the return of our troops. That attack--that slur--shouldn't even be dignified by a response, particularly given what has been publicly admitted.

President Obama has publicly admitted that there is ``absolutely'' a chance of the Taliban five returning to the battlefield and attacking Americans.

Indeed, the current Taliban leadership has announced that from their perspective this deal is so good for them that they should now prioritize kidnapping other Americans. For example, last Thursday one top Taliban commander told Time magazine--and this is a quote--``It's better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people. It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.''

This deal puts every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine--every man and woman standing up to defend this Nation--in jeopardy.

The chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein, has publicly said that she has seen ``no evidence'' that Sergeant Bergdahl was under urgent threat in recent weeks or months.

All of these admissions together raise serious and legitimate concerns about the circumstances of the release of the Taliban Five, and they also make clear that the administration should stop

vilifying any who raise these national concerns. Instead, the President should stand up and honor his commitment to the American people, defend this decision in terms of the national security interests of the United States--what should be the highest priority for the Commander in Chief.

Instead, we have recently learned from news reports that there are at least four other Gitmo detainees who are being considered for release. So not only has there not been accountability as to why this happened, but it appears the administration wants to go down the same road and I can only assume is willing again to violate the law and not notify Congress the next time, just the way it violated the law by not notifying Congress this time.

Before any further such action is considered, we need to take a pause and assess what happened with the Taliban five. We need to answer:

Who did the vetting that resulted in the assessment that the Taliban five no longer posed a high level of threat to the United States?

Who participated in the decision to release them?

Was this the same deal the administration says they offered to brief Congress on previously or is it something different?

Was the President fully briefed on the background of the Taliban Five and the likelihood of recidivism?

How did the administration reach its apparently high level of confidence that the Taliban five will be secure in Qatar?

How did they arrive upon the notion that that security should last only 1 year, after which the American people will be safe if these terrorists are released altogether? On what basis did the administration judge that only 1 year was sufficient?

How was the decision made to ignore the law and bypass Congress, including bypassing the chairs of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, Foreign Relations Committees, and Armed Services Committees?

In what circumstances does the administration intend once again to openly defy the law and refuse to provide notification to Congress?

These are questions, I might note, that should be bipartisan concerns. This should not be a partisan affair--asking questions that affect the national security of every single American citizen and every single man and woman serving in the military.

In order to give the Obama administration the opportunity to satisfy the many outstanding questions the American people have about their safety--and I would note, having just returned from Texas, I found over and over again Texans, men and women, asking these very questions--I will propose this week that before we consider any additional releases from Guantanamo, we answer these questions first.

The legislation I will be filing, No. 1, will immediately call for a 6-month freeze on any Federal Government funding to transfer detainees from Guantanamo. No. 2, to enforce this requirement, the legislation will provide that, should the President choose to disregard this law-- as, sadly, has been his pattern so many other times--all funds expended in the transfer would be deducted directly from the budget of the Executive Office of the President. No. 3, because we understand that conditions might possibly arise that would necessitate the release of an individual prisoner and out of respect for the President's special role in international matters, this legislation explicitly provides a means for the President to ask Congress for a waiver of the 6-month bar in an individual case. But, finally, because we believe the release of detainees from Guantanamo--which holds some of the most dangerous people on the planet--is a matter of the gravest import, this legislation would require that for every order for release of a Guantanamo detainee, it must be personally approved by the President. This would ensure that the fullest consideration and deliberation goes into the process.

This latest deal--which was announced to the American people as a fait accompli, with no opportunity for Congress to scrutinize it, no opportunity for the American people to assess it--this latest deal constituted negotiating with terrorists to release five senior terrorist leaders, and it raises obvious questions.

First of all, how many Americans did these five terrorist leaders directly or indirectly murder? How many lives--American lives--are they responsible for taking?

Second, how many American soldiers gave their lives to capture these five senior terrorist leaders? How many graves do we have of sons and daughters of Americans because they were sent in to capture these five who have just been released?

Third, given their release--and the President's admission that there is ``absolutely'' a chance that they will return to actively waging war against the United States--how many Americans are at risk of being killed directly or indirectly by these terrorist leaders we have just let go?

Finally, if the Taliban five do return to actively trying to kill Americans, how many American soldiers will once again have to risk their lives or, indeed, will give their lives trying to kill or capture these terrorists once again?

These are questions of the utmost seriousness, and to date the administration has not even attempted to answer them. Instead, it has suggested that anyone raising these questions is simply failing to stand by the men and women of our military. I can tell you, the men and women of our military understand the value of protecting the national security of the United States of America, and the men and women of our military are not comforted by negotiations with terrorists to release senior terrorist leaders who can once again begin actively waging war on the United States.

Every American is naturally eager to end the long war in Afghanistan, but that does not mean we disregard the threat that violent terrorist groups such as the Taliban pose to our Nation. We know from the hard experience of the last decade that at least one in three Guantanamo detainees has returned to the battlefield. That has been what history has taught us.

Until we have full confidence that this threat to American lives is being fully and properly assessed, that we are taking steps to protect the lives of American civilians and American soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines, it is only prudent to take the steps in the legislation I am introducing this week, and I hope the Senate will do so.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise to discuss the nomination of David Barron to be a Federal court of appeals judge. I commend my friend Senator Rand Paul for his excellent remarks earlier today and his leadership against Mr. Barron's nomination.

I have known Mr. Barron for a long time. He and I were classmates in law school. He is a smart man. He is a talented man. He is a professor at Harvard Law School and he is a well-respected professor. However, Mr. Barron is an unabashed judicial activist. He is an unapologetic and vocal advocate for judges applying liberal policy from the bench and disregarding the terms of the Constitution and the laws of the land. If the Members of this body vote to confirm him, we will bear responsibility for undermining liberty and undermining the rule of law in this country.

It is well known that Mr. Barron, as a senior official in the Obama Justice Department, authored memos allowing the U.S. Government to use drones to kill American citizens abroad who were known and suspected to be terrorists, without any trial, without any due process. To date, we still don't have the details of all of those memos. A number of us, including myself, have called for releasing the memos that would allow the U.S. Government to use lethal force against U.S. citizens. I am pleased to say the administration has, in part, complied, but we don't have all of those memos. Yet this body is being asked to proceed with giving Mr. Barron a lifetime appointment without knowing the full context of the advice he gave.

I would note that Mr. Barron previously, in 2006, joined a group of legal scholars calling for more transparency in the OLC opinions that he subsequently wrote and that the administration is now keeping secret.

But beyond that, beyond Mr. Barron providing the legal basis for the targeted killings of American citizens abroad without judicial process, Mr. Barron, both in law school and in his writings as a law professor, has been an enthusiastic advocate of judicial activism. It has become de rigueur for judicial nominees to forswear activism, to say--even if their record is to the contrary--no, no, no, Senator, I will comply with the law. To Mr. Barron's credit, his writings have a degree of candor that are unusual.

So, for example, he has argued that courts should override elected State legislatures and enforce leftwing policies. Mr. Barron, in one particular law review, wrote:

State supreme Courts, not state legislatures, have also led

the revolution in school financing equality, though judicial

actions have catalyzed political responses.

He went on to say that liberals should not object to conservative court decisions because ``progressive constitutionalists enamored of the Anti-Court rhetoric rarely take account of its potential downstream effects on state-court interpretation and legitimacy.''

In other words, he is worried that people on the left might be arguing that courts should follow the law because that would constrain the ability of courts to instead impose a far-left political policy agenda.

Likewise, in a different article, he argues:

It is precisely because the Anti-Court strain singles out

conservative judicial activism as the problem that it

threatens to work progressive constitutional theory into a

corner: it needlessly rejects the progressive potential of a

significant wielder of power--the courts. . . .

Let me underscore that. Every Member of this body who votes to confirm Mr. Barron is voting for a candidate who has stated he intends to use the courts as a ``significant wielder of power.'' Indeed, what is the agenda that he would embrace? He has elsewhere written:

We contend that the constitutional argument favoring

preclusive executive power necessarily rests on a strong form

of living constitutionalism.

There are Members of this body--Democratic Members of this body--who are campaigning right now in their home State saying they do not support judicial activism, they do not support a so-called living constitution, judges imposing far-left policies and disregarding the law. Well, let me say, any Democratic Member of this body who votes for Mr. Barron is on record in support of judicial activism and living constitutionalism.

Beyond that, Mr. Barron has explicitly written his opposition to federalism. Indeed, he says, ``There is precious little in the Constitution's text or the history of its adoption that compels the particular conservative allocation of national local powers favored by the Rehnquist Court.''

He has made clear his agenda to overturn or ignore Supreme Court precedents. When he says there is ``little in the . . . text or the history,'' it seems somehow that he has not read or focused on the Tenth Amendment or the Federalist Papers or the debates on ratification.

Beyond that, he is an emphatic advocate of the takings clause, of government power taking private property, such as the Kelo decision-- big money interests going to government and using government power to condemn your private land. He is an emphatic advocate of that and of courts facilitating and expanding that.

He has written that the executive branch should be able to waive laws with which it disagrees--a lawlessness that, sadly, has run rampant in this administration.

Anyone who cares about property rights should be dismayed by this nomination and should vote against it if you do not want to see overly aggressive takings jurisprudence that allows the government to take your private property.

Anyone concerned about free speech should be concerned about this nomination if you do not want to see expansive government power taking away the rights of citizenry to free speech.

Anyone who cares about local control and federalism and the ability of local school boards and legislatures to make policy decisions should be concerned.

Anyone concerned about our right to life should be concerned about drones having the power to take our life without judicial process.

Anyone concerned about liberty and the rule of law should be deeply concerned about a judicial nominee who embraces courts as a tool of power and the President disregarding the law.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, 8 months ago yesterday I requested unanimous consent for S. Res. 225 calling for a joint select committee of Congress to investigate the terrorist attack on our facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, which resulted in the murder of four brave Americans: Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was our first Ambassador murdered while serving since Adolph Dubs in 1979.

At the time my colleague, the junior the Senator from California, objected on the grounds that the administration was trying ``to address Benghazi,'' and that President Obama would ``not rest until the perpetrators were caught.''

Here we are, 8 months later, and the perpetrators still have not been caught, and the confusion about what occurred on September 11, 2012, in Benghazi has only gotten worse. In recent weeks, what happened on that terrible night has gotten more and more obscure.

On April 2 of this year, Mike Morell, the Deputy Director of the CIA during the Benghazi attacks, testified regarding the CIA talking points that he ``took out the word `Islamic' in front of `extremists' '' because he thought there were other kinds of extremists in Libya and that he did not use the word ``terrorist'' because ``we see extremists and terrorists as the same thing.''

On April 29 of this year, in response to a FOIA request by Judicial Watch, the White House released emails related to Benghazi, including a September 14, 2012, email from Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes that had as its stated goal ``to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video and not in a broader failure of policy.''

I would note that is a stated political goal from the White House, in writing, days after the attack--not to get to the truth but to further that political goal.

Then, on May 1, 2014, Gen. Robert Lovell, Deputy Director of Intelligence of U.S. AFRICOM during the Benghazi attacks, became the first former military officer to question the administration's insistence that a rescue attempt was not possible, arguing ``the discussion is not in the `could or could not' in relation to time, space, and capability, the point is we should have tried.''

It is hard to disagree with the good general that we should have tried to save those four Americans who were murdered that tragic night.

We are left once again with persistent questions on Benghazi to which we still don't know the answers. Here are 10:

No. 1. Why was the State Department unwilling to provide the requested level of security to Benghazi in the summer of 2012?

No. 2. Do President Obama's daily intelligence briefings in the runup to September 11, 2012, support the assertion that there was no credible threat of a coordinated terrorist attack on Benghazi during the time, and do the daily intelligence briefings following that date support the claim the administration made that the cause was an Internet video? Why hasn't the White House declassified and released those briefings, as President George W. Bush did with his pre-September 11, 2001, briefings?

No. 3. Why did we not anticipate the need to have military assets at the ready in the region on the anniversary of September 11--of all dates?

No. 4. Did President Obama sleep the night of September 11, 2012? Did Secretary Clinton? Neither has answered that very simple question: Were they awake or asleep while Americans were under fire? When was President Obama told about the murder of our Ambassador?

No. 5. If the Secretary of Defense thought there was ``no question that this was a coordinated terrorist attack,'' why did Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary Clinton, and President Obama all tell the American people that the cause was a spontaneous demonstration about an Internet video? None has squarely answered that question.

No. 6. Why did former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell edit the intelligence community talking points to delete the references to Islamic extremists and Al Qaeda?

No. 7. Why did the FBI not release pictures of the militants taken the day of the attack until 8 months after the fact--why not immediately, as proved so effective in the Boston bombing?

No. 8. Why was Secretary Clinton not interviewed for the ARB report? If all the relevant questions were answered in the ARB report, as our friends on the other side of the aisle often like to say, why did the State Department's own inspector general's office open a probe into the methods of that very report?

No. 9. Why have none of the terrorists who attacked in Benghazi been captured or killed?

No. 10. What additional evidence that the White House engaged in a partisan political campaign to blame the Benghazi attack on the Internet video is contained in the additional emails requested by Judicial Watch but withheld by the White House on the grounds that it would put a ``chill'' on internal deliberations?

I would suggest to my colleagues that what is truly chilling is that 20 months after the Benghazi attack, we have four dead Americans and no dead terrorists. It is chilling to think our President may have had better things to do than personally attend to an ongoing terrorist attack on our people. It is chilling to imagine that we could have mounted a rescue attempt of our own people but that we didn't even bother to try. It is chilling to think our Secretary of State would not insist on giving an interview for the ARB report. It is chilling to think we have an administration that is reluctant to utter the words ``radical Islamic terrorism,'' let alone fight effectively against it. It is chilling to have former administration officials respond to questions in response to Benghazi with, ``Dude, this was like two years ago.''

The clock is ticking. Memories are fading. It is beyond time to get the full resources of both Houses of Congress behind this investigation. The President should release his daily intelligence briefings in the times surrounding the Benghazi attack, as President George W. Bush did concerning 9/11. This body should join with the House of Representatives, with a joint select committee to get to the bottom of what happened. Why didn't we protect Americans? Why didn't we stop this attack? Why haven't we captured the terrorists who killed four Americans including our Ambassador?

Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the rules and administration committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 225. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, my friend, the senior Senator from New Jersey, suggests that this is a request on the eve of a midterm election. The only reason for that of course is 8 months ago, when I made the exact same request, the Democrats objected and blocked a joint select committee looking into Benghazi at that time. The Senator from New Jersey also suggested this was some kind of distraction from ObamaCare. I promise the Senator, there is no one in this Chamber less interested in distracting from ObamaCare than I.

I would encourage the senior Senator from New Jersey, if he believes what he says, to go and campaign for his Democratic colleagues who are up for election this year with the simple message that he said on the floor of this Senate, which is Senator so-and-so is the critical 60th vote to passing ObamaCare, and if you like it you can keep your Senator. I feel quite confident that the Democratic Senators up for election this year are running as rapidly away from the point suggested by the senior Senator from New Jersey as possible.

But secondly, I would note, in his entire speech, the senior Senator from New Jersey said there is no need for any further inquiry because we had lots of hearings and there is no need to know anything, but let me point out, the senior Senator from New Jersey did not answer even a single question that I asked. I outlined 10 questions that have not been answered. He is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Yet he either could not or did not answer even a single question--two simple ones--which are ``yes'' or ``no'' questions.

No. 1. Did President Obama sleep on the night of September 11, 2012? The senior Senator from New Jersey chose not to answer, I suspect, because none of us knows because the White House has never answered that question.

No. 2. Do the President's daily intelligence briefings reflect the political spin from the White House on Benghazi? Likewise, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee did not answer that question. Again, I suspect it is because he does not know because the White House has not released that information.

There are far too many questions remaining, but the senior Senator from New Jersey, my learned colleague, proposed a counter unanimous consent request to improve embassy security.

I would ask unanimous consent to engage in a very brief colloquy with my colleague and ask him specifically one question about the unanimous consent request.

The question I would ask my colleague from New Jersey is, If I were to consent to the unanimous consent that the Senator has proffered, and if this side of the aisle would request, would he likewise consent to the unanimous consent request that I put forward for a joint select committee composed of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi?

So why is it--I am curious--the senior Senator from New Jersey believes an inquiry to ascertain the truth about what happened is necessarily a partisan endeavor? Is there no partisan interest on that side of the aisle in finding out what happened, how it could have been prevented, and why we didn't save those four Americans?

I would note that my friend from New Jersey did not endeavor to answer any of the questions I proffered, including the most simple question, such as did the President sleep on the night of September 11, 2012.

I would thank my friend from New Jersey for a colloquy in support of this joint select committee on Benghazi because the Democratic Senator from New Jersey, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, just told this body he has no idea if President Obama was even told that four Americans were under terrorist attack. He has no idea. He doesn't know what, if anything, the President could have done to save them.

I would suggest that is exactly the reason we need this committee. If the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee 2 years later cannot answer that question, it makes abundantly clear that the response of the administration, sadly, and the response of the Senate Democrats has been partisan stonewalling rather than getting to the truth. In the immortal lines of Jack Nicholson, it makes one think perhaps they cannot handle it or at least they don't want to know.

I would finally say I am more than prepared to consent to the request from the senior Senator of New Jersey if he would only show the same reciprocal courtesy of agreeing to the same request; a bipartisan committee, in which he would no doubt participate, to answer the question--the senior Senator from New Jersey just told this body he doesn't know if the President knew. He doesn't know what the President could have done. Apparently, the premise of the statement is he doesn't think the American people care.

I suggest that the American people care a great deal as to what the President knew about national security. They would want to know if he was not engaged or if he didn't act to stop it. That is a matter worthy of inquiry by this body.

Since my friend from New Jersey has made it plain that he will not consent to this request, I will note that this is an open offer that anytime my friend from New Jersey will simply stop blocking a fair, bipartisan, joint inquiry as to what occurred in Benghazi--the terrorist attack that tragically took the lives of four Americans--I am happy to consent.

I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I commend my friend from Minnesota for her very good bill. This bill is good policy. It is supported by both Democrats and Republicans, as she noted. It passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee. I was proud to vote for this piece of legislation.

However, at the time the Judiciary Committee took up the bill it also considered amendments--in particular, two amendments I introduced that are both relevant and germane to this bill. This bill is addressing the IRS. We have seen in the past year abuses from the IRS that sadly this body--the Senate--has been unwilling to address.

It has been the practice under the current majority leader to prevent the minority from introducing amendments, preventing the minority from having a voice, and so the only avenue for the minority to have a voice is to use tools such as denying consent to try to raise issues that are relevant to the American people.

When it comes to the IRS targeting of individual citizens, it was roughly 10 months ago the Inspector General at the Department of the Treasury concluded the IRS had wrongfully targeted conservative groups, tea party groups, pro-Israel groups, and pro-life groups. The day that news broke, the President of the United States said he was outraged. He said he was angry, and he said the American people have a right to be angry. That same day Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder said he too was outraged and, indeed, the President pledged to work hand in hand with Congress.

Ten months have passed, and in the 10 months that have passed we have discovered not a single person has been indicted. In the 10 months that have passed, many of the victims of this illegal targeting have not even been interviewed by the Department of Justice. In the 10 months that have passed, we have discovered that one of the lead lawyers leading the investigation at the Department of Justice is a major Obama donor who gave over $6,000 personally to support President Obama and the Democrats. In the 10 months that have transpired, Attorney General Eric Holder has turned down my request that he demonstrate the same impartiality, the same fidelity to the law that has been a bipartisan tradition for Attorneys General under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Indeed, as I pointed out to the Attorney General, when credible allegations of wrongdoing against Richard Nixon arose, his Attorney General Elliott Richardson, a Republican, appointed Archibald Cox to investigate those allegations, free of political pressure. Likewise, when credible allegations of wrongdoing against Bill Clinton arose, his Attorney General, a Democrat, Janet Reno, appointed Robert Fiske as an Independent Counsel to get to the bottom of it.

Sadly, when I asked Eric Holder if he was willing to follow that same tradition of impartiality, of independence, of fidelity to law, of insulating the Department of Justice from political pressure, the Attorney General gave a flat-out answer of no. He was perfectly content; he saw no reason why anyone should doubt the integrity of an investigation led by a major Obama donor.

As I asked the Attorney General, Would you trust John Mitchell to investigate Richard Nixon? Of course you wouldn't. So it is in the context of this abuse of power--this abuse of power of the administration--that rather than working hand in hand as the President has pledged, they have stonewalled it--that I introduced two amendments.

The first amendment was simply to make it a criminal offense for an IRS employee to target people based on their political beliefs. I will note the text of the language I introduced made it a criminal offense to willfully act with the intent to injure, oppress, threaten, intimidate, or single out for the purpose of harassment any person based solely on the political, economic, or social positions held or expressed by that person or organization.

When the IRS targeting was revealed, it was condemned in bipartisan language. If that language was real, this provision should pass this body unanimously. To make the law reflect that it is criminal for the IRS to willfully target someone based solely on their political beliefs ought to be a proposition that passes this body 100 to 0. Yet I am sorry to say that when I introduced this amendment in the Judiciary Committee it was voted down on a straight party-line vote. Every Democrat who had given speeches against the IRS targeting, when given the opportunity to actually codify a prohibition against it in committee, voted against it.

Likewise, the second amendment I introduced was an amendment to stop the IRS from its attempt at codification of this persecution of political views. The IRS promulgated new rules that would have put in place its targeting of political views. The response

from the citizenry was record-setting. Indeed, I would note what the ACLU said about the IRS's proposed rules. The ACLU--not exactly a bastion of rightwing thought--said:

The proposed rule threatens to discourage or sterilize an

enormous amount of political discourse in America.

The ACLU went on to say:

Most social welfare organizations--on both the left and

right--serve exactly that function as they see it--the

promotion of social welfare and community good. Based on

their respective visions, they advocate for the powerless and

the voiceless. They promote fiscal responsibility and good

government. They serve as a check on government overreach, or

as a cheerleader for sound public policy.

I can say in this respect that I agree emphatically and wholeheartedly with the ACLU. So I while I am perfectly happy to assent to the bill of my friend from Minnesota, if only the same reciprocal courtesy will be so and the remainder of the body will assent to these commonsense bills that make it a criminal offense to willfully target people based on their political views, and that keep the IRS out of the business of persecuting people for their political views.

I ask this body to stand with the ACLU. I ask this body to stand with the words of President Obama, if not the actions. I ask this body to stand with the American people to protect them from being wrongfully singled out by the abuse of power in the IRS.

Accordingly, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 311, S. 2066, and Calendar No. 312, S. 2067 en bloc; I further ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish to note very briefly to my friend from Minnesota that her bill is good policy. It is policy on which I hope this body can come together.

I will note a path forward. If my friend from Minnesota can prevail on the majority leader simply to allow a vote on the Senate floor on the two amendments I have introduced, then I will withdraw my objection. The reason I have to make this request is, under this majority leader, the minority of this Chamber is shut out of the ability even to have votes. I would note this request is less than what I asked in my unanimous consent. It is not a request to pass. It is simply a request that there be a vote, and if there is a vote, that gives an opportunity for every Member of this Chamber--Republican and Democrat--to go on record and to see if every Democrat in this Chamber is willing to do what every Democrat in the Judiciary Committee did, which is vote affirmatively against making it an offense for IRS employees to willfully target Americans based on their political views.

Any Democrat who votes that way can no longer stand and say they are upset about the IRS's abuse of power because once you voted against prohibiting, you have made clear that you are unwilling to do anything to protect the American people.

The requests from the Republican side to the majority leader to have votes scheduled fall on deaf ears. Perhaps my friend from Minnesota will have more sway with her party's leaders than we will. But in the interim, we are obliged to use whatever tools we can to press for the American people, to stop the abuse of power that is stifling their First Amendment rights. For that reason, I object.

Madam President, I rise today to address the idea of raising the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour. But first I wish to spend a few moments talking about the state of the Senate and why the latest push for a higher Federal minimum wage isn't an issue that appears to be driven by solving the underlying economic problems our Nation faces.

Over the past few weeks, the Senate majority leader has relished in making personal attacks on two private citizens, David and Charles Koch, on this Senate floor. He has used the Senate floor for the purpose of attempting to assassinate their character. They have committed no crimes, although the majority leader appears to treat it as a crime that they don't support him politically. Many political observers can see this for exactly what it is: a desperate political strategy designed to distract from the economic misery that is being visited on the American people by a failed economic agenda. The Senate majority leader is using the Senate floor to run a political campaign against entrepreneurs and philanthropists who have dared to stand and speak out against the failed Obama economic agenda. The reason he is doing so should not surprise anyone. On substance, the record of this administration cannot be defended. They can't talk about how great ObamaCare is working because millions of Americans have lost their health insurance plans and lost the doctors they like, despite the President's repeated promises to the contrary. Health insurance plans have skyrocketed in States all across this country, especially for young people in the individual market who are seeing their rates sometimes double or triple. And they certainly can't talk about the state of the economy.

Today, we have the lowest labor force participation since 1978. The official unemployment rate is 6.7 percent, but that doesn't capture the millions who are underemployed. When we include them, the number rises to 12.7 percent. The rates of poverty in the United States are right now at historic highs--15 percent. As CNN recently noted, this is ``the first time the poverty rate has remained at or above 15 percent 3 years running since 1965.''

Among full-time workers, there are more than 3.8 million fewer employed today than there were before the recession. The number of people not in the labor force today is at its highest level since 1978. Over 91 million people are not in the American workforce. Roughly three of five working-age Americans have jobs today. This is a travesty. It is a denial of the American dream to millions of people across this country.

Long-term unemployment persists. Nearly 36 percent of the unemployed are long-term unemployed. When President Obama took office, the average number of weeks that an individual was unemployed was 19.8. Today, the average duration is 35.6 weeks.

It is also a good thing the President has begun to talk about income inequality. It is a good thing because income inequality has increased dramatically under President Obama. Today, the top 1 percent in our economy earn a higher share of our income than any year since 1928, and those who are being hurt the most in the Obama economy are the most vulnerable among us--the people who are struggling. The working class Hispanics, African Americans, and single moms are the ones paying the price for the great stagnation in which we find ourselves.

According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans who describe themselves as middle or upper class fell 8 points between 2008 and 2012. President Obama's terrible economy doesn't discriminate. It hurts Americans from every demographic. On the President's watch, women have lower incomes today. The median income for women has dropped by $733 since President Obama took office, and, indeed, poverty among women has gone up markedly under President Obama. The poverty rate for women has increased from 14.4 percent when the President took office to 16.3 percent. In real terms, that means 3.7 million more American women are in poverty today than when the President took office.

The President is not responding to any of this. Instead, we see the President, we see the Senate majority leader shifting to the topic of a mandated Federal minimum wage in an effort to change the subject. But the undeniable reality, the undeniable truth is that if the President succeeded in raising the minimum wage, it would cost jobs for the most vulnerable. The people who have been hurt by this Obama economy would be hurt worse by the minimum wage proposal before this body.

In 2013, the President, in his State of the Union address, proposed raising the minimum wage to $9. A year later, the request has magically changed to $10.10. There is no economic justification. The only reason is politics. I suppose if the approval ratings of Democratic Members of this body continue to fall, in another month we will see a proposal for $15 an hour and then maybe $20 or $25 an hour.

But I think the American people are tired of empty political show votes.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that raising the minimum wage could cause the loss of 500,000 to 1 million jobs. I want the American people to realize, and every Member of this Senate, that votes for the minimum wage is voting to tell up to 1 million Americans: Your jobs don't matter to me because I am voting to take away your job.

By the way, this view is not only the view of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. On March 12, 2014, over 500 economists, including three Nobel Laureates, sent a letter to Congress that said the minimum wage is a poorly targeted anti-poverty measure. I will give one example from my home State. GO-Burgers, which is a Texas company with six Burger King restaurants, analyzed the effect of the minimum wage increase on their employees and their businesses. The last minimum wage increase we have seen was from $5.85 an hour in 2007 to $7.25 an hour in July of 2009, and 2010 was the first complete calendar year that GO-Burgers had to analyze the impact

on their workers. GO-Burgers discovered that raising the minimum wage by 23.93 percent caused these Burger King restaurants to reduce the available hours worked by 24.98 percent, for a net sum loss in hours and wages for the typical employee.

Let me repeat that. The experience in these Burger King restaurants was the employees were worse off after the minimum wage was raised because their hours got cut in direct response to the increase. These six restaurants eliminated over 40 jobs and reduced the average number of hours worked per employee. In total, these six Burger King restaurants reduced the man-hours allocated by over 60,000 hours in 2010. Sadly, the people that bear the brunt of that are not the rich and powerful. They are not those who walk the corridors of power in Washington, DC, and have gotten fat and happy under the Obama administration. The people who would bear the brunt if this bill were passed would be, to a substantial degree, young African American teenagers and young Hispanic teenagers. Right now, young minorities, if we look at unemployment rates by race--just looking at the official unemployment rates, Anglos have an unemployment rate of 5.8 percent; Hispanics, 7.9 percent; African Americans, 12.4 percent--nearly double that in the white community. It is even more heartbreaking among teenagers. White teens currently have an unemployment rate of 18.3 percent, but African American teenagers have an unemployment rate of 36.1 percent--36.1 percent. Every Senator who votes yes is voting with an absolute certainty that hundreds of thousands of workers, including a great many African American teenagers and a great many Hispanic teenagers, will be laid off as a consequence of their vote. I would challenge any of the Senators in this Chamber to look in the eyes of those African American teenagers, those Hispanic teenagers who are looking for a better opportunity.

If my colleagues detect a note of passion in my voice as I discuss this, it is because in my family this is not an abstract, hypothetical situation. Fifty-seven years ago, when my father fled Cuba and came to Texas at the age of 18, penniless, not speaking English, his first job was working in the restaurant industry as a dishwasher making 50 cents an hour. The restaurant industry had been such a terrific avenue for climbing the economic ladder, for achieving the American dream. My dad washed dishes at 50 cents an hour to pay his way through college to go on and start a small business to work toward the American dream. If the majority leader had his way, if the minimum wage were jacked up, if back in 1957 the restaurant where my father worked were forced to pay every worker $2 an hour, the odds are very high that restaurant would have fired my dad and bought a dishwasher instead. It was that entry- level job that gave him the grip on the first rung of the economic ladder that led him to pull to the second and the third and the fourth. This bill, if it were to pass, would hammer those on the bottom of the economic ladder and would take away jobs from the most vulnerable among us.

So what should we do instead? We can talk about the problems we have in this country, but we need to talk proactively about better solutions. Fortunately, we are on the cusp of a great American energy renaissance.

I have introduced legislation to remove the barriers to developing the abundant energy resources we have in this country--barriers that, if removed, would allow the creation of millions of high-paying jobs.

The discussion before this Chamber is whether to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. But even if it passed, that is not the Obama minimum wage. Rather, the real Obama minimum wage is $0.00 an hour. We have right now the lowest labor participation rate since 1978.

To the millions of Americans who have lost their job because of $1.7 trillion in new taxes, because of crushing regulations, this is the Obama minimum wage: $0.00--not the political window dressing of $10.10; the reality, the hard, brutal reality.

Last week, I was in Nebraska at a rally. A woman named Barb came up to me. She hugged my neck. She said: Ted, I am a single mom. I have six little kids at home. My husband left me, and he is not paying child support. I am working five jobs, trying to keep my kids fed, trying to keep them with clothes on their backs. Barb had tears in her eyes.

One of the most brutal consequences of ObamaCare is it has forced millions of Americans like Barb into part-time work because the threshold for ObamaCare is 30 hours a week.

So instead of having one or two jobs, Barb and millions of other single moms are going from one job to another, to another, to another, and they are not spending the time with their kids. This is the brutal reality of the Obama minimum wage.

But, Madam President, I am happy to tell you, there is a better alternative. The better alternative, I would note--far better than zero, far better than the promise of $10.10 an hour--is $46.98. Madam President, $46.98--that is the average hourly wage in the oil and gas industry in the State of North Dakota.

Every one of us should want to see millions more jobs at $46.98 an hour, and we should want millions rescued from the Obama minimum wage of $0.00 an hour. That is the choice before this body--of expanding this American energy renaissance, creating opportunity.

Let me tell you, in the State of Texas--Texas is an incredible example--there is a reason why 1,400 people a day are moving to Texas, moving from high-tax, high-regulation States, represented by many of our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle. They are coming to Texas because Texas is where the jobs are and Texas is where the salaries are.

Oil and gas industry jobs in Texas paid, on average, 150 percent more than other private sector jobs in Texas--$128,000 a year compared to $51,000 a year--in 2012.

In the 23 counties atop the Eagle Ford shale in South Texas, average wages for all citizens have grown by 14.6 percent annually since 2005.

The top five counties in the Eagle Ford shale region have experienced an average 63-percent annual rate of wage growth.

How many millions of Americans would love to see 63 percent annual wage growth?

In Texas, the average pay for an entry-level truckdriver ranges from $36,000 to $45,000, but it rises to $50,000 to $70,000 in the oilfield. These are kids straight out of high school making $70,000 a year.

As reported in an AP story from March 28, 2014: ``James LeBas, economist for the Texas Oil and Gas Association, said the industry directly employed 416,000 employees in 2013 and they averaged $120,000 a year in wages.''

As a separate nation, Texas right now would rank as the ninth largest oil-producing country in the world.

Not only can energy development bring good-paying jobs, it can also help our children and schools. Cotulla, TX, was once one of the poorest districts in Texas, but now--because of the Eagle Ford shale energy development--it is one of the richest. The taxes that are coming from the energy development mean money for fixing schools, for hiring teachers, for paying them more, and for purchasing technology in the classrooms.

One thing that is striking is what has happened across the country. If you look, this is a map I have in the Chamber of changes in median household income by county from 2007 to 2012. Madam President, 2007 to 2012 is a long time.

On this map, green indicates that the median household income has gone up; yellow indicates no statistically significant change; and red indicates it has gone down.

Overlaid on this map is an overlay of the geological shale formations in this country. What is striking about looking at median incomes in the United States is where median incomes have gone up. This is almost exactly a geological shale map of the United States.

You can see median incomes have gone up up here in the Bakken shale in and around North Dakota. You can see the Permian Basin shale, the Eagle Ford shale, the Barnett shale. You can see the Marcellus shale. Green, green, green, green--median income going up--for everyone in the county median income going up where energy production is occurring.

Now, strikingly, the Marcellus shale extends north to New York, and yet for

the entire State of New York, you can see there is not a county in the State of New York where median income has gone up. Why? Well, one of the main reasons is the Democratic politicians in New York have prohibited developing those natural resources because they ban fracking.

So in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvanians apparently would like jobs, would like higher median incomes. They are seeing the benefits. But in New York, New Yorkers are not because Democratic politicians in New York have prohibited developing those resources.

I would note that one of the most promising areas is the Monterey shale in California--abundant resources--and you would note, in the entire State of California there is not one green county. That is because California, likewise--even though they have those resources, the Democratic politicians there have concluded Californians do not want jobs, they do not want higher incomes, and they are going to prohibit developing their natural resources rather than providing for the very real suffering that is being caused.

I would note, there is one striking exception from this pattern being largely a geological shale formation of this country, and that is the bright green on the map that is located right here where we are standing--the District of Columbia and the surrounding areas.

Let me tell you, it is a good time to be in and around government. The lobbyists, the consultants, those who make money on the growing and growing and growing Federal Government spending and debt, are getting fatter and happier every day. You look at the rest of the country, and you see stagnation, you see median income falling.

Rather than engaging in political games--driven by polling done by the Democratic Senatorial Committee on this minimum wage bill that, if passed, would only hurt low-income African-American and Hispanic teenagers--instead, we ought to come together with bipartisan unanimity to say: We will stand with the American people to bring millions of jobs. We will stand with the American people to raise median income. We will stand with the American people to make it easier for people who are struggling to achieve the American dream.

Therefore, I have proposed an amendment to replace the text of S. 2223, the minimum wage act, with the text of the American Energy Renaissance Act that I have introduced, S. 2170.

We should all come together and vote on removing the government barriers, opening new Federal lands and resources, developing high- paying, promising jobs that expand opportunity.

In conclusion, let me say this debate comes down to two numbers. It is not a complicated debate. This debate comes down to two numbers. On my left, the real Obama minimum wage: $0.00 an hour. I am sorry to say, in this Democratic Senate, this Chamber is largely empty. There is no discussion of fundamental tax reform or regulatory reform, of removing the barriers that have caused the lowest labor force participation since 1978.

Instead, we are debating a bill to increase unemployment. This minimum-wage bill--the nonpartisan CBO has told us more people would be paid $0.00 an hour under the bill before this Chamber. No wonder Congress's approval rating is 8, 10, 12 percent, when you take the greatest challenge facing Americans right now--the need for economic growth and jobs--and the U.S. Senate in Democratic control will not even talk about providing real relief there. No wonder people are disgusted with the U.S. Congress.

You want to know what this debate is about? Compare $0.00 an hour to $46.98 an hour. I want to see millions of Americans making $40, $50, $60 an hour, providing for their kids, having a better future.

As I travel this country, over and over again, men and women come up to me. They look me in the eyes and say: Ted, I am scared. I am scared that we are bankrupting this country. I am scared that my kids and grandkids are not going to have the future, the opportunity, the freedom we have been blessed to have.

This U.S. Senate has an opportunity to address that. We should pass the American Energy Renaissance Act. We should stop making it harder for working Americans, but, instead, we should come together for jobs and economic growth.

Thank you, Madam President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, every Member of this body has expressed our bipartisan commitment for the United States to stand resolutely with our friend and ally, the nation of Israel. Doing so is right, and it is overwhelmingly in the national security interests of the United States of America.

It was therefore with great sadness that I read this morning about the comments of Secretary of State John Kerry, who reportedly suggested at the Trilateral Commission that Israel could become an apartheid state if his proposed two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process fails.

Secretary Kerry has long experience in foreign policy, and he understands that words matter. Apartheid is inextricably associated with one of the worst examples of state-sponsored discrimination in history--the apartheid system in South Africa that was ultimately brought down by the heroic resistance of Nelson Mandela inside the country, supported by a concerted campaign of diplomatic and economic sanctions by the international community.

There is no place for this word in the context of the State of Israel. The term ``apartheid'' means apart, different, and isolated-- the state of the victims of apartheid with which the Jews are tragically all too familiar. The notion that Israel would go down that path--and so face the same condemnation that faced South Africa--is unconscionable. The United States should be aggressively asserting that Israel can never be made an apartheid nation while America exists and stands beside her because America will be with Israel regardless of the status of the diplomatic process.

Fifteen months ago, almost to the day, John Kerry was confirmed by this body by a vote of 94 to 3. Despite my preference for giving the President the Cabinet members of his choice, I found that I could not join the vast majority of my colleagues and support his nomination because I was convinced that as Secretary of State, John Kerry would place what he considered to be the wishes of the international community above the national security interests of the United States.

I fear that with these most recent ill-chosen remarks, Secretary Kerry has proven these concerns well founded. Rather than focusing on our clear national security interests--which is continuing to guarantee Israel's security through our unquestionable commitment to it-- Secretary Kerry has instead repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to countenance a world in which Israel is made a pariah because it will not sacrifice its security to his diplomatic initiatives; likewise, he has previously suggested that Israel might probably be subject to boycotts for the same grounds.

It is no wonder Israel's Defense Minister remarked in January that ``the only thing that can `save us' is for John Kerry to win a Nobel Prize and leave us in peace.''

Indeed, my colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona, has suggested that the foreign policy carried out by Mr. Kerry is the equivalent of a ``human wrecking ball.'' The fact that Secretary Kerry sees nothing wrong with making a statement comparing Israel's policy to the abhorrent apartheid policies of South Africa--and doing so on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day--demonstrates a shocking lack of sensitivity to the incendiary and damaging nature of his rhetoric.

Sadly, it is my belief that Secretary Kerry has proven himself unsuitable for the position he holds and, therefore, before any further harm is done to our national security interests and to our critical alliance with the nation of Israel, that John Kerry should offer President Obama his resignation and the President should accept it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the nomination of Hamid Aboutalebi to be the Ambassador from the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations is a deliberate and unambiguous insult to the United States. Mr. Aboutalebi was an active participant in the terrorist group that took 52 Americans hostage on November 4, 1979, and held them for 444 days. There are no circumstances under which the United States should grant such a person a visa, and our immediate concern is to prevent Mr. Aboutalebi from ever setting foot on American soil.

But this nomination is not an isolated incident that is taking place in a vacuum. It is part of Iran's clear and consistent pattern of virulent anti-Americanism that has defined their foreign policy since 1979.

Given the larger strategic threat to the United States and our allies represented by Iran's nuclear ambitions, this is not the moment for diplomatic niceties. We need to send Tehran an equally clear message: The Senate is not going to ignore this most recent insult but, rather, is going to give our President the authority to affirmatively reject it. Unanimous passage of the bill I have introduced, which specifies that engaging in terrorism against the United States is a basis to deny a foreign U.N. ambassador a visa to enter our country, will do just that, while also signaling to other unfriendly nations that we see this kind of offensive behavior for what it is, and we will not tolerate it.

I wish in particular to thank Senator Coats, who is a cosponsor of this bill, as well as Senator Graham, Senator McCain, and Senator Kirk for their leadership. I also wish to thank my friends across the aisle and, in particular, Senator Schumer, Senator Leahy, and Senator Menendez for working together with my office to reach bipartisan agreement. I am proud to join with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in this effort, and I am encouraged that we can all come together in a bipartisan manner on this national security issue that transcends political parties. I am encouraged that the Senate can speak unanimously in a bipartisan voice defending the interests of our Nation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 2195 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Cruz amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, the Cruz amendment to the title be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

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

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to an extraordinarily dangerous situation that our country faces under current law, which allows no terrorists to be granted visas to the United States under the cover of being ambassadors to the United Nations.

The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hasan Ruhani, has recently announced that Hamid Aboutalebi is his new ambassador to the U.N., which is, of course, headquartered in Manhattan, NY, and a visa application has been duly filed. In most cases--indeed, until now, in all cases--such applications for ambassadors have been granted in accordance with article 13 of the United Nations charter, but Mr. Aboutalebi's is a special case, as he was a member of The Muslim Students following the Imam's Line, the group who held 52 Americans hostage in Tehran for 444 days from 1979 to 1981. He protests that his involvement was limited to translation and negotiation, but he was sufficiently involved for the Muslim Students organization, which is still active, to feature to this day his photo on their official Web site celebrating that historic outrage against the United States of America. Now the Obama administration is considering granting this person a visa to come to the United States. I have to wonder--as did CIA Director Stansfield Turner in the movie ``Argo''--you don't have a better bad idea than this?

It is unconscionable that in the name of international diplomatic protocol, the United States would be forced to host a foreign national who showed a brutal disregard of the status of diplomats when they were stationed in his country. This person is an acknowledged terrorist.

In his January 23, 1980, State of the Union Address, then-President Jimmy Carter called the hostages ``innocent victims of terrorism'' and their captivity an act of ``international terrorism.'' I do not believe that anyone--beyond perhaps the Supreme Leader in Tehran--has debated President Carter's characterization since then, nor do I think I have ever agreed more emphatically with President Carter.

It is therefore necessary to amend the statute that currently gives the President the discretion to reject an applicant on the ground that he or she, as it currently states, has engaged in espionage against the United States and poses a national security threat.

The legislation I am introducing, S. 2195, will require the President to deny a U.N.-related applicant a visa if the President determines the applicant has engaged in terrorist activity against the United States, has engaged in espionage against the United States, or poses a national security threat to the United States.

I will note that I very much appreciated the kind comments and the impassioned support for this legislation from the senior Senator from South Carolina.

This legislation speaks to the larger issue of whom we have to let into this country. How would we feel, for example, if the Taliban had sent Osama bin Laden to be an ambassador to the United Nations from Afghanistan or how would we feel if some other country sent an ambassador who was complicit in the terrorist attack that murdered 220 marines, 18 sailors, and 3 soldiers in Beirut in 1983 or how would we feel if another country sent as an ambassador someone who was complicit in the terrorist attack on Khobar Towers that murdered 19 airmen in 1996, to name but a few potential examples? None of these examples would necessarily meet the current statutory requirement of having engaged in espionage. They murdered or kidnapped or tortured innocent Americans, but they didn't necessarily engage in a specific act of espionage. But all unequivocally should be excluded. This legislation would ensure that such people can never use the United Nations to gain entry into the United States.

I had intended this afternoon to ask the Senate for unanimous consent to pass this legislation to change the standard so that we could exclude a known terrorist from entry into this country. However, I am pleased to report that I have been told there is a real possibility of bipartisan cooperation on this--a real possibility that both sides of the aisle will work together to expeditiously change this law

so we can keep this known terrorist out of the United States. I am encouraged by that possibility of cooperation. I hope it comes to fruition. And I hope this week we see the Senate act in a bipartisan way and in a unanimous way to change this law to exclude this known terrorist.

I wish to make a broader point. This nomination is willfully, deliberately insulting and contemptuous. It is not an accident that Ruhani picked a known terrorist who held Americans hostage to send to our country. I would suggest that this action should serve as a wake-up call that the regime in Tehran is directed by the same policies that resulted in the hostage crisis in the first place.

There has been considerable optimism expressed by the Obama administration in the months following the election of President Ruhani that Iran is somehow softening its position toward the West, that Ruhani is somehow a moderate and is acting as a good-faith partner in its negotiations over its nuclear program. This nomination should dispel those illusions. And the professed optimism of this administration flies in the face of reason.

On the eve of the first round of these talks in November, the Revolutionary Guard transferred American pastor Saeed Abedini, unjustly incarcerated simply for professing his Christian faith, from the Evan Prison to the even more brutal Rajai Shahr Prison, carefully selecting the date of that transfer to be the anniversary of the hostage crisis-- what they call ``Death to America'' day in Iran.

After the joint plan of action was agreed to in late November, which one of our closest allies has rightly assessed as a ``very, very bad deal''--a historic mistake--President Ruhani triumphantly tweeted--in English, no less--that in the Geneva agreement, ``world powers had surrendered to Iran's will.'' These are hardly the words of a friend.

Last February the Iranian Government released a statement declaring that the Nation of Israel is ``a cancerous tumor that must be removed.'' These are not the words of a rational negotiating partner.

The choice of Mr. Aboutalebi for ambassador to the United Nations once again demonstrates that the same militant hatred of America that has dominated Iran's foreign policy since the revolution continues to flourish unabated. Indeed, there is a reason Iran refers to Israel as the ``Little Satan'' and America as the ``Great Satan.''

It is astonishing, it is dismaying, it is dangerous that the administration continues to engage in these talks given the clear and consistent message of hostility coming out of Tehran.

The legislation I am introducing will take the first step by establishing that there are no circumstances under which the perpetrators of the hostage crisis--those who have committed overt acts of war against America--will be welcomed into the United States. This action should be followed by the President suspending the Geneva negotiations unless and until Iran not only ceases this behavior but also ceases all enrichment activities and dismantles their nuclear program in its entirety. Then and only then should there be meaningful dialogue between our two countries.

In 1979 our citizens had to wait more than a year--during which they were tortured by their captors--before they were finally released on January 20, 1981--not coincidentally on the very day on which Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as President.

I am encouraged at the prospect of bipartisan cooperation so that we can stand together as a unanimous Senate against allowing a known terrorist into the United States who has participated in acts of war against our Nation. We should not extend the ordeal of those hostages even further by tolerating this most recent outrage on the part of Iran.

One of the former hostages, Barry Rosen, called the possibility that the United States might grant the visa application a ``disgrace,'' and he said, ``It may be [setting] a precedent but if the President and Congress don't condemn this act by the Islamic Republic, then our captivity and suffering at the hands of Iran was for nothing.''

I believe it is well worth setting a precedent to show the world that whatever smiling mask is on the other side of the table in Geneva, the true face of Tehran remains the terrorist who took our people hostage 35 years ago, whom they are now attempting to send to America under the auspices of being an ambassador. Instead, I believe we should stand together in saying that a known terrorist who has carried out acts of war against America will, in Mr. Rosen's words, ``never set foot on American soil.'' I hope we can stand together behind this legislation.