tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 9, 2014 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
2:00 pm
the same talkingpoints, the same boring power points. so it's really bureaucratic inertia. but it is also lack of leadership. for 20 years, the pentagon says korea is the problem. but 20 years later, there is absolutely no evidence they have done anything to revise the korea war plans with antipersonnel mines or that any president, democratic or republican, has ever told them to do so. now, the u.s. government deserves credit for spending hundreds of millions of dollars to clear mines, help mine survivors. i would also note the leahy war victims fund has been an important part of that, including the money i have gotten through appropriations to clear these land mines. but this girl, this girl and
2:01 pm
there are countless more like her, thousands of new mine victims each year show the other tragic side of the story. i mentioned on the floor here the other day about the bosnia conflict. talking to a young teenager, young teenaged girl in the hospital. she had been sent away by her parents to a safe place during that war. the war ended, the army left the field. she could come home, she is running down the road, calling out to her parents and steps on a land mine and loses both her legs. she wasn't a combatant. the war wasn't even going on anymore. it was supposed to be safe. she became a victim. so many of these victims. now, americans by and large also condemn the use of these land mines, but they expect more than
2:02 pm
they are getting from their government, and so do i. so should every member of congress. it's been 20 years since president bill clinton at the united nations called for the elimination of antipersonal land mines. they cheered him when he did. two years later in 1996, he said -- quote -- "today i am launching an international effort to ban antipersonnel land mines, and i cheered that." but 18 years later, we're still waiting. we haven't signed the land mine treaty. we're waiting for action. during the clinton administration or the george w. bush administration or this administration. and i have spoken to president obama about this. i was encouraged when he accepted the nobel peace prize. he said i am convinced that
2:03 pm
adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do and isolates and weakens those who don't. i told the president how much i agreed with his words. coincidentally, when he received that nobel prize, it was a decade after the nobel committee awarded the prize to the international campaign to ban land mines. how fitting it would be after all these years if my friend, president obama, gave real meaning to the words he said accepting the nobel peace prize by putting the united states on a path to join the mine ban treaty, join our nato allies. this is what the president needs to do. more importantly, it is what america and the world needs. i will speak further about this
2:04 pm
on another occasion, mr. president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold his request? mr. leahy: i do. mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i rise to speak on senate bill 96, the protecting students from sexual and violent predators act. before i do that, mr. president, i want to say a few words about the terrible event that occurred this morning in pennsylvania.
2:05 pm
the students at franklin regional high school in murrysville, pennsylvania, suffered a terrible, devastating tragedy this morning. a person -- and this person is believed to be a fellow student -- took out a knife and attacked his fellow students before the start of the school day. it appears as many as 20 people were injured, some severely. our thanks go out to the first responders who did respond as rapidly as they could, and our prayers go out to those who were injured and their families at franklin regional high school. mr. president, i want to turn to this bill that i have introduced, the protecting students from sexual and violent predators act. it's senate bill 1596. i want to thank my cosponsor, senator joe manchin and senator mitch mcconnell. i tell you, the inspiration for this bill begins with the story of a boy named jeremy bell. the story begins in delaware
2:06 pm
county, pennsylvania. one of the schoolteachers in this school that jeremy bell attended -- one of the schoolteachers in the school in delaware county was found to have molested several boys and raped one of them. prosecutors decided there was not enough evidence to bring a case. the school knew about what was happening and decided to dismiss the teacher for this appalling behavior, but what was so amazing and disturbing about it is the school also helped this predator land a job at another school in west virginia, even passing along a letter of recommendation so that they could move their problem somewhere else. the story ended in 1997 when that teacher, by then a school principal, raped and murdered 12-year-old jeremy bell in west virginia. justice finally caught world cup that teacher. he is now serving in jail a life sentence for that murder, but
2:07 pm
for jeremy bell, the justice came way too late. jeremy bell's father wouldn't rest until he knew he had done all that he could to help try to ensure that no child or parent would ever experience a similar tragedy. roy bell, jeremy's father, worked with congress to create protections for children to ensure that they were not victimized at school. i think it was some consolation for him and for his loss. the u.s. house of representatives responded, responded to this terrible, terrible tragedy. on october 22 of last year, the house unanimously passed the protecting students against sexual and violent predators act, but again, sadly, justice came too late. jeremy bell's father passed away just three days before the vote. so now here we are in the senate with the chance to pass the same bill, the bill that has already passed the house unanimously. it's a bipartisan bill. it's the bill that i introduced.
2:08 pm
it is the companion legislation, and as i mentioned, we have bipartisan support for this bill. but i hear some people suggesting that maybe -- maybe we should wait, maybe now is not the right time, maybe we need more time. mr. president, i just want to say as strongly as i can, we have had enough waiting. we have wasted enough time. and let me explain why we can't wait another day. i want to start with two numbers. the first is 130. since january 1 of this year, mr. president, 130 teachers have been arrested across america for sexual misconduct with children. that's more than one teacher arrested for each day of the year so far, and that's, of course, only those who have been caught and arrested. every moment we delay, we delay rooting out some of these problems. the other number is 73. 73 is the number that comes from the government accountability
2:09 pm
office. g.a.o. says that the average pedophile molests 73 children over the course of that pedophile's lifetime. these predators actively seek out the environment where they can find victims. that's what they do. and what better place for them than schools? and so they go from school district to school district, sometimes from state to state methodically looking for victims. every moment we delay, we let a predator move on to the next of his 73 victims. so the damage that these predators do is just enormous, it's damage far beyond what any number can convey. you know, the past few months, i have had the chance to visit a number of child advocacy centers around pennsylvania, meeting with the men and women who work with abused children, whether it's helping them through the criminal justice system or whether it's just helping them to start the healing process, and these folks do some
2:10 pm
incredibly important and very, very good work, but again, you can't visit one of these centers without being profoundly impacted by how devastating the abuse is. and i can't come up with the words to convey how devastating it is, but i can let some of the children speak for themselves. and so, mr. president, i'm going to quote from two children, students who were victims. shannon of nevada was raped by a teacher. the teacher was later convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to life in prison. nine years later, here is what shannon wrote, and i quote -- "when i was a senior in high school, mr. peterson approached me and said i would need to go to night school if i wanted enough credits to graduate on time, and of course he taught one of those courses, a computer class. i was 17, and he raped me four times over the course of a year. he said he would fail me if i ever told. he also hit me and made threats against me and my family, so i didn't tell. i held it in for a year and a
2:11 pm
half. in the end, 66 people offered to testify against peterson. his first victim dated back to the year i was born. some of those who spoke up were parents. their daughters had complained at the time but nothing was done, and that made me very angry. it still does. i learned that a handful of teachers and two principals knew about him, and his teaching license had been revoked in michigan years before, but no one knew why. i'm different because of what happened. i have to watch people all the time, analyze them. i can't be carefree. now i have a 7-year-old son and two daughters, ages 3 and 1. i will home school my girls. the case of a boy from south carolina named guerry, one of 29 boys abused by a teacher, mr. fischer, over the teacher's
2:12 pm
37-year career. the teacher is serving 20 years in prison. two school principals were sued for allegedly covering up the abuse. what guerry wrote is as follows -- "i was 9 when it started. the abuse was frequent and long term until i went to college. i knew there were others, too, but until it all came out, i never knew how many. you feel so guilty, so ashamed. it's frightening now to look back and see how calculating fischer was. i did everything i could to get kicked out of school. i was in the guidance counselor's office all the time. finally in tenth grade, i got myself kicked out for cheating. by the time i went to college, i was drinking all the time. i was terrified to quit because then i would have to feel. i couldn't drink and do school at the time so i went to rehab. i was 18. it took me a year and a half. my life is good now. you can survive it but you have to deal with it." he goes on to say -- "i always felt that what the school did
2:13 pm
was far worse than what fischer did. fischer was a sick and evil monster, but the school just calculated its damage to its public relations. we kids were disposable, which is a whole other category of evil." so, mr. president, the question before us is what are we going to do about this? what can we do? what are we going to do? my bill, the protecting students from sexual and violent predators act, it's a sensible first step in protecting these kids. it would require a mandatory background check for existing and prospective employees, and the checks would have to be periodically repeated. there are five states today that don't require any background check at all. the second thing that my bill would do, it would check all employees or contractors who have unsupervised contact with children, not just teachers, so coaches, school bus drivers, anybody who has contact with kids, in my view, should undergo this background check. there are 12 states in which there is no such requirement on contractors. my bill would also require a
2:14 pm
more thorough background check. it would require a check of four major databases, both state and federal. in pennsylvania, for instance, if an employee has been living in the state for two years or more, there is no federal background check done at all, only the state, and i don't think that's adequate. the way these predators move from state to state, i think it requires that we check the federal database. importantly, mr. president, my bill would also ban what we call passing the trash. this is that horrendous practic whereby a school discovers that they have a predator and they intentionally ease the predator out and sometimes actually facilitate that predator getting a job somewhere else. that should be illegal, and my bill would make it illegal. the fifth thing that my legislation does, it would stipulate that schools cannot hire a person who has ever been convicted of any violent or sexual crime against the child. i think that's a very reasonable first step. in addition, it would ban hiring
2:15 pm
of a number of specific felonies, not all felonies, but felonies such as homicide, child abuse or negligent, crimes against a child including pornography, child abuse, rape, sexual assault and kidnapping. any of those felonies are obviously so egregious, i think they would qualify a person to be excluded from working with children. in addition anyone convicted of a physical -- felony physical assault or battery or felony drug-related offense would be prohibited for five years. couldn't be hired for a five-year period. the enforcement of all this, mr. president, would be that if a state refused to adopt these very commonsense measures to protect kids, then they would get no federal funding from the easa. i think the states would adopt these reforms. i would point out there's nothing the least bit radical about these proposals. in addition to having passed the house of representatives
2:16 pm
unanimously, we in the senate just passed a virtually identical background check requirement on the child care development block grant legislation that we adopted, i think it was last week or the week before, very, very recently. believethat bill had essential background check provisions for daycare workers. that is sensible. that's an important good step. it makes sense to protect children in a daycare. but it makes no sense whatsoever to protect the kids at a daycare and then leave them defenseless when they move on to an ordinary school. finally, again, let me emphasize, mr. president, this bill has broad bipartisan support manifested in the house and here in the senate. but more than that i think it's a moral imperative. our children deserve to be be protected now. if that's not a responsibility we have, i don't know what is. the protection didn't come soon enough for jeremy bell or shannon or guerry but we don't
2:17 pm
have to fail other children by delaying this. i would suggest right now, mr. president, i would ask any of my colleagues to object to this legislation who have concerns about this, i would welcome understanding how or why legislation that passed unanimously in the house, legislation that is completely consistent with what we passed just a couple of weeks ecooog, why that should be a problem, i can't imagine but i would welcome hearing any objections if if there are. but i want to see a speedy passage of this legislation, mr. president, so it's my intention tomorrow to come down here to the senate floor and ask for unanimous consent to my colleagues that we pass this legislation here on the senate floor. that will expedite this process and that will assure that we put this really important safeguard in place as soon as we possibly can. mr. chairman -- mr. president, i have one other issue i want to address briefly before i yield the floor.
2:18 pm
and that is i want to speak a little bit about the ex-im bank. we'll be considering believe this afternoon a nominee to a very senior post at the young men and women -- the ex-im bank. my focus is not on this particular candidate but we need to ask questions about the way the ex-im bank operates, what it does and how it does it and i hope we'll make some significant changes when we get to reauthorization, the reauthorization debate in the fall. first of all i should point out that this is an institution, the ex-im bank that has -- gives rise to a very substantial taxpayer risk. it is large and it is growing. in 2007, ex-im bank's total exposure was $57 billion. today it is almost precisely twice that amount, $113 billion, and the ex-im bank would like to increase that exposure further. in addition, in 2013 the g.a.o.
2:19 pm
after doing an audit found multiple weaknesses in ex-im's internal risk management processes, failures to account for changing environments that could lead to higher losses, lapses that would not be acceptable in fully private institutions. another point that i want to make is i hope we don't kid ourselves about this, mr. president, i know sometimes people suggest to the contrary but the fact is taxpayers are systematically subsidizing the can ex-im bank and the risk that the taxpayers are taking is not adequately compensated. how do we know this? we know this because buyers of products that are subject to ex-im bank financing, they get the ex-im bank financing because no private lender is willing to do it. no private lender is willing to make the loan. or if they are, they're not willing to do it under terms as generous as the ex-im bank. that is all the evidence we need to confirm that they are
2:20 pm
systemically underpricing the risk that they're taking. and i find that very objectionable. there's another concern that i have. and that is the nature of the activity, the financial subsidization that it provides for certain overseas buyers of some american exports, the nature of this process inevitably creates winners and losers back here in the united states. the ex-im bank effectively subsidizes -- i'll give you one example. indian airlines gets a subsidy to purchase boeing jets. that's very nice. except that indian airlines competes directly with some american airlines. american companies. direct competitors, they don't get the advantageous funding yet their foreign-based competitor does. how can that possibly make sense? my final point about this, mr. president, is that one of the most predictable things in the world is when we create a
2:21 pm
government entity to engage in an economic activity, that activity will be politicized. it is a creature of congress, a creature of the government, it is going to be affected and sure enough, it didn't take long for that to happen, it already happens in the ex-im bank. i have seen members of this body come down to this floor and attempt to offer amendments that would require, for instance, certain quotas that the ex-im bank must lend to certain places in the world that are favored by particular members for whatever reason. there are other mandates on ex-im bank's financing that it must accommodate certain economic activities, certain products. this has nothing to do with market forces. this has nothing to do with general exports. this has everything to do with the politics that that individual cares about. this is the kind of politicization and the distortions that inevitably occur. so, mr. president, in my view, we ought to make it a high priority of our trade
2:22 pm
discussions to 0 insist with our trading partners around the world that we have a mutual and reciprocal phasing out of these counterproductive taxpayer subsidized export entities and while we will not have the opportunity to do that with respect to this nominee we're going to consider this afternoon we will have the opportunity to do it when the reauthorization debate begins in the fall and i hope my colleagues will engage in that debate. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i think that we have prepared to have a -- several unanimous consent requests regarding the issue of how to care for
2:23 pm
veterans in our country. i first want to begin by thanking senator sanders for his extraordinary leadership on the issue of caring for and supporting veterans, their families, their dependents, and the communities in which veterans live. there's been no stronger voice on the senate floor for veterans on either side of the aisle than senator sanders, and i really appreciate his leadership. he has been spending a great deal of time on the floor explaining the importance of his legislation. he's joined me today to talk further about it. but inside of this very important major piece of legislation, there is a piece of it that passed the house unanimously that would authorize the construction of 27 major medical facility leases in 18 states and in puerto rico. one -- two of which would be in
2:24 pm
lazy. one in -- in louisiana, one in lafayette, one the in lake charles. i've been leading the effort, contrary to the testimony put on by the junior senator from lazy, with congressman boustany, whose district this is, who has been the leader of our delegation and there is no hesitation among our delegation about who the leader has been, it's been charles boustany, the congressman from this district about getting these clinics built. we have been working with the veterans office for years, working on and getting them to admit that they actually made the mistake that caused our clinics to have to be delayed in their construction because of a -- a mishappen of great proportion -- mishap of great proportion in the way these contracts were bid. the veterans of our state -- and senator sanders knows this -- rightly have been
2:25 pm
complaining for years they have been left out and left behind, and our entire delegation, democrats and republicans have made phone calls, had multiple visits to the region. contrary to the testimony of the junior senator, the fact is everybody has been working well together. congressman boustany got to pass this piece of legislation out of the house that basically says yes, let's go forward and build these clinics and not require an offset. so i would like to ask unanimous consent right now to do just that, just that, to take the house bill that's passed with no amendments, no modifications, and pass this bill so it doesn't have to go back to the house, it can go right to the president's desk for signature. it costs $1.8 billion, there is no offset, but as i've said,
2:26 pm
the veterans that this is going to help in my view -- this is only my view -- have already paid the price. they've already paid the price. they shouldn't have to pay twice. so i agree with the house of representatives. there doesn't need to be an offset to this. i don't agree with senator vitter's amendment that there needs to be an offset. i think we just need to go ahead and unanimously decide to send this to the president's desk for his signature, i'm confident that he would sign this, and it would authorize these clinics in not just louisiana but in the states around the country. now, i can understand there is some opposition from outside of our state, i don't understand any opposition from within the state, but i'm going to right now ask unanimous consent the veterans' affairs committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 3521, the bill be read three times and
2:27 pm
passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: on behalf of senator coburn, who isn't here today, i object. now, my understanding is --. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. lee: my understanding senator coburn's objection is based on the lack of a pay-for in this proposal. there is, however, an amendment introduced by senator vitter that addresses this concern, that fills this gap. and so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the veterans' affairs committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 3521 and then that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. and i also ask unanimous consent that the vitter amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, that the bill as amended be a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. ms. landrieu: would the senator yield for a question? would that be mod?
2:28 pm
the presiding officer: does the senator yield for a question? mr. lee: yes. ms. landrieu: i understand the house of representatives passed this bill, h.r. 3521, i'm going to get the exact vote in a minute, but i think they might have passed it 400-plus to whatever -- do we know? 346-1. they passed this bill, h.r. 3521, 346-1. that has no offset. do you have any reason to know why senator coburn would now require an offset, since the bill and the politics is controlled by the republican leadership in the house? mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: i don't mean to cut my colleague off, but senator lee is here on behalf of senator coburn, who has been more involved. so let me give the history.
2:29 pm
some folks in the senate had concerns about the bill and the fact that in their view it wasn't paid for. i met with them, talked through all these concerns. i couldn't convince them to drop those concerns completely, so instead we found a solution. and we found a solution, the vitter amendment at the desk that has been cleared within its four corners, nobody in the senate, no republican, no democrat, opposes the amendment. so we found that solution in order to pass the bill through the senate. and that addressed senator coburn's objections to the bill alone. so that's the solution we worked out. but i can't fully walk through all of senator coburn's thoughts about the bill on its own and whether it was paid for or not. i can just tell you that i met with him exhaustively, wasn't able to get him to completely
2:30 pm
drop his objection, but was able to agree on this compromise, this solution to the pay-for issue. so that's why the amendment which is at the desk was proposed, which removes the coburn objection, which fixes the problem. the presiding officer: is there an objection to the request of the senator from utah? mr. sanders: i object. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. objection is heard. the senator from louisiana has the floor. ms. landrieu: that's very good to know that senator coburn is objecting or not objecting to an offset that is not a real offset. the reason that there is some objection from our side, i think, from senator sanders is because the vitter offset is not real, it doesn't generate $1.6 billion in savings, so i think we should go forward with no offset, because the $1.6 billion is not a real offset.
2:31 pm
and the -- i want to submit to the record the c.b.o. -- the c.b.o. analysis of this offset that basically says for my preliminary estimate of the amendment based on information from the department of defense, there are no savings, there are no savings for drug-related purchases to the current law. the preliminary estimate is zero. so with that, i just want to reiterate that i would like unanimous consent -- please don't interrupt -- i would like unanimous consent for my amendment which has no offset and the bill does not have to go back to the house of representatives. the bill can go straight to the president's desk. and i yield the floor to the senator from vermont. mr. vitter: parliamentary inquiry? the presiding officer: the senator will state his inquiry. mr. vitter: i'd like to ask through the chair because this is significant information whether senator sanders would object to passing the bill without the amendment, because in all previous discussions to
2:32 pm
date i understood that he would object to that, but that's very significant information, so i would ask that of senator sanders through the chair. the presiding officer: that is not a parliamentary inquiry. however, if the senator from vermont chooses to respond, you may. mr. sanders: i will respond later. mr. vitter: that's -- reclaiming the floor and reclaiming my time, that's very significant information that can guide us with regard to any path forward, so i would really like to know from the senator whether he would or would not object to a u.c. to pass the bill without this amendment. mr. sanders: that's a fair question, and let me ask my colleague from louisiana, as he knows -- and i will be speaking more to this in a moment -- i have introduced legislation. i want to thank senator landrieu for her strong support of this legislation, support not only for veterans of louisiana but for every veteran in this
2:33 pm
country, legislation supported by virtually every veterans' organization in the united states of america. i would respond at this point to my colleague from louisiana to say that if i were prepared to support the landrieu amendment, which has no offsets, and she makes a good point, veterans have paid for this legislation in their blood already. would the senator from louisiana object to an amendment that i offered for the comprehensive bill that had no offset as well? mr. vitter: if i could address the chair, i will be happy to answer the question. as senator sanders knows, i had serious concerns with his much broader bill, so i have not agreed to his far broader bill. he knows that. we have talked about that. we have talked about those concerns, and i'm happy to restate that. but having answered his question, i'd like to reask through the chair if senator sanders is objecting or would
2:34 pm
object to the u.c. request to pass this veterans' clinics bill without the amendment at the desk? mr. sanders: reserving the right to object. let me again thank senator landrieu who has raised this issue with me on numerous occasions, and with the issue that we are talking about, i think senator vitter referred to it. it is clearly not just an issue for louisiana, it is an issue which addresses the needs to see built 27 major med facilities in 18 states and puerto rico, and to my mind, this is a very important provision, which is, in fact, why i put it in a very prominent place in my legislation, and what i would say to my friend from louisiana
2:35 pm
is that as important as that provision in the bill is, there are many, many other provisions of equal or greater importance, so what i would say to my friend from louisiana that organizations, again, virtually every veterans' organization in america, representing millions and millions of veterans, what this body and members of the senate, not just to give speeches on veterans' day or memorial day about their concerns for veterans, they want this body to start acting on behalf of the veterans in this country. and what they want us to do, among many other things, is advanced appropriations for v.a. i don't know. i know my friend from louisiana is not a member of the veterans' committee and maybe he does not know that in the last government shutdown we were ten days away
2:36 pm
from veterans, disabled veterans not getting the checks that they live on. this bill that i have introduced addresses that. and maybe the senator from louisiana does not know that we have a major backlog problem, that while the v.a. is making good progress and significantly reducing that backlog, i as chairman of the senate veterans' committee want to make absolutely certain that when a veteran applies for a benefit, that benefit is adjudicated in a rapid and efficient and accurate way, and my legislation deals with that issue. and i don't know if the senator from louisiana, the junior senator, knows that we have a real problem for veterans in louisiana and across this country who are trying to take advantage of the post-9/11 education bill that over a million veterans and their
2:37 pm
families are taking advantage of but suddenly find themselves if they move from vermont to louisiana o louisiana to vermont, they may not be able to take advantage of in-state tuition. our bill addresses that issue. the presiding officer: the senators are advised that subject to a previous order, the senate was to proceed to executive session at 2:30. mr. vitter: i would ask unanimous consent that that be postponed for an additional ten minutes so we can simply round out this very important discussion. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. sanders: none whatsoever. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: mr. president, i believe i made an inquiry of the chair so i believe i have the floor, and i'd like to reclaim it if that's appropriate. the presiding officer: that is not correct. i believe the senator from vermont currently has the floor. mr. sanders: so the point i am making is that furthermore not only are we dealing with the in-state tuition issue which impacts veterans from louisiana and vermont and every other state, we are dealing with another issue in that we are
2:38 pm
going to extend from five years to ten years unfettered access to v.a. health care for recently separated veterans. and at a time when real unemployment in this country is close to 12% and many veterans are coming home from iraq and afghanistan and they're looking for work and work is hard to find, this legislation renews our vow to hire heroes because we believe it's important that veterans get back to work and take care of their families. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: i apologize for interrupting, but i just want to assure of the additional ten minutes that were granted that i would have five minutes. mr. sanders: he will. mr. vitter: i apologize for interrupting. mr. sanders: not at all. and i want to mention to my colleague from louisiana, he may or may not know we have a very serious problem in the military regarding sexual assault and that it is terribly important
2:39 pm
that the women and the men who are sexually assaulted get the help and the treatment that they need in a v.a. facility and we address that issue. and the senator from louisiana may or may not know that 2,300 veterans -- these are men and women who suffered injuries in iraq and afghanistan -- came back home and they are unable because of their wounds to have babies, and this legislation is going to help them start the families that they want. and the senator from louisiana may or may not know -- and i know the senator from illinois does know, senator durbin, that in this legislation we deal with the caregivers act, that right now we have 70-year-old women who have taken care of their husbands who lost their legs in vietnam or in korea or whatever war, and that they are crying out for us to give them a modest degree of help. so what i say to my friend from
2:40 pm
louisiana, now is the time to stand with the veterans of this country, and if you think it's too expensive, then don't send them off to war. don't send them off to war. taking care of veterans is a cost of war. they payed for -- they paid for it. i'm very proud again that this legislation has the support of the american legion, v.f.w., d.a.v., gold star wives, vietnam veterans organizations, iraq-afghanistan organizations and all the other ones -- virtually all of them. so with that, i implore my friend from louisiana here do the right thing, support this comprehensive legislation which addresses your concerns in this provision but it does a lot more. mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, i think this discussion today has been very important and very instructive because it underscores that not only does
2:41 pm
the distinguished senator from vermont object to my efforts to pass the veterans' clinics bill with the amendment at the desk by unanimous consent, but he also objects to senator landrieu's efforts to pass the same veterans' clinics bill in her case without the amendment without the offset. i asked him that direct question. he made it very clear that he continues to demand that we pass his entire much broader bill and will not let this hostage go. i think that's really sad and really inappropriate for him to object to my effort, for him to now object to senator landrieu's effort. she made the unanimous consent request to pass the clinics bill, the focused clinics bill. he is objecting to that as well. it is also completely contrary to what senator sanders has said before, working on these and related issues. in another instance, in late
2:42 pm
2013, november, senator sanders himself, talking about our colleagues, say -- "i'm happy to tell you that i think that was a concern of his, another colleague, we got that u.c.-ed last night, and we moved that pretty quickly, and i want to try to do those things, where we have agreement, let's move it." mr. president, where we have agreement, let's move it. we do not have agreement about the significant details of the much broader sanders bill, and it is not one senator objecting about that. it is 43. but we do have agreement about this clinics issue. no one, including senator sanders, objects to the substance of the clinics bill. we have worked out every issue, including through my discussions with senator coburn about the pay-fors. the amendment at the desk solves that. so when you take that bill and the amendment, no one objects to
2:43 pm
that substance. no one objects to it within the four corners of that material. the only objection constantly on the floor for the last several weeks, today again toward me, today again toward senator landrieu's u.c. is no, i need my whole bill. well, we'll continue to discuss those important issues and disagreements, but 43 senators disagree with senator sanders. 60 are needed to move forward. in the meantime, can we at least agree what we agree on and not hold veterans hostage? they have had guns pointed at them before, but they don't expect u.s. senators to hold guns to their head and hold them hostage over veterans' clinics. and so where we have agreement, let's move it. we have agreement about the
2:44 pm
veterans' clinics. let's move it. that's my effort. that's senator landrieu's effort, which again is being objected to, moving this focused clinics bill by the senator from vermont. i find that really unfortunate, but i will certainly continue to demand that we pass this and continue to talk regarding all of the other important veterans' issues. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: reserving the right to object. we talk about holding hostage. the junior senator from louisiana, the distinguished senator, pointed out that 43 senators voted against comprehensive legislation that is supported by virtually every veterans' organization in this country. well, the arithmetic is 43 voted against it, that's true. how many voted for it?
2:45 pm
well, 56 voted for it and one was absent who would have voted for it. 57 voted for comprehensive legislation, 43 voted against it. so when you talk about holding veterans hostage, i would suggest to my friend from louisiana that maybe instead of filibustering this bill and requiring an undemocratic 60 votes, let the majority rule. the american people want us to pass this legislation and if you choose not to vote for it, that's your right. but i do urge you not to hold us hostage by demanding 60 votes when a very strong majority want to see it passed. and with that, mr. president, i would object. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, can you tell me the order of business we are now --. the presiding officer: we are now in executive session -- there are 40 seconds remaining on the current issue following
2:46 pm
which we will proceed to executive session. mr. durbin: i yield back that time. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: export-import bank of the united states, wanda felton of new york to be first vice president. the presiding officer: the remaining time until 3:30 will be for debate on the felton nomination.
2:47 pm
the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, a generation ago an aids diagnosis meant sure and agonizing death. it was 23 years ago when i was in the house of representatives and i was walking to the chamber for a vote when i saw a colleague and friend, tom mcmillan, congressman from maryland, coming my way. you wouldn't miss tom mcmillan. he played in the nba. he was tall. and as he passed on the sidewalk he stopped and he said magic has aids. it was a stunning announcement that magic johnson had been diagnosed with aids. the reality is that's 23 years ago. at the time, we felt that this was a death verdict. there was no way to escape it. last month, american researchers revealed that a second american baby born with h.i.v. has apparently been cured of the virus with drugs
2:48 pm
delivered just minutes after birth. how far we've come in 23 years, from an aids diagnosis meaning certain death to being able to cure for the second time a baby born with h.i.v. with drugs delivered minutes after birth. these babies were treated as part of a research program at the national institutes of health. their apparent cures offer real hope for a quarter million babies born into the world this year with h.i.v. many of them in desperately poor nations. and it isn't the only thing that's happening when it comes to medical research by a longshot. in my home state of illinois, dr. jose oberholtzer are among researchers on an n.i.h.-sponsored project to find a cure for type one diabetes. disowp know anyone with type one
2:49 pm
diabetes? i do. to think that we are close enough to even consider the possibility of a cure just should spur us all on to want more research in this area done as quickly as possible. these two doctors are part of an effort called the clinical transplantation con consortium. eyelets are beta cells that produce since lynn. transplanting healthy beta cells into the liver of someone with type one diabetes can enable a person's body to produce insulin on their own, a functional cure for type one diabetes. this isn't just a theory, it's starting to show results when it comes to this clinical research. why do i raise these amazing medical research stories on the floor of the senate? because the united states senate and the house of representatives each year vote on how much money we're going to put into the national institutes of health. and we've had some sad outcomes
2:50 pm
in recent years. did you know that over the last ten years we've been unwilling to give the national institutes of health even a cost of living adjustment? so each year they've fallen behind in medical research just because of inflation. they've fallen behind 22% in awarding research grants like the ones i've just described because we have failed to provide a cost of living adjustment for them. does anyone believe we're saving money by cutting back on medical research? if they do, they're just plain wrong. they had a program announced about a month ago at n.i.h. called amp program, it's a new undertaking. the ten largest pharmaceutical companies have put up $150 million, not a great amount of money for successful pharmaceutical companies, but an investment, to be matched by n.i.h., and they're setting out to use human genomic mapping and
2:51 pm
cell information to find cures for alzheimer's, type one diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. can we afford this? can we afford this research? do you know what we paid last year in medicare and medicaid just for alzheimer's patients? $203 billion. one year. if we can through our research find a way to at least delay if not cure alzheimer's, think of the misery that will be spared these poor families that suffer from alzheimer's, and think of the money we will save. are we so shortsighted as a nation that we have forgotten that medical research not only finds cures, but saves us money that would otherwise be spent for medical care? that's why i introduced two
2:52 pm
weeks ago the american cures fund. it's different. there aren't a lot of proposals like it before congress. what i'm doing with this proposal is trying to get congress on both sides of the aisle in both chambers to make a commitment to american medical research. american cures. and here's the commitment -- over the next ten years, i want a commitment that we will increase the funding in medical research beyond inflation 5% a year. 5%. for the national institutes of health, for the centers for disease control, department of defense medical research, and the veterans administration medical research. what's the cost of that? the cost of that is $150 billion over ten years. to make a commitment to go forward on medical research. it's a lot of money. it's a lot of money until you
2:53 pm
consider what the cost is each year of alzheimer's, $200 billion. not to mention the cost of diabetes, arthritis, and so many other illnesses and diseases that call for huge investments when it comes to medical care. where in the world can we get $150 billion over ten years? where can we possibly find it? let me give you a starting place. increase the federal tax on tobacco products by 95 cents. i'm for that. i'll tell you why i'm for it. i didn't -- i've been fighting tobacco as long as i've been in congress, house and senate, and what i've discovered is if you want to discourage young people from smoking, taking up tobacco addictions that will ultimately cost them their lives, raise the price of the product. they stop buying them. in my lifetime we've seen the percentage of americans smoking cut in half.
2:54 pm
so raising that tobacco tax gives us money for medical research and reduces the likelihood that people will become addicted to nicotine and tobacco. 700,000 americans will not take up the tobacco habit if we raise that tax 95 cents. it's money well spent. on medical research. if don't want do this, what happens? we fail to find the cures for diseases, we continue to make massive expenditures in medicare and medicaid and other other health programs and we watch the world pass us by. if the united states decides to retreat when it comes to biomedical research, other countries are ready to step in. now, today, china is investing 12% to 20% more each year in government research and medical research each year. in eight years, china will surpass the united states in
2:55 pm
dollars spent on government and medical research. are we ready to let that happen? i hope not. for the sake of the people who live in this country, who need cures for these diseases and help, for the sake of the cost to our health care system that all of this medical challenge presents, and if we want to maintain a lead when it comes to researchers and doctors and hospitals, it's time for us on a bipartisan basis to make a commitment to medical research. i hope that others will join in cosponsoring this american cures fund. a number have done this already and i thank them for joining me. one of them is on the floor, my colleague from california, senator boxer. she's always by my side. we've fought a lot of these battles together. and the list goes on. senators reed of rhode island -- reepped of rhode island, gillibrand, hagan, casey, markey and mikulski and we're just getting started. i might always say congressman
2:56 pm
dana issa is cosponsoring in in this house. i can't think of a better issue, to find cures for diseases and make sure our country continues to lead the world when it comes to biomedical research. i hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i want to thank my colleague are from illinois for his leadership in making our people healthier than they couldwise would be. i remember talking about the battles we've had, making sure we crack down on the tobacco companies who told us for years, smoking was safe, take it, it will relax you and deny the science. we lived through those years, many years ago, worked with then-senator lautenberg and senator durbin led the charge in the house to stop smoking on
2:57 pm
airplanes. i remember coming home from these long trips and literally just reeking of cigarette smoke. i never smoked in my life, but just sitting around it in the airplanes. and now we're working together on n.i.h. issues and e-cigarettes. we're very upset about some of the false claims made about e-cigarettes so we want the triews truth out. before he leaves the floor i wanted to thank him. i'm only here for a couple of minutes to just express my chagrin, my disappointment, my shock that not one republican voted with democrats to make sure that women have qawp to men -- equal pay to men. what a simple concept. if you work a job that's the same as a man, the pay should be equal. and that means women can get a fair shot in the workplace. how do we know that it isn't happening? we know because there are
2:58 pm
statistics that prove that women are earning on average $11,000 less than a man for the same job and that's $11,000 a year. over the course of a lifetime, it's over $400,000. and our republican friends in searching to come up with a reason, i don't know their reason -- i don't get their reason but this is what they said. they said mitch mcconnell, the republican leader said in a press conference and i just read it, i hope i'm wrong, maybe he didn't say this, but he said we're hurting the very same people we're trying to help in this legislation. now, somebody explain to me how it hurts a woman to have equal pay with a man for the same job. how does it hurt a woman to be able to afford a better place to
2:59 pm
live with that $11,000 a year or a better school, a college to send her child, or just enjoying a family vacation, or a used car that maybe they want to buy, or, or, or. it's unbelievable to me. every republican voted against equal pay today for women. what's even more disturbing, every republican voted to filibuster equal pay for women, meaning they voted against our even taking up the subject. they stopped us. we had a good, solid majority of democrats, 54. we just wanted to take it up and work on it and get it through. they filibustered this. it is to me amazing, and --
3:00 pm
and senator mcconnell said democrats are obsessed with this issue of equal pay for equal work. okay, i'll take it, i'm obsessed. i want equal pay for women. now, we're here in the senate; everyone knows what we earn, and everyone knows that a woman senator makes the same as a man senator. we have the same pension options and health care options. and that's the fair way. all the equal pay for equal work act said is we want to enforce the civil rights laws that demand it but employers now harass you, fire you, stop you from finding out what your colleague across the aisle makes. if you even ask someone, i want to just check him. am i getting paid fairly? i'm getting paid $45,000 a year and we do the same job. can you tell me?
3:01 pm
that alone -- that alone -- makes that worker a target for dismissal, harassment, et cetera. this shouldn't be. you should be able to find out and ask. that's all we're trying to do here. we're trying to make sure that the civil rights act that passed in the 1960's actually work. the civil rights act said equal pay for equal work. but then all these rules came down and loopholes came down, and employers can fire you, harass you or do whatever if you even ask about it. now everyone knows -- i shouldn't say everyone. a lot of people understand the lilly ledbetter case. lilly ledbetter worked at a tire company. she was a manager. she was considered one of the top people in the company that did this work. she found out she was getting paid thousands of dollars less by the owner of the tire
3:02 pm
factory. and she sued. she won in a lawsuit at the lower level, and then she -- it went all the way to the supreme court, and they said, sorry, you waited too long to file your lawsuit. what? she said, i couldn't find out about it, and i didn't find out about it, she said, until a coworker left me a note and said, lilly, i admire you, you're great. do you know you're getting x thousands less a year than your male counterpart? but she didn't find it out for many, many years. so we have to fix that problem, and barbara mikulski and the president led us and he signed the bill, the lilly ledbetter which extends statute of limitations so when you find out you've been discriminated against, you can bring a lawsuit. all this says is you can find out for sure earlier by just asking someone.
3:03 pm
so i am just in shock. and don't tell me women don't want fair pay; all they care about is flexibility. you can't buy groceries with flexibility. and if you want flexibility in the workplace, you can work that out. but get your pay first. for example, i have employees, men and women, who want to get their pay settled, and then they'll say is it okay if i work four days a week at the same level but i don't get paid for that fifth? that's fine, if that's the flexibility workers want. but don't substitute flexibility and say if you want to work four days a week, we'll give you that. but guess what? you'll be paid less for the job than a man. please. yes, we are obsessed with this. we are, because we democrats believe in justice and fairness and equality not just in words
3:04 pm
and speeches and reading great quotes from our founders, but in reality. that means in reality we want a woman in the workplace to be able to find out if she's getting paid fairly. and so i'm disappointed but i'm also excite that had harry reid is going to bring this back again and again and again and again in the hopes that our republicans in the senate relent and understand this is about fairness and justice and equality and the right thing for women of this country. and not only women in this country, but for their families, their children. two-thirds of women either are the sole supporter of families or they're cosupporters of their families. this is an economic issue. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor.
3:05 pm
3:10 pm
3:11 pm
anyone, regardless of who you are or where you came from, can work hard, play by the rules and succeed. that belief is predicated on the notion that america has a thriving, competitive, and free enterprise economy, one in which the best ideas and the hardest workers win the day. while those who are less successful always have a fair chance to try again. the free enterprise system isn't perfect by any means, but it is fair. unfortunately today americans increasingly believe that our system is rigged, and in president obama's america, they have good reason. from the stimulus to cash for clunkers to the bailouts to cap and trade, from dodd-frank to obamacare, every name brand initiative of the president's term of office has distorted public policy to privilege the
3:12 pm
well connected, insiders and elites at the expense of taxpayers and consumers. the export-import bank is another taxpayer-funded example of distorted public policy that further erodes americans' confidence in our markets and in our system. in short, the ex-im bank exists to dole out guarantees to help out exporters. congress allows ex-im banks to risk taxpayer money unnecessarily to subsidize well-connected private companies. this kind of policy privilege best described as crony capitalism is a threat to the free market and to its moral
3:13 pm
underpinnings. crony capitalism corrupts the free market by rewarding political connections over competitive excellence. it subverts the rule of law by codifying inequality. it undermines social solidarity by pitting citizens against one another, twisting corporate, cooperative communities into rival special interests. that's why in obama's crony economy, we are seeing record corporate profits but stagnant middle-class wages and an anemic jobless recovery. cronyism has promoted and exacerbated inequality. it has isolated the poor and it has squeezed america's middle class. there are three principle pall reasons -- three principal reasons why we should start making this kind of discussion part of the public debate and why we should start doing it right now. first, we should do this to fix the economy.
3:14 pm
nearly all of our nation's net job creation comes from firms that have existed for five years or less. but cronyist policies tilt the playing field against those very firms and make it next to impossible for those companies to succeed, to grow, and to create new jobs that we so badly need and that the american people so significantly deserve. leveling the playing field creates competition in both directions. it allows smaller, younger firms to compete and it forces larger, older firms to do the same. that dynamic competition is what creates new jobs. it's what creates new economic growth. and it's what gives rise to new opportunities up and down the economy, at every step on the economic ladder. second, this is a matter of basic justice.
3:15 pm
the american people have a fundamental right to equal opportunity under the law, and it's the job of the government to protect equal opportunity. if the very people who work hard and play by the rules are forced by the government to bail out, prop up and subsidize elite insiders who don't, then the land of opportunity, well, isn't. third, as those who most support free enterprise and equal opportunity, republicans must bear the burden of reform. we believe in the power of free markets and a voluntary civil society. to expand opportunity, to lift people out of poverty and support a secure and prosperous middle class. so it's our responsibility to follow through on our own convictions and close our own branch of the beltway favor bank.
3:16 pm
and it starts with skefrbgts having an -- conservatives having an agenda to reform government and to end cronyism. fortunately some of us have already started working on it. these proposals focus on protecting the american people from the economic harm that comes from the collusion of big government, big business and big special interests. for example, we have policy reforms that force congress to periodically reevaluate expensive regulations, level the playing field for all energy producers, open our higher education system to new students, teachers and competition, give americans the right to choose whether or not to join a union, cut out the bureaucrats who waste critical infrastructure funding, and, yes, eliminate taxpayer subsidies to organizations like the ex-im bank. this agenda will create jobs, grow the economy, and increase opportunities by allowing small
3:17 pm
businesses and forcing big businesses to compete on a level playing field where success depends on customer service and not on political connections. a conservative agenda to get right on cronyism will be good for jobs, the economy, and above all it will be the right thing to do. eventually, later this year the reauthorization of the ex-im bank will be before the senate, and i hope my colleagues will keep these points in mind. but before us today is the nomination of wanda felton to be first vice president of the export-import bank. this is a position that she already hold holds but is being renominated so she can continue holding that position. now, ms. felton significantly has sat on the board of the ex-im bank and has done so at a time when the ex-im bank declined to take several
3:18 pm
recommendations, recommend -- recommendations from its own inspector general to lower its risks, which in turn put taxpayers at greater risk. the ex-im bank has also continued to make claims about the importance of ex-im on job creation, without necessary caveats or references to the bank's methodology, claims that the g.a.o. has heavily criticized. i cannot support putting someone comeback into this position after that person has largely ignored these recommendations by government watchdogs. for all these reasons i've mentioned, i respectfully and strongly ask my colleagues to oppose the renomination of wanda felton to be the first vice president of the export-import bank of the united states. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
3:30 pm
a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is.
3:31 pm
3:57 pm
3:58 pm
mcsweeny nomination, which the clerk will now report. the clerk: federal trade commission, terrell mcsweeny of the district of columbia to be a federal trade commissioner. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debatey queel divided in the usual -- debate equally divided in the usual form. without objection, all time is yielded back. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:
78 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on