[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 57 (Thursday, April 14, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2068-S2085]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2015
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 636, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 636) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations,
and for other purposes.
Pending:
McConnell (for Thune/Nelson) amendment No. 3679, in the
nature of a substitute.
Thune amendment No. 3680 (to amendment No. 3679), of a
perfecting nature.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The senior Senator from South
Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the motion
to end debate so the Senate can vote and pass the pro-security and pro-
consumer provisions within the bipartisan Federal Aviation
Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016.
For the past 2 weeks on the Senate floor and earlier at the Commerce
Committee, we have engaged in a constructive and open process to
consider amendments making important changes to this legislation that
sets
[[Page S2069]]
aviation policies for our country. On the Senate floor we added 19
amendments, 10 from Democrats and 9 from Republican Senators, and at
the Commerce Committee we approved 57 amendments, 34 from Democrats and
23 from Republicans. A number of these amendments were substantial,
including the vast majority of the aviation security provisions within
the legislation.
We have also agreed to set aside discussions on certain issues for
now so we could continue to have a bill with broad bipartisan support.
On some policy issues where there was disagreement, we found the will
of the Senate through negotiation and votes. Our debate has been
constructive, and I value the process by which we have allowed Senators
to make their mark on this bill.
After 2 weeks of consideration, it is now time to conclude our work
on the bipartisan legislation I introduced along with my friend, the
ranking member from Florida, Senator Bill Nelson, and our Aviation
Subcommittee leaders, Kelly Ayotte and Maria Cantwell.
The bill we can vote on today has been described in the Washington
Post as ``one of the most passenger-friendly Federal Aviation
Administration reauthorization bills in a generation.''
Even more important, this bill includes strong, new security measures
that address the threat that ISIS and other terrorist groups pose to
airline passengers. It is a comprehensive bill addressing needs in
cyber security, the aircraft design approval process, undue regulatory
burdens on noncommercial pilots, airport infrastructure, rural air
service, lithium battery safety, mental health screening for pilots,
communicable disease preparedness, drone safety, and many other
important issues. This bill helps the public that relies on our air
transportation system, and we shouldn't let them down.
A vote yes on the motion to end debate allows us to move forward and
to get these reforms going forward by agreeing to ultimately vote on
them and to vote on passage of this bill.
Again, I thank all who are involved. Senator Nelson and I started
this process months ago. I think we had somewhere on the order of seven
hearings, full committee and subcommittee, in debating and helping
shape the bill. It was a very constructive process as we went through
the markup, where we incorporated the suggestions and good ideas that
came from many Members of our committee. We tried to continue that
process on the floor of the Senate, and we have been successful in
adding some amendments that strengthen the bill. I wish we could add
more. I hope we can still reach agreement. There are still negotiations
underway for another package of 25 or 30 amendments that we would like
to get added to this bill if we can get the level of cooperation that
is necessary to accomplish that.
In the end, we need to pass this. It is important for the American
people. It is a piece of legislation that needs to get voted on in the
Senate, hopefully on to the House, and eventually on the President's
desk.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota. He
has been a real friend and a champion in being able to work together in
the best traditions of the Senate in trying to craft--and I think we
have successfully--a bipartisan piece of legislation that continues, as
the Senator has quoted from one of the papers, to advance the FAA in a
way that we should be sensitive to the needs of the flying public.
It is also this Senator's hope that where we have disagreements on
just a few amendments, that after we have a big vote invoking cloture
so we can move on with the bill, that a package of 30-some amendments--
noncontroversial, bipartisan--would then be allowed to be adopted by
unanimous consent, and then it is possible that we could move on to the
final passage early this afternoon. That is this Senator's hope.
Let me underscore what the Senator has already said. There are a lot
of challenges in how we conduct ourselves in the airspace of this
country. There are a lot of important things that we have to do, such
as modernizing the air traffic control system, the next generation of
technology in moving us efficiently, and in the process it has to be
safe.
Therefore, as we see new kinds of challenges because of technology--
for example, unmanned aerial vehicles, drones--we have to approach that
with great caution and make sure we know what we are doing so the
flying public is safe.
I hope we get a big vote on this motion for cloture.
I yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Senate amendment
No. 3679.
Mitch McConnell, Daniel Coats, Roger F. Wicker, Roy
Blunt, Orrin G. Hatch, Thom Tillis, John Hoeven, Rob
Portman, James Lankford, John Thune, Mike Rounds, John
Cornyn, John Barrasso, Johnny Isakson, James M. Inhofe,
Jerry Moran, Kelly Ayotte.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 3679, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr.
McConnell, to H.R. 636, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 94, nays 4, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 45 Leg.]
YEAS--94
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--4
Boxer
Lee
Portman
Rubio
NOT VOTING--2
Cruz
Sanders
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 94, the nays are 4.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 627
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, America was horrified 2 years ago as the
scandal at the VA unfolded. We heard about veterans dying while they
were waiting for care. Meanwhile, we discovered that VA employees
manipulated appointment wait lists to hide the fact that the VA
couldn't provide the care our veterans needed in a timely fashion.
The denial of earned care is always tragic, but it is inexcusable
when the denial is driven by bureaucratic tampering and falsifications.
Cooking the books was one bureaucratic offense, but not holding
accountable those responsible is an additional bureaucratic failure,
and one that continues to haunt our system.
These weren't just a few scattered incidents either. The VA inspector
general investigated 73 VA facilities across
[[Page S2070]]
the country and found problems in 51 of them, ranging from rule
violations to outright fraud. These reports demonstrate that
inappropriate scheduling practices were systematic at the VA.
This map shows how widespread the wait-list rule violations and
manipulations have been. The inspector general's office found out how
our veterans were treated when they called up looking for care. The
information the VA gave was manipulated to make it seem as though the
VA was doing much better than it was. We literally know that veterans
died while waiting for care. That is shameful, and we owe it to those
who served this Nation to serve them. They earned this by defending us
and our freedoms.
Unfortunately, one of those 51 cases was the VA medical center in my
home State of New Hampshire.
A New Hampshire newspaper summarizes the inspector general's report
as follows:
Staff at the Manchester VA Medical Center manipulated
appointment dates and refused to schedule referrals beyond 14
days in some speciality departments, all to make it appear
patients were being seen quickly.
One report also shows that top officials at the Manchester
VA discouraged the use of electronic waiting lists.
Another shows extremely long waits at the facility's Pain
Clinic, where one patient waited an average of seven to eight
months for injection treatments.
The reports show a near obsession with keeping numbers down
when it comes to the length of time that veterans had to wait
for appointments, which is one of the ways bonuses for
hospital officials were determined.
Bonuses were determined by how you performed on the scheduling and
whether you were actually meeting the needs of our veterans on time.
Yet we know they were manipulating wait lists across the country to
show that they were, in fact, serving our veterans when they were not.
Last week I met with the current Manchester VA medical center
director to discuss the findings of the inspector general's report.
Even though it didn't occur under her leadership, these findings are
serious and must be dealt with appropriately. While I was encouraged to
hear of the steps the director has taken to address the scheduling
misconduct, I will be closely following the medical center's practices
and performance.
We cannot let this happen again. Part of not letting it happen again
is what brings me to the floor today. I will make sure we aren't
incentivizing misconduct and allowing wrongdoers to get away with it,
whether it is the wait-list manipulations or misconduct.
Unfortunately, the wait-list scandal isn't the only scandal at the
VA. There is a common theme with all these scandals: Those committing
misconduct are getting bonuses--yes, bonuses. Those involved in
wrongdoing are getting checks paid by the American taxpayer. That is
unacceptable, and that is why I introduced bipartisan legislation to
improve accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs by
requiring the VA Secretary to claw back bonuses paid to VA employees
who were involved in serious misconduct or felonies. It would also
require the VA to retain a copy of any reprimand or admonishment given
to an employee by the Department which would then be in that employee's
permanent record. Keeping that information in someone's employment
record seems like common sense, but we have to pass this bill in order
to do that. Amazingly, the Secretary of the VA doesn't currently have
the authority to claw back bonuses even if, as with the wait list, the
perpetrator's misconduct led to a bigger bonus check. That is
unacceptable. We cannot reward those who commit fraud and misconduct by
doling out taxpayer dollars.
A recent report noted that in 2014 the VA paid out $140 million in
bonuses. Nearly half of the VA's employees got bonuses. More
importantly, we know that individuals who were implicated in an array
of scandals also received bonuses. For example, the director of the
Phoenix VA hospital who was fired for her misconduct got a $9,000
bonus. The VA senior managers who improperly leveraged their positions
to get hundreds of thousands of dollars in relocation funds to move to
new facilities, along with a bump in pay--even though they were
committing misrepresentations and fraud--got bonuses. A VA employee who
recently pleaded the Fifth Amendment before a congressional committee
got a bonus. Executives overseeing the $1 billion-over-budget VA
medical center construction project in Colorado got bonuses. A doctor
implicated in overprescribing opioids at the Tomah VA facility called
``Candy Land,'' where veterans were harmed--bonus.
We can't let these bonuses keep going to wrongdoers. It will just
continue the erosion of trust of our veterans, who have done so much to
defend this Nation and our freedom. That is why we need to pass this
bill. The VA Secretary must be active in pursuing the disciplinary
actions against VA employees guilty of misconduct so they aren't
getting bonuses and taking away resources that could go to help our
veterans. Without my legislation, the VA Secretary does not have the
authority right now to go after a bonus, even if the bonus is given to
a wrongdoer, to claw that money back.
This bill passed out of committee by a voice vote. The records
retention provisions in this bill passed out of the House of
Representatives by voice vote. Let's put this authority into law so
that those who break the law don't get bonuses. That is why I am
standing on the floor today asking for unanimous consent to pass this
legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 240, S. 627. I further ask that
the Ayotte and Brown amendments be agreed to; the committee-reported
substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended,
be read a third time and passed; the title amendment be agreed to; and
that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I agree
with much of what the Senator from New Hampshire said, and that is that
our veterans deserve to have the highest quality care by the Veterans
Administration. Those employees at the Veterans Administration who have
not carried out their responsibility should be disciplined, and when
there are adverse findings, there should be consequences to them. So I
agree with much of what she has said.
However, let us be mindful that the overwhelming number of Federal
workers, including those at the Veterans Administration, are hard-
working public servants, asked to do more with less resources. They
have been through freezes, furloughs, government shutdowns,
sequestration--you name it.
I understand that the Veterans' Affairs Committee is considering more
comprehensive legislation, as they should. As my colleague from New
Hampshire has mentioned, this deals with one aspect of those who have
adverse findings in regard to their ability to get bonuses or the
reprimand on their record.
Here is my problem. If we use a unanimous consent request, there is
no opportunity for amendment, and there is no opportunity for debate.
When I finish my comments, I am going to ask that the Senator amend her
unanimous consent request to include an amendment that I wish to offer.
Let me explain what it does.
Yes, we want to hold the employee accountable--those who have not
carried out the public trust in which there are adverse findings. But
there also has to be accountability for the supervisors, for those who
should be managing the agency so that we don't have employees doing
what they did.
Managers need to have tools. They need to be able to manage their
employees. They need to be able to determine how their employees are
handled if we are going to hold them accountable, and I want to hold
the supervisors accountable. So my amendment would allow the supervisor
to determine the length of the suspension of the bonus that the
individual could receive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If I could just ask Members to take their
conversations out of the Senate Chamber.
Mr. CARDIN. I appreciate that, and I thank the Presiding Officer very
much. I thought I was getting an agreement here.
So to continue, it could be longer than the 5 years that is in the
bill of the Senator from New Hampshire, but it would be the manager or
supervisor who would determine the length of the suspension of the
right to receive the
[[Page S2071]]
bonus, so that the manager has the tools in order to manage the
workforce and we can hold the supervisor accountable.
The second amendment is similar, as it relates to the reprimand being
retained in the records. It allows the manager to have the discretion
as to the length of time.
The bill that the Senator from New Hampshire is recommending is a
hard 5-year period, and it doesn't give the manager the ability to use
these tools as ways to advance service to our veterans.
The bottom line here is service to our veterans. That is the bottom
line--that they get the services they deserve.
So I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify her request so
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No.
240, S. 627; that in lieu of the committee-reported substitute and
title amendments, that the Cardin substitute amendment, which is at the
desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and
passed; that the Cardin title amendment be agreed to; and that the
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with
no intervening action or debate.
That would carry out the modifications that I said, giving the
manager the ability to impose either a shorter or longer period of time
than the bill of the Senator from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Hampshire so modify
her request?
Ms. AYOTTE. No, I do not.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
Mr. CARDIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I certainly thank the Senator from
Maryland. I agree, and I believe there are many hard-working Federal
employees. The reason that I have been fighting for this bill in
particular is, No. 1, to make sure that those who commit misconduct are
held accountable. No. 2, I actually want to make sure that we aren't
sending the wrong message to the people who are working hard and doing
their jobs. When they see someone else who has committed misconduct by
literally manipulating wait lists get a bonus, that actually
demoralizes the good, hard-working employees who are doing their jobs
and serving veterans.
So this is about making sure that the people who actually do a good
job get recognized. But when you give a bonus to someone who has
committed misconduct, you not only obviously undermine our system--
thinking about the veterans who have served our Nation with so much
courage and done so much for us--not only do we corrode their trust,
but I think we corrode the trust of the workforce that is doing really
great work every day, and I want to thank those who are doing the good
work on our behalf. I have had a chance to meet many of them.
I want to address the point of the Senator from Maryland about giving
managers authority. I wish to point out that the problem we have here
is that this is rampant--absolutely rampant. If we look at what
happened with the director of the Phoenix VA who lost her job--fired
for misconduct--where literally wait lists were manipulated and
veterans died, she got a $9,000 bonus. So who are we going to leave
discretion to here? Many of the managers, I know, need to manage the
facilities, which is important. But when it comes to the bonus issue,
we literally would be putting, for example in the Phoenix situation,
the individual who gets fired for overseeing all of this in charge of
whether and how long other people's bonuses are clawed back. I would
also say that this has been rampant, unfortunately, about management,
and not just of the director of the Phoenix VA but the other examples I
gave, including the VA senior managers who improperly leveraged their
positions to get hundreds of thousands of dollars in relocation funds.
So, in other words, they were misappropriating taxpayer dollars. They
got bonuses too. They are managers.
We have executives overseeing the huge cost overrun in the Colorado
VA who got bonuses. We have many examples. If we put this at the
discretion of how long this is going to go in place instead of putting
a logical time period in place, which my bill does, then we are going
to keep perpetuating the same situation where the discretion makes it
so it doesn't happen. That worries me, because, unfortunately, we have
a pattern here that needs to be addressed.
Second, I would just say that, as we look at even the ability to
retain records, most employers do have standard recordkeeping in terms
of if you receive a reprimand or an admonishment and how long that is
retained. So if we just leave that completely loosey-goosey discretion
among managers, where we have already established some of them have
been part of this misconduct, then I fear there really will be no
accountability and these provisions will not have the teeth in them
that they should.
Let me just say that this bill that we have been working on, that did
pass out of committee, is something that I have been working on and
negotiating for months, working and taking people's concerns into
account. It does ensure that, before any employee is subject to having
the bonus clawed back, they do have the opportunity for due process. So
that is built into this to challenge the underlying claims made against
them. But if we put this all into a discretionary basis, then we are
just going to be in the same situation that we are right now and not
have the teeth that we need in this commonsense measure.
I talked to some of my constituents about this issue, and they can't
believe that we actually have to pass a law to say that if you got a
bonus and you committed misconduct--in fact, one of the reasons you got
the bonus is because of the misconduct, because you manipulated the
wait list--yes, you can give that money back, and you shouldn't be
receiving a bonus. It is kind of shocking that this isn't just common
sense. But right now the VA Secretary does not have this authority.
Our veterans deserve better. This is plain common sense. I am
disappointed that the modification that was sought on the floor would
weaken this commonsense bill. I am going to continue to fight for more
accountability in our VA. But let's have some common sense in all of
this. We shouldn't be rewarding our employees who are committing
misconduct for the very conduct that they are committing and that
unfortunately is harming our veterans who have done so much for this
Nation.
I am the granddaughter of a World War II veteran. My husband is an
Iraq veteran. I have had the privilege in my job of meeting so many of
our veterans, both current Active-Duty military and those who have
served in conflicts going back to World War II. There is no greater
example of patriotism and what makes our country great than our
veterans. Really, if we think about what has happened in our VA and how
shameful it is, this is something that we need to make sure we get
right once and for all for those who have defended this Nation and who
really show us what it means to be an American.
So I am going to continue to fight for such a commonsense piece of
legislation, but I hope my colleagues will join me in this so that we
can make sure that the VA performs its mission, which is to give our
veterans the best care they can receive and that they certainly have
earned defending our great Nation.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the hard work Senator Ayotte
has put into her bill and her willingness to work across the aisle with
the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Senator
Blumenthal, and Senator Brown. Since I objected to her unanimous
consent request and she objected to my counteroffer, I would like to
take a few moments to outline my concerns about her bill and explain
why I offered a complete substitute amendment that reflects those
concerns and an amendment to change the title.
At the outset, I want to make it clear that I do not condone
malfeasance by any Federal executive or employee. The well-documented
problems at the Veterans Administration, VA, are particularly troubling
because they harmed the men and women who have defended our Nation--and
their families. That is unacceptable.
There is an old proverb, ``You can fix the blame or you can fix the
problem.'' Actually, VA Secretary Robert McDonald, his leadership team,
and the VA rank-and-file are doing both.
[[Page S2072]]
To that end, I would encourage my colleagues to read the December 9,
2015, testimony of Sloan D. Gibson, Deputy Secretary of the Department
of Veterans Affairs, before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
In the context of patient access and scheduling data manipulation
concerns that came to light at the Phoenix VA Medical Center, Deputy
Secretary Gibson reported that, as of October 2015, VA completed 97
percent of appointments within 30 days of the clinically indicated or
veteran's preferred date; 91 percent within 14 days; 87 percent within
7 days; and 24 percent on the same day. VA's average wait time for
completed primary care appointments is 4 days; specialty care is 5
days; and mental health care is 3 days.
The Veterans Benefits Administration, VBA, completed 1.4 million
claims in fiscal year 2015, nearly 67,000 more than the previous year
and the highest completion rate in VA history. Fiscal year 2015 marked
the 6th year in a row of more than 1 million claims.
VBA reduced its claims backlog 88 percent from a peak of 610,000 in
March 2013 to a historic low of 75,122 and reduced inventory 58 percent
from a peak of 884,000 in July 2012 to 369,328, 28 percent lower than
fiscal year 2014.
The average number of days a veteran is waiting for a claims
decision, pending, is 91 days, a 191-day reduction from a peak of 282
days in March 2013 and the lowest average number of days pending in the
21st century. VBA's average days to complete is now 129 days--a 60-day
reduction from fiscal year 2014. So VA is improving its services to
veterans. That is fixing the problem.
Now, what about VA supervisors and employees who engaged in
misbehavior or wrongdoing? There is a popular misconception that you
can't get rid of Federal workers. In fact, in fiscal year 2015, 2,348
VA employees were removed, terminated during probation, or retired or
resigned with a removal action pending. Over 1,800 of these
individuals--or more than 75 percent--were fired. To be clear, these
numbers pertain to the entire Department for all infractions and are
not limited to the wait list problem.
It is a mistake just to focus on those numbers. As Secretary McDonald
and Deputy Secretary Gibson wrote in the January 21, 2016, Wall Street
Journal, ``You can't fire your way to excellence.'' But the point here
is that punishments have been and are being meted out; people have had
their careers ended. That is fixing the blame.
I will briefly outline my concerns with S. 627, even as reported and
as it would be modified by the Ayotte and Brown amendments.
First, the bill deprives the Secretary of the discretionary authority
needed to manage and discipline the VA workforce appropriately.
Second, the bill establishes new precedents for punishing Federal
workers that haven't been thoroughly vetted and may have harmful
unintended consequences.
Third the bill has two major components. The first deals with
bonuses; the second deals with employees' personnel records and
reprimands and admonishments. The second component was added at mark-up
and was not a subject considered when the Veterans Affairs Committee
held its hearing on bonuses on May 13, 2015. The Republican leader
talks about the need to restore regular order. There ought to be a
hearing regarding the second component. And fairness dictates that a
witness from a Federal employee union, such as the American Federation
of Government Employees, which represents many VA workers, should be
invited to testify.
As Senators Blumenthal, Murray, Sanders, Brown, Tester, and Hirono
stated in their Minority Views in Senate Report 114-148:
Besides the substantive issues with the provision that we
have identified, section 2 of S. 627 was derived from S.
1496, a bill that has not been considered in a legislative
hearing. For a significant and controversial provision like
section 2 of S. 627, the Committee should have held a
legislative hearing to give all Members the opportunity to
hear from witnesses and fully understand the consequences of
this provision.
I am not objecting simply to object. I would like to work with the
junior Senator from New Hampshire to see if we can find common ground,
and that is why I sent a substitute amendment and title change
amendment, which needs to be done separately, to the desk, and asked
her to modify her consent request to reflect these two amendments.
Let me explain exactly what I am proposing. The unanimous consent
that has been hot-lined consists of three elements. The first is S. 627
as reported. The second is an Ayotte amendment modifying provisions of
that bill dealing with bonuses. The third is a Brown amendment
modifying provisions of that bill dealing with reprimands and
admonishments.
What I have done is to combine all three elements into a single
substitute and modify it to restore to the Secretary some managerial
discretion, which I feel is essential for someone charged with running
a department the size of a Fortune Six company.
As reported, the title of the bill is ``To require the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to revoke bonuses paid to employees involved in
electronic wait list manipulations, and for other purposes''.
While the wait list problem may have spawned this bill, that title is
inaccurate. The bill has no such limitations implied by that title; it
applies Department-wide for any offense.
So I propose a simple amendment changing the title to read: ``To
amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to recoup inappropriate bonuses paid to or on behalf
of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other
purposes.''
Section 1 of S. 627 as reported and as further modified by the Ayotte
amendment prohibits the Secretary from awarding bonuses for 5 years to
any employee who is the subject of an ``adverse finding.'' My
substitute amendment changes that provision to give the Secretary
discretion to withhold future bonuses ``until such date as the
Secretary considers appropriate.''
Now, my language theoretically empowers the Secretary to withhold
bonuses for more than 5 years. The point here is to provide the
Secretary with the flexibility needed to manage, discipline, and
incentivize 340,000 people in an appropriate fashion. I wonder if there
is any Senator who has managed a workforce as large as the VA's and, if
so, would have preferred surrendering his or her discretion to make
personnel decisions as he or she thought necessary.
Section 1 of S. 627 as reported and further modified by the Ayotte
amendment of the bill states in part that:
The Secretary may base an adverse finding . . . on an
investigation by, determination of, or information provided
by the Inspector General of the Department or another senior
ethics official of the Department or the Comptroller General
of the United
States . . .
I believe the Secretary must base an adverse finding on an
independent determination. As I have stated, I fully support increasing
accountability at the VA--and that includes making sure that a VA
employee does not receive a bonus while engaging in misconduct.
Senator Ayotte's bill, however, does not require the Secretary to
base an adverse finding on the determination of an independent
decisionmaker. My amendment would cure this defect and set appropriate
limits by requiring the Secretary to base an adverse finding on an
independent determination. By doing so, it would ensure that bonus bans
are not arbitrary.
Section 1 of S. 627 as reported and further modified by the Ayotte
amendment requires the Secretary to recoup bonuses paid to employees if
they are subsequently subject to an adverse finding with respect to the
years during which the bonuses were awarded.
Furthermore, section 1 requires VA employees to certify that they
will repay any bonus received during a year in which an adverse finding
may subsequently be made.
These provisions raise many unanswered questions, including how such
actions would be treated with respect to determining Federal and State
tax liabilities. But I have left these provisions unchanged.
Section 1 of S. 627 as reported and further modified by the Ayotte
amendment states that ``The Secretary may promulgate such rules as the
Secretary considers appropriate to carry out this section.''
Considering the unprecedented nature of the sanctions in section 1, I
believe it is imperative that the Secretary engage in a formal
rulemaking
[[Page S2073]]
to allow all interested parties the opportunity to weigh in with their
concerns and suggestions.
S. 627 is characterized as a legislative response to a specific
management crisis at the VA. Yet it sets several new precedents and
penalties that will be applied in a much broader context. As such, I
believe it would be appropriate to sunset the bill after 3 years to
encourage Congress to revisit whether it is an appropriate legislative
remedy to the ``wait list'' problem at the VA and whether the bill is
causing any adverse unintended consequences.
My original proposal to the junior Senator from New Hampshire
included two sunset provisions, for section 1 and for section 2, which
I will discuss momentarily. Senator Ayotte objected to the sunset
provisions, so I have removed them from my substitute amendment at the
desk.
Section 2 of S. 627 as reported and further modified by the Brown
amendment requires the Secretary to retain reprimands and/or
admonishments in the personnel records of affected employees for a
minimum of 5 years. While this is a significant improvement over the
original provision, which was to retain such actions permanently, it is
still problematic.
First, as I mentioned previously, this provision was added after the
Veterans Affairs Committee conducted its hearing and, consequently,
hasn't been sufficiently considered.
Furthermore, Active-Duty personnel can request that reprimands be
removed from their military personnel records jackets, MPRJs, at any
time, and reprimands can only remain in the MPRJ for a maximum of 3
years.
One in three VA employees is a veteran. Should someone have fewer
rights to clear his or her personnel record as a civilian than he or
she had while serving on Active Duty?
Section 2 of the bill is unlikely to increase accountability at the
VA. However well intentioned the provision may be, it is much more
likely to cause significant increases in taxpayer-funded litigation
costs because the VA will no longer be able to resolve routine
personnel disputes through Clear Record Settlement Agreements, CRAs.
The Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB, reported in 2013 that 95
percent of agency representatives resolved disputes using Negotiated
Settlement Agreements, NSAs, and 89 percent of these agreements
involved CRAs.
Quoting again from the Minority Views I referred to previously:
In testimony before the House Committee of Veterans'
Affairs, VA noted that it is the standard practice across the
Federal government, including the Department of Defense, for
letters of reprimand and/or admonishment to be retained on a
time-limited basis. According to VA, making letters of
reprimand or admonishment permanent would prevent VA managers
from ``settling workplace grievances with employees with
terms that would limit the amount of time these documents
remain in the employee's permanent record,'' and it would
restrict VA managers from removing these documents as a
``term of settlement.'' Both of these tools are frequently
used by VA managers to ``resolve complaints before they go
into costly and high-risk'' litigation. These tools also
allow VA managers to promote good performance of employees
``because they are usually conditioned upon no further
misconduct of the type that initially led to the reprimand
or admonishment.''
Given all of these problems with section 2, even as it has been
significantly improved by the amendment offered by the senior Senator
from Ohio, I come back to the basic proposition that the Secretary must
have sufficient discretion when it comes to managing the VA workforce.
My amendment gives the Secretary that discretion by allowing, not
mandating, that reprimands and/or admonishments may be retained for 5
years. Note that this still represents a significant departure from
current practices government-wide. And, as I mentioned a moment ago, I
originally proposed sunsetting section 2 after 3 years, but I removed
that provision from the current version of the substitute amendment.
I sincerely believe these changes are reasonable and improve S. 627,
and I hope the junior Senator from New Hampshire will ultimately agree.
To reiterate, no one condones what happened at the VA. But it is
important to acknowledge that accountability is being restored and the
miscreants are being punished.
As Secretary McDonald and Deputy Secretary Gibson wrote in the Wall
Street Journal:
You can't fire your way to excellence. You have to inspire
the people you keep to do better, and you have to recruit and
inspire new talent. You can't do either by capriciously
punishing people on the basis of unsubstantiated rumors,
complaints or media reports . . . Neither we nor anyone else
can accomplish the VA's mission of caring for veterans by
depriving VA employees of basic fairness. To do right by
veterans, we must do right by VA employees. We will do right
by both, whatever the consequences.
I am privileged to represent 130,000 civilian federal workers,
including members of the Senior Executive Service, SES; other senior
managers; and rank-and-file employees who work in Maryland. Tens of
thousands more live in Maryland or live and work in Maryland. Nearly 20
percent of these individuals have already served our Nation in uniform.
Overwhelmingly, these individuals are hard-working, dedicated, and
patriotic Americans who perform critical missions under difficult
circumstances. In the last 5 years, civilian Federal workers have
``contributed'' $182 billion to deficit reduction. They have endured a
3-year pay freeze. They lost $1 billion in pay due to furloughs related
to sequestration. They have been forced during government shutdowns to
stay home against their will or to work without being paid on time. And
they have been victimized by data breaches that have compromised their
most sensitive personal information--some of which the Washington Post
reported on January 31, 2016, has literally been provided to the
Islamic State terrorist group.
While we can and will disagree on the proper size and scope of the
Federal Government, I would hope we can all agree that we want the
``best and brightest'' to perform critical missions such as providing
our veterans with the care they have earned so valiantly. This is
especially true with regard to the senior executives entrusted with
managing large workforces and multibillion dollar budgets.
Depriving or diminishing due process rights at the VA already has
caused the number of applicants over the past 3 years for both title 5
SES positions and title 38 equivalent positions to decline
significantly.
With respect to VA title 5 SES positions, in fiscal year 2013, there
were 8,721 applicants. In fiscal year 2014, that number dropped to
6,908. In fiscal year 2015, it dropped even further to 6,317.
With respect to VA title 38 SES equivalent employees, in fiscal year
2013, there were 1,020 applicants. In fiscal year 2014, that number
dropped to 432. In fiscal year 2015, it dropped even further to 228.
One might argue that these declines represent the ``winnowing out''
of unqualified or underqualified applicants.
I would argue it is just as likely, if not more so, that these
declines represent the winnowing out of highly qualified applicants who
could have helped to restore greater accountability and better service
at the VA, but were discouraged from applying because the deck is being
stacked against them.
We all want our veterans to receive the best care possible. So I
reiterate my sincere desire to work with the junior Senator from New
Hampshire. As I said at the outset of my remarks, I appreciate the hard
work Senator Ayotte has put into her bill and her willingness to work
across the aisle with the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Brown.
Rather than simply leaving the matter here, I would note that the
Department of Veterans Affairs has identified several Senate bills that
provide the agency with the authority and tools it needs to address
what the VA calls ``breakthrough priorities'' such as: improving the
veterans' experience; improving access to health care; improving
community care; developing a simplified appeals process; and reducing
homelessness among veterans.
As I understand it, there is an effort underway in the Veterans'
Affairs Committee to develop comprehensive legislation that helps the
VA to meet these priorities while also addressing accountability and
internal staffing issues. I think it makes sense to work on a
comprehensive reform and accountability package bill rather than trying
to pass individual bills in a piecemeal fashion, and I look forward to
working with the junior Senator
[[Page S2074]]
from New Hampshire and every other Senator concerned about our veterans
to accomplish this objective in the weeks and months ahead.
Ms. AYOTTE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, just a little while ago there was an
overwhelming vote to proceed with the FAA bill, the Federal Aviation
Administration bill, a very important bill. I know how hard the
managers have worked on it--the chairman, the ranking member--and I
have a tremendous amount of respect for them. I voted no. Only four of
us voted no. It is rare that I do that, and I felt it was important to
explain why.
We have in our Nation an amazing system of transportation, and we
always have to stay on top of it to make it safer and safer. There is
one thing we know without a doubt. We know it intuitively, but we also
know it because the National Transportation Safety Board has told us
that the No. 1 problem they face in terms of safety is fatigue.
We all know how it is. All of us, regardless of what we do for a
living, know how it feels when we are utterly exhausted. We are not
making the same decisions we would make. We can't carry them out the
way we otherwise would. It is not rocket science. It is sleep science.
We know about it because the experts have told us, and the NTSB has
told us.
I will show a picture of two planes. They look exactly alike. As our
kids say, one of these things is not like the other. Here is a cargo
plane and passenger jet. They are the same size. They fly over the same
skies. They have pilots whom we trust, whom we count on.
Today, because of special interest pressure, there is a different set
of rest rules. The passenger plane pilot can only fly up to 9 hours a
day because--rightly so, with all of that responsibility--that pilot
has to get rest. The cargo plane pilot flies the same exact plane. That
pilot can be on duty up to 16 hours a day before he or she is
guaranteed adequate rest.
I know the Presiding Officer has worked very hard in recent months,
and I know the energy it took to go out and do what he did. I know what
it was like when I was running for the Senate so many times--thank you,
California--with almost 40 million people in the State, how hard it
was, how much rest was needed to be sharp so we could think. In our
work if we make a mistake, it only hurts us, but when a pilot makes a
mistake, it can hurt a much larger community because the cargo plane is
flying over the same homes as the passenger jet. How does it make sense
to say one can be on duty up to 16 hours and the other cannot,
especially when the National Transportation Safety Board has said pilot
fatigue is one of the biggest problems we are facing today.
Now one might ask: Can you prove that it is a problem? Yes, I am
going to prove it to you. I am going to show a graphic of a
conversation that took place between two cargo pilots, the pilot and
copilot. This was 2013, and they were over Alabama. These are excerpts
from the grave. This is dramatic. It isn't me trying to persuade the
Presiding Officer. These are the pilots.
Pilot 1: I mean I don't get that. You know it should be one
level of safety for everybody.
Pilot 2: It makes no sense at all.
Pilot 1: No it doesn't at all.
Pilot 2: And to be honest, it should be across the board.
To be honest in my opinion whether you are flying passengers
or cargo . . . if you're flying this time of day . . . the
you know fatigue is definitely. . . .
Pilot 1: Yeah . . . yeah . . . yeah. . . .
Pilot 2: When my alarm went off I mean I'm thinkin', I'm so
tired.
Pilot 2: I know.
Look what happened to that plane within hours of that conversation.
Look what happened to that plane. This shows what happened, and the
pilots are dead.
After the flight recorder was released and this conversation was out,
I thought for sure this administration would do the right thing. They
did the wrong thing, and the Senate did the wrong thing. This isn't
partisan.
We have the Obama administration, which I agree with, and today I
heard some amazing news on jobs. I am just saying on this they haven't
been right. There ought to be no disparity between a pilot who is
flying a passenger jet and a pilot who is flying a cargo jet. The
pilots are telling us this. The pilots who are telling us this are not
selfish. In fact, many of them are the pilots of passenger jets such as
Southwest Airlines--8,000 of them. There are 8,000 of them supporting
the Boxer-Klobuchar amendment.
I can't get a vote. That is why I voted no along with three other
colleagues who had their reasons. This was my reason. How do we do a
bill like this and not address the No. 1 safety issue facing us? I
don't get it.
If you don't believe me, fair enough, because I am not a pilot. I
admit it. I just trust pilots. What is your choice? You walk on a
plane, the pilot is in charge of the aircraft, and you know that pilot
wants to land safely. You know that pilot wants to go home to his or
her family. You know that pilot has your best interests at heart.
Sometimes I am in a rush, and I get on a plane and the pilot says: You
know what. We are not going to take off right now because I know there
is something wrong in one of the monitors here. It could be nothing,
but I put safety first.
Everyone in the plane says: Oh, no. We are going to be late. They get
out their cell phones and they call their loved ones, but we know the
pilots know what they are talking about. We trust them. I trust them so
much I wrote with then-Senator Smith the guns-in-the-cockpit law for
pilots. The NRA thinks I am the worst of the worst, but I said I trust
pilots. They should have a chance if there is a terrorist on board. I
trust them. Why doesn't this administration trust them? Because of
special interests that make billions a year--billions.
It is going to cost us a tiny bit more, and it is a tiny bit more.
What price would we put on our kids? There is none, for goodness' sake.
If it cost a few cents more to ship a package so a pilot doesn't have
to fly 16 hours, isn't that the right thing to do?
I will close with a quote from Sully Sullenberger. I think we all
remember Sully. Before we show that, let's remind people who he is. We
have another chart that shows him. Sully Sullenberger was the ``Hero of
the Hudson.'' We remember how he landed his plane in the Hudson River,
how he saved all the passengers on that plane and his crew. He is so
famous now, he goes all over the world.
He came to the press conference I had with Senator Klobuchar, because
she and I are working on this amendment as well as Senator Cantwell.
His words were inspiring because he did not kid around. He said:
``Fatigue is a killer.'' Fatigue is a killer.
You don't have to say any more. If you know fatigue is a killer, then
don't say passenger pilots can fly 9 hours but cargo pilots can fly 16.
Here is what Sullenberger said when we first introduced our
legislation, the Safe Skies Act: ``You wouldn't want your surgeon
operating on you after only five hours sleep, or your passenger pilot
flying the airplane after only five hours sleep, and you certainly
wouldn't want a cargo pilot flying a large plane over your house at 3
a.m. on five hours sleep trying to find the airport and land.''
Sully said at the press conference that had he been suffering from
fatigue on that fateful day that he safely landed that plane in the
waters of the Hudson River, if he was suffering from fatigue, he said
he never could have done it.
So I can't get a vote on my amendment. It is so simple, even a 6-
year-old can understand it. You don't have disparity when you have the
same responsibility. You are traveling in the same skies, and a cargo
plane can crash into a house or another plane carrying passengers.
I am so disappointed in this administration that they have not done
the right thing on this. I am so disappointed in the U.S. Senate that
they blocked a vote on this because the special interests don't want to
charge 2 or 3 or 4 cents more on their packages. If it is to save lives
of our people, this is what I call a classic no-brainer.
[[Page S2075]]
So I am here today to explain my vote to my constituents--why I voted
no for an FAA bill that otherwise is a good bill. But I want just to
make a statement that it is ridiculous not to give me an up-or-down
vote. They tied it to other issues that are poison pills: immigration
issues, gun issues. Come on. This is the biggest problem--fatigue.
Can't we just get an up-or-down vote on it? I am going to try to do
that at every chance I get. Now I am working on a modified amendment to
see if we can get it into a package. I don't know whether we can or
not. But I want to say to the pilots out there who may be listening to
this debate: A lot of us here have your backs.
We are not going to forget about this issue just because the FAA bill
is moving forward. We are not going to forget about you. We are not
going to forget about what it means when you are fatigued. We are not
going to forget about the two pilots who, through the recorder, told us
before they crashed that they were exhausted. They addressed the issue
of the disparity. We are going to be fighting on this.
If we can't get it done here, maybe some brave soul in the House will
do it, and it will wind up in the bill. If we can't get it done
legislatively, we are going to try to get it done through the FAA
regular order of their rules. Where is the FAA on this? I want to say:
FAA, you turned your back on too many safety measures that the NTSB,
which is in charge of our safety, has recommended.
It took years to get some simple things done. So while we are working
to get a modified amendment--which is not going to be the be-all and
the end-all; it just moves us a little bit forward--I just want to send
a message that it is rare that I vote no--one of four. It does not
happen often.
I view this as a moral issue. I view this as a moral issue for those
pilots that are on duty up to 16 hours straight in the middle of the
night, where, as Sully Sullenberger said, their circadian rhythms are
off, and they are not at the top of their game. They are flying over
the airspace of the American people.
I thank the presiding officer so much for his attention. I live to
fight another day, another hour, another minute on this.
I want the pilots to know and the flying public to know and everyone
to know they should engage in this issue. There is no disparity between
people who do the same work.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Federal
Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act, to talk about the
importance of passing this legislation for Colorado and, indeed, the
Nation. I commend Chairman Thune, our colleague from South Dakota,
Ranking Member Nelson, Senator Ayotte, and Senator Cantwell for their
work in crafting this very important piece of legislation.
It is an economic driver, certainly a national security issue, and a
number of issues that we are able to address in this legislation of
great importance to Colorado and the country. Our Nation's airspace is
clearly one of the most important economic drivers that we have. It is
important in the movement of passengers and cargo, along with the many
other users of airspace, whether it be for agriculture or unmanned
aerial systems.
The economic importance of aviation in Colorado cannot be stated
enough when it comes to tourism. In 2014 alone, 71.3 million visitors
came to Colorado, with $18.6 billion in economic impact for the State,
according to the Colorado Tourism Office. That tourism results in well
over 100,000 jobs throughout the State of Colorado.
Many of those 71 million tourists came through Denver International
Airport, the nation's fifth busiest and largest commercial airport. In
2014 alone, more than 50 million people passed through Denver
International Airport, a State with a population of about 5.5 million--
50 million people passing through the fifth busiest airport, with some
of these passengers continuing on to one of Colorado's additional 13
commercial airports or 60 general aviation airports.
The economic impact that airports and aviation have throughout the
State is absolutely incredible. When you take in the multiplier effect,
nearly 300,000 jobs are a result of aviation in Colorado--a payroll of
about $12.6 billion in Colorado, with the multiplier effect, for an
economic output of about $36.7 billion.
In fact, there is one airport, which is the premier business airport
of the United States, Centennial Airport in Colorado, surrounded by 23
different business parks, with about 6,000 different businesses
surrounding this airport in those 23 different business parks. This
airport, those 6,000 businesses, and the 23 business parks around the
airport account for nearly 27 percent of Colorado's total gross
domestic product.
Think about that. One airport, one business airport, and the
businesses that surround it account for nearly 27 percent of Colorado's
economy. So whether it is skiing or snowboarding or visiting one of our
great national parks, enjoying the outdoors, hiking, camping, fishing,
or visiting one of our world-class cities, it is not easily achievable
without well-run, maintained, and secured airspace.
These airports connect cities like Denver, CO, to Durango, Colorado
Springs, Pueblo, and smaller cities; rural communities like the city I
live in, Lamar and Yuma; and to the rest of the country. They help
businesses reach beyond the borders of our State. Maintaining our
airport infrastructure then becomes one of the most critical functions
we can perform.
Communities in Colorado and across the country continue to push their
airport infrastructure improvements, betterments, to help realize the
full potential, the economic potential, to access that airspace and the
access that airspace indeed brings. That is why I am glad to talk about
this legislation and the many achievements we were able to accomplish
and the provisions I was able to secure and include in the bill to help
improve that airport infrastructure, including improvements to the
Airport Improvement Program, or AIP, and a study with recommendations
on upgrading and improving the Nation's airport infrastructure.
Additionally, I am pleased that this bill includes language that I
pushed to help allow improvements to Pena Boulevard, the prime access
road to connecting Denver International Airport with the rest of
Colorado. If you have been to Denver International Airport and you have
driven to downtown Denver, you have driven on Pena Boulevard.
This bill will address the needs, the infrastructure, and the
improvements that are needed to make sure that Pena Boulevard remains
an efficient, safe roadway to the Nation's fifth busiest airport. It
will allow DIA the flexibility it needs and the clarity to ensure the
primary access road that Pena Boulevard represents is capable of
handling the traffic that comes with increased use of the airport.
The bill also includes language that builds on a successful pilot
program for virtual towers and ensures that those towers will be
eligible for AIP funding, Airport Improvement Program funding, once
certified by the FAA.
It is important because these virtual towers, such as the one at the
Fort Collins-Loveland airport area, will allow small- and medium-sized
airports to offer commercial service in an economically viable and
sustainable way. Northern Colorado really is the gateway to Colorado's
energy hub, the gateway to Colorado's biotech, bioscience, and
engineering research university hub. By allowing this virtual tower in
northern Colorado at the Fort Collins-Loveland airport, we can help
expand the opportunity to reach that area for businesses that wish to
locate there, for customers who wish to fly into the area, and also for
those businesses that are already there to expand, to have further
reach around the country and the world.
Another central responsibility of the FAA is to ensure that the
airspace is being safely managed while allowing the industries that are
dependent on
[[Page S2076]]
aviation to thrive. I think this legislation, after months and months
of work, really does strike that appropriate balance. I was proud to
support amendments during consideration of the bill that I believe will
help ensure that the Transportation Security Administration, law
enforcement agencies, and security personnel have the resources they
need to provide for the safety of the traveling public.
I believe more could and should be done, however. That is why I filed
on the floor an amendment to the bill which will improve TSA's
operations at our airports by creating a testing location to help TSA
and airports to work hand in hand to develop future screening
technologies and passenger screening methods to ensure we are able to
keep passengers and airports safe.
If you look at the needs that we have at airports, there is the
combination of coming into an airport and checking in at an airport
gate or kiosk. Most people use their iPhone or their smartphone to have
their digital printout of a ticket. They don't even go to a kiosk
anymore; they just go straight to the security line. But as we have
seen, we need to have an increase in security from curb to gate.
It is not just a security concern where people may be gathering
around the screening or people may be getting in and out of cars or
lining up at the desk; it is an overall curb-to-gate security approach
that we need. That is what my amendment will accomplish. So I look
forward to continuing to work with Senator Thune and the Commerce
Committee on a path forward for this amendment because it is critically
important that we address additional security measures to prevent
violence like the recent terrorist attack in Brussels from happening
and occurring at our airports.
To remind people, the attack in Brussels did not happen on an
airplane; it happened outside where passengers were gathering. So if we
can address this curb-to-gate security, alleviate the slowdowns and the
spots that make it more difficult for efficiency at the airport to get
through security--this amendment can help do that--we can avoid danger
to the public from those who wish to do our people harm.
The bill includes important certification reforms that will improve
the processing of new aircraft designs and modifications at the FAA.
This is important because we had an agricultural aviator, a crop
duster, in Colorado who was trying to get his plane certified. This is
a spray plane. He was trying to get this plane certified, but what he
found out was that, first, the FAA was taking a very, very long time to
certify his crop duster, to give him the permission to use this plane
to spray crops.
After they said they found his application, he ended up in a queue, a
line behind United Airlines, behind Frontier Airlines. So, basically,
this crop duster in southeastern Colorado had a very small plane, not a
passenger plane by any means. He was put in line with a 747, a 757, and
a 767. That is nonsense. It doesn't make any sense, and we were able to
address those certification challenges in this bill.
A couple of years ago I requested the inspector general at the FAA to
look at what was happening in the Rocky Mountain regional facility in
Denver. They pointed to a number of challenges that region had in terms
of its management, in terms of its process, and in certification in
other areas. We were able to include the suggestions and the changes
that the inspector general's report identified in this legislation in
the FAA today.
Finally, the legislation, of course, makes key strides in the future
of our aviation industry by addressing unmanned aerial systems. We have
a number of great areas in Colorado where we can test and where we can
certify, and, of course, the need is great--from agriculture to our ski
resorts to wildfires. Think about what we can accomplish in the future
with unmanned aerial assistance.
I thank the leadership. I thank Senator Thune, our colleague from
South Dakota for the leadership he provided. I thank the Presiding
Officer for the work the Presiding Officer has done to make this
legislation a success.
With that, I urge support for the legislation. I conclude my remarks
on the FAA bill asking Members to support the bill.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I compliment the Senator from Colorado
for his active participation in shaping this bill. Obviously, he is a
very active member of our Commerce Committee and cares deeply and
passionately about these issues. He was very involved in the issues
that he addressed in his remarks and that were incorporated into this.
They were simply and purely a credit to his persistence and hard work.
They do make this bill much stronger. I appreciate his good work making
that possible.
I wish to say again what I had mentioned earlier today, and that is,
as Senator Nelson and I put this bill together, it was done in regular
order. We had on the order of seven hearings--either subcommittee or
full committee--where we took testimony and tried to assemble the best
ideas. We worked together with members of the committee, including the
Presiding Officer, in shaping a bill that we brought to a markup--
getting it to the markup and through the markup. We adopted 57
amendments--34 Democratic amendments and 23 Republican amendments--
before it came to the floor. After coming to the floor last week, we
have had 19 amendments that have been added. We have another 30 or
thereabouts that have been cleared, if we could get objections
withdrawn so that those amendments could get cleared. But we have some
other amendments of Members who would like to get votes.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be called up and reported by number: Sessions No. 3591; Paul
No. 3693, as modified; and Rubio No. 3722; further, that there be 45
minutes of debate concurrently on the amendments, equally divided
between the two leaders or their designees, and that following the use
or yielding back of time, the Senate vote in relation to the amendments
in the order listed with a 60-affirmative-vote threshold required for
adoption of the amendments, and that no second-degree amendments be in
order prior to the votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I so admire the managers of this bill. I
really do. As a former chairman and ranking member now, I know how hard
this is, but this is not a balanced request.
I would just say that I have spoken on the safety of pilot fatigue so
many times. I won't reiterate that here. I feel strongly that I want a
vote. I know others on our side do as well. I don't think this is
balanced. So, sadly, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, in the same spirit of the chairman of
the committee, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be
called up and reported by number: Boxer No. 3489 and Markey No. 3467;
further, that there be 45 minutes of debate to run concurrently on the
amendments, equally divided in the usual form; and that following the
use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote in relation to the
amendments in the order listed, with a 60-affirmative-vote threshold
required for adoption of the amendments; and that no second-degree
amendments be in order prior to the votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. I would simply say that we have worked to try to get the
amendment from the Senator from California a vote. We have tried to get
the other amendment referenced by the Senator from Florida, Senator
Markey's amendment, a vote. But we have Members on our side who also
want votes, and the other side is objecting to those votes. So I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, as you may have heard a moment ago, one
of
[[Page S2077]]
the amendments that is being objected to from our end is an amendment
that I have filed, and I will describe it briefly.
I wish to first describe the issue I am trying to address.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record an article entitled ``U.S. welfare flows to Cuba'' from October
1, 2015.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Sun Sentinel, Oct. 1, 2015]
U.S. Welfare Flows to Cuba
(By Sally Kestin, Megan O'Matz and John Maines with Tracey Eaton in
Cuba)
They're taking benefits from the American taxpayer to subsidize their
life in another country
Cuban immigrants are cashing in on U.S. welfare and
returning to the island, making a mockery of the decades-old
premise that they are refugees fleeing persecution at home.
Some stay for months at a time--and the U.S. government
keeps paying.
Cubans' unique access to food stamps, disability money and
other welfare is meant to help them build new lives in
America. Yet these days, it's helping some finance their
lives on the communist island.
America's open-ended generosity has grown into an
entitlement that exceeds $680 million a year and is exploited
with ease. No agency tracks the scope of the abuse, but a Sun
Sentinel investigation found evidence suggesting it is
widespread.
Fed-up Floridians are reporting their neighbors and
relatives for accepting government aid while shuttling back
and forth to the island, selling goods in Cuba, and leaving
their benefit cards in the U.S. for others to use while they
are away.
Some don't come back at all. The U.S. has continued to
deposit welfare checks for as long as two years after the
recipients moved back to Cuba for good, federal officials
confirmed.
Regulations prohibit welfare recipients from collecting or
using U.S. benefits in another country. But on the streets of
Hialeah, the first stop for many new arrivals, shopkeepers
like Miguel Veloso hear about it all the time.
Veloso, a barber who has been in the U.S. three years, said
recent immigrants on welfare talk of spending considerable
time in Cuba--six months there, two months here. ``You come
and go before benefits expire,'' he said.
State Rep. Manny Diaz Jr. of Hialeah hears it too, from
constituents in his heavily Cuban-American district, who tell
of flaunting their aid money on visits to the island. The
money, he said ``is definitely not to be used . . . to go
have a great old time back in the country that was supposed
to be oppressing you.''
The sense of entitlement is so ingrained that Cubans
routinely complained to their local congressman about the
challenge of accessing U.S. aid--from Cuba.
``A family member would come into our office and say
another family member isn't receiving his benefits,'' said
Javier Correoso, aide to former Miami Rep. David Rivera.
``We'd say, `Where is he?' They'd say, `He's in Cuba and
isn't coming back for six months.' ''
``They're taking benefits from the American taxpayer to
subsidize their life in another country.
One woman told Miami immigration attorney Grisel Ybarra
that her grandmother and two great aunts came to Florida, got
approved for benefits, opened bank accounts and returned to
Cuba. Month after month, the woman cashed their government
checks--about $2,400 each time--sending half to the women in
Cuba and keeping the rest.
When a welfare agency questioned the elderly ladies
whereabouts this summer, the woman turned to Ybarra, a Cuban
American. She told Ybarra her grandmother refused to come
back, saying: ``With the money you sent me, I bought a home
and am really happy in Cuba.''
Cubans on the island, Ybarra said, have a name for U.S.
aid.
They call it ``la ayuda.'' The help.
Special status abused
Increasing openness and travel between the two countries
have made the welfare entitlement harder to justify and
easier to abuse. But few charges have been brought, and
Congress and the Obama Administration have failed to address
the problem even as the United States moves toward detente
with Cuba.
Cubans' extraordinary access to U.S. welfare rests on two
pillars of special treatment: the ease with which they are
admitted to the country, and America's generosity in granting
them public support.
Cubans are allowed into the U.S. even if they arrive
without permission and are quickly granted permanent
residency under the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act. They're
assumed to be refugees without having to prove persecution.
They're immediately eligible for welfare, food stamps,
Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income or SSI, cash
assistance for impoverished seniors and disabled younger
people.
Most other immigrants are barred from collecting aid for
their first five years. Those here illegally are not eligible
at all.
The Sun Sentinel analyzed state and federal data to
determine the annual cost of taxpayer support for Cuban
immigrants: at least $680 million. In Florida alone, costs
for welfare, food stamps and refugee cash have increased 23
percent from 2011 through 2014.
Not all Cubans receive government help. Those arriving on
visas are ineligible, and some rely on family support. And
many who receive aid do so for just a short time until they
settle in, as the U.S. intended. Cubans over time have become
one of the most successful immigrant groups in America.
``They come to the U.S. to work and make a living for their
family,'' said Jose Alvarez, a Cuba native and city
commissioner in Kissimmee. ``I don't believe that they come
thinking the government will support them.''
But some take advantage of the easy money--and then go back
and forth to Cuba.
A public housing tenant in Hialeah, who was receiving food
stamps and SSI payments for a disabled son, frequently
traveled to Cuba to sell food there, records show. She
admitted to a city housing investigator in 2012 that she
``makes $700 in two months just in the sales to Cuba.''
Another man receiving food stamps admitted to state
officials ``that he was living in Cuba much of 2015.''
A recent arrival with a chronic illness got Medicaid
coverage and turned to attorney David Batchelder of Miami to
help him get SSI as well. But the man was ``going back and
forth to Cuba'' so much that Batchelder eventually dropped
the case. ``It was just another benefit he was applying
for.''
Concerns about Cubans exploiting the aid are especially
troubling to exiles who came to this country decades ago and
built new lives and careers here.
Dr. Noel Fernandez recalls the assistance his family
received from friends and the U.S. government when they
immigrated 20 years ago, help that enabled him to find work
as a landscaper, learn English and complete his medical
studies. Now medical director of Citrus Health Network in
Hialeah, Fernandez sees Cuban immigrants collecting benefits
and going back, including three elderly patients who recently
left the U.S. for good.
``They got Medicaid, they got everything, and they returned
to Cuba,'' he said. ``I see people that said they were
refugees [from] Cuba and they return the next year.''
State officials have received complaints about Cubans
collecting aid while repeatedly going to Cuba or working as
mules ferrying cash and goods, a common way of financing
travel to the island.
Another way of paying for the trips: cheating. Like other
welfare recipients, some Cubans work under the table or put
assets in others' names to appear poor enough to meet the
programs' income limits, according to records and interviews.
Some married couples qualify for more money as single people
by concealing marriages performed in Cuba, where the U.S.
can't access records.
``Stop the fraud please!'' one person urged in a complaint
to the state. Another pleaded with authorities to check
airport departure records for a woman suspected of hiding
income. ``It would show how many times she has traveled to
Cuba.''
Florida officials typically dismissed the complaints for
lack of information, because names didn't match their records
or because the allegations didn't involve violations of
eligibility rules. Travel abroad is not expressly prohibited,
but benefits are supposed to be used for basic necessities
within the U.S.
``Our congressional folks should be looking at this,'' said
Miami-Dade County Commissioner Esteban Bovo Jr., a Cuban
American. ``There could be millions and millions of dollars
in fraud going on here.''
Money to Cuba
Accessing benefits from Cuba typically requires a U.S. bank
account and a willing relative or friend stateside. Food
stamps and welfare are issued monthly through a debit-type
card, and SSI payments are deposited into a bank account or
onto a MasterCard.
A joint account holder with a PIN number can withdraw the
money and wire it to Cuba. Another option: entrust the money
to a friend traveling to Cuba.
Roberto Pizano of Tampa, a political prisoner in Cuba for
18 years, said he worked two jobs when he arrived in the U.S.
in 1979 and never accepted government help. He now sees
immigrants ``abusing the system.''
``I know people who come to the U.S., apply for SSI and
never worked in the USA,'' he said. They ``move back to Cuba
and are living off of the hard-earned taxpayer dollars.''
He said family friend Gilberto Reyno got disability money
from the U.S. and renovated a house in Cuba. The Sun Sentinel
found Reyna living in that house in Camaguey, Cuba. He said
he was no longer receiving disability, but Pizano and another
person familiar with the situation said the payments continue
to be deposited into a U.S. bank account. The Social Security
Administration would not comment, citing privacy concerns,
but is investigating.
Federal investigators have found the same scenario in other
cases.
A 2012 complaint alleged a 75-year-old woman had moved to
Camaguey two years earlier and a relative was withdrawing her
SSI money from a bank account and sending it to her. Social
Security stopped payments, but not before nearly $16,000 had
been deposited into her account.
Another recipient went to Cuba on vacation and stayed,
leaving his debit card with
[[Page S2078]]
a relative. Social Security continued his SSI payments for
another six months--$4,000 total--before an anonymous caller
reported he had gone back to Cuba.
One woman reportedly moved to Cuba in 2010 and died three
years later, while still receiving SSI and food stamps,
according to a 2014 tip to Florida welfare fraud
investigators. A state official couldn't find her at her
Hialeah home, cut off the food stamps and alerted the federal
government.
Former congressman Rivera tried to curb abuses with a bill
that would have revoked the legal status of Cubans who
returned to the island before they became citizens.
``Public assistance is meant to help Cuban refugees settle
in the U.S.,'' Mauricio Claver-Carone of Cuba Democracy
Advocates testified in a 2012 hearing on the bill. ``However,
many non-refugee Cubans currently use these benefits, which
can average more than $1,000 per month, to immediately travel
back to the island, where the average income is $20 per
month, and comfortably reside there for months at a time on
the taxpayer's dime.''
Rivera recently told the Sun Sentinel that he interviewed
welfare workers, Cubans in Miami and passengers waiting for
charter flights to Havana. He said he found overwhelming
evidence of benefits money going back, especially after the
U.S. eased travel restrictions in 2009.
The back and forth undermines the rationale that Cubans are
refugees fleeing an oppressive government, Rivera said. And
when they return for visits, they boast of the money that's
available in the U.S., he said. ``They all say, `It's great.
I got free housing. I got free food. I get my medicine.' ''
Five Cubans interviewed by the Sun Sentinel in Havana said
they were aware of the assistance and knew of Cubans who had
gone to America and quickly began sending money back. Two
said they believed it was U.S. government aid.
``I don't think it's correct, but everyone does it for the
well-being of their family,'' said one woman, Susana, who
declined to give her last name.
Outside welfare offices in Hialeah, the Sun Sentinel found
Cuban immigrants who had arrived as recently as three days
earlier, applying for benefits. They said family and friends
told them about the aid before they left Cuba.
``Back in the '60s, when you came in, they told you the
factory that was hiring,'' said Nidia Diaz of Miami, a former
bail bondswoman who was born in Cuba. ``Now, they tell you
the closest Department of Children and Families [office] so
you can go and apply.''
Crooks collect in Cuba
Miami bail bondswoman Barbara Pozo said many of her Cuban
clients talk openly about living in Cuba and collecting
monthly disability checks, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.
``They just come here to pick up the money,'' Pozo said.
``They pretend they're disabled. They just pretend they're
crazy.''
SSI payments, for those who cannot work due to mental or
physical disabilities, go up to $733 a month for an
individual. Most other new immigrants are ineligible until
they become U.S. citizens.
Some Cubans try to build a case for SSI by claiming trauma
from their life under an oppressive government or the 90-mile
crossing to Florida.
Diaz, the former bondswoman, said she has heard Cuban
clients talk about qualifying: `` `Tell them that you have
emotional problems. How did you get these problems? Well,
trying to get here from Cuba.' ''
Antonio Comin collected disability while organizing
missions to smuggle Cubans to Florida, including one launched
from a house in the Keys, federal prosecutors said. Comin
claimed he rented the home to celebrate his birthday--after
receiving his government check.
Casimiro Martinez was receiving a monthly check for a
mental disability--but his mind was sound enough to launder
more than $1 million stolen from Medicare. Martinez was
arrested at Miami International Airport after returning from
a trip to Cuba.
Government disability programs are vulnerable to fraud,
particularly SSI, with applicants faking or exaggerating
symptoms. Some view SSI as ``money waiting to be taken,''
said John Webb, a federal prosecutor in Tennessee who has
handled fraud cases.
While benefits are supposed to be suspended for recipients
who leave the United States for more than 30 days, the
government relies on people to self-report those absences,
and federal audits have found widespread violations.
The government could significantly reduce abuses by
matching international travel records to SSI payments,
auditors have recommended since 2003. The Social Security
Administration and Department of Homeland Security are still
trying to work out a data sharing agreement--12 years later,
Jose Caragol, a Hialeah city councilman and Havana native,
said aid for Cubans ``was meant to assist those who were
persecuted and want a new life. The bleeding has to stop.''
Mr. RUBIO. I will not read the whole article. But I am going to
paraphrase from it.
By the way, as to the Democratic amendments that have been proposed
and on which the Senator from California has just made a presentation
regarding travel issues and pilot hours--she referred to the fact I
have traveled extensively over the last year--they are issues I am
actually very sympathetic toward. Perhaps we can work together to get
her a vote on that amendment, because I think that is a legitimate
issue.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you.
Mr. RUBIO. Let me now talk about the one I want to talk about. This
is how the article begins. I talked about yesterday.
Let me back up and explain what people are facing. Today, if an
immigrant enters the United States from another country legally and
comes here on a green card, with 5-year residency, they cannot receive
Federal benefits. If you immigrate to the United States from any
country in the world with an immigrant visa legally--not illegal
immigration, as illegal immigrants do not qualify for Federal
benefits--a legal immigrant to the United States does not qualify for
any Federal benefits. There is an exception in the law, however, and
that is if you happen to be someone who comes from Cuba without a visa.
There is a law called the Cuban Adjustment Act. When the Cuban
Adjustment Act was passed during the Cold War, it was passed so that
Cubans who came to the United States fleeing communist oppression were
immediately admitted to the United States. In essence, that is why
there is really no such thing as an illegal immigrant from Cuba. If a
Cuban makes it to the shores of the United States, they become legal in
this country, and a year and a day after they have arrived, they are
allowed to apply for a green card. But unlike any immigrant from any
part of the world, they are allowed to receive Federal benefits because
they are automatically presumed to be refugees. That is a status that I
am not trying to change in terms of the Cuban Adjustment Act. I have
said that I am open to that being examined, but I am not trying to
change that law in my amendment.
I do want to discuss why we should automatically assume at this point
that anyone who comes from Cuba is a political refugee. The reason why
that now is in doubt is because many of the people who are coming from
Cuba, supposedly as refugees seeking to flee oppression, are traveling
back to Cuba 15, 20, 30 times a year.
There are people being oppressed politically in Cuba, absolutely. It
is one of the reasons why I think the President's policies toward Cuba
have been misguided, because they refuse to see that even after this
opening to Cuba, the political situation on the island has
deteriorated. It has gotten worse, not better. There are absolutely
people from Cuba who are coming here as refugees. But we also cannot
ignore the fact that many of the people coming from Cuba no longer are
coming here for political reasons. The evidence is that shortly after
they arrive, they are going back to Cuba 15, 20, 30 times a year. You
do not normally travel back to a place where you are fleeing from
oppression, much less repeatedly over an extended period of time.
So as a result, we now have a law that basically says that if you
come from Cuba, you are automatically entitled to a full platform of
Federal benefits.
This is how the article begins:
Cuban immigrants are cashing in on U.S. welfare and
returning to the island, making a mockery of the decades-old
premise that they are refugees fleeing persecution at home. .
. .
Cubans' unique access to food stamps, disability money, and
other welfare is meant to help them build new lives in
America. Yet these days, it's helping some finance their
lives on the communist island.
America's open-ended generosity has grown into an
entitlement that exceeds $680 million a year and is exploited
with ease. No agency tracks the scope of this abuse, but a
Sun Sentinel investigation found evidence suggesting it is
widespread.
Fed-up Floridians--
Where a lot of these Cubans are moving to--
are reporting their neighbors and their relatives for
accepting government aid while shuttling back and forth to
the island, selling goods in Cuba and leaving their benefit
cards in the U.S. for others to use while they are away.
Some do not even come back at all. The U.S. has continued
to deposit welfare checks for as long as two years after the
recipients moved back to Cuba for good.
It goes on to talk about several people. For example there is a
shopkeeper
[[Page S2079]]
in Hialeah, FL, where a lot of these folks are coming and moving. He
says he hears about it all the time. He is a barber. He has been in the
United States for 3 years, and he said:
Recent immigrants on welfare talk of spending considerable
time in Cuba--six months there, two months here. ``You come
and go before benefits expire.''
The article goes on:
The sense of entitlement is so ingrained that Cubans are
now routinely complaining to the local Congressman about the
challenge of accessing U.S. aid--from Cuba.
What they are complaining about is that they are coming into the
office. This is what a former aide to a former Congressman from Miami
said: A family member would come into our office and say a family
member isn't receiving his benefits. They would ask: Where is he? And
they would say: He is in Cuba, and he isn't coming back for 6 months.
This is unreal. There are people coming into congressional offices
complaining: We are having trouble getting access to our benefits. You
ask them why, and they say it is because the person who gets the
benefits is not in America; he is in Cuba and he can't get access to
his benefits from Cuba.
One woman told Miami immigration attorney Grisel Ybarra
that her grandmother and two great aunts came to Florida, got
approved for benefits, opened bank accounts and returned to
Cuba. Month after month, the woman cashed their government
checks--about $2,400 each time--sending half to the women in
Cuba and keeping the rest.
They kept for themselves a 50 percent commission.
When a welfare agency questioned the elderly ladies'
whereabouts this summer, the woman turned to Ybarra, a Cuban
American. She told Ybarra her grandmother refused to come
back, saying: ``With the money you sent me, I bought a home
and I am really happy in Cuba.''
That means your money--the American taxpayers' money.
Ybarra went on to say that the Cubans on the island have a name for
this U.S. aid. It is called ``la ayuda,'' which means the help.
Cubans are allowed into the U.S. even if they arrive
without permission and are quickly granted permanent
residency. . . .
As I said earlier, under the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, they are
automatically assumed to be refugees without having to prove it.
They are immediately eligible for welfare, for food stamps, for
Medicaid, and for supplemental social security, or SSI, and also cash
assistance for impoverished seniors and for disabled young people.
But let's be frank, not all Cubans receive government aid. For
example, if you come to the United States from Cuba on a visa--because
there is a visa lottery and every year the government awards visas to
people living in Cuba--you do not qualify for these benefits.
If, however, you arrive in the United States on a raft or if you fly
on an airplane to Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala, or Mexico and cross
the U.S. border--as is now increasingly happening--then you do qualify
for these benefits I have just outlined. So let's be frank, not
everyone who is coming from Cuba is doing this. There are people coming
from Cuba who are fleeing persecution, but many are taking advantage of
the easy money, and then they are going back and forth to Cuba.
I will give you some examples cited in this article:
A public housing tenant in Hialeah, who was receiving food
stamps and SSI payments for a disabled son, frequently
traveled to Cuba to sell food there, records showed. She
admitted to a city housing investigator in 2012 that she
``makes $700 in two months just in the sales to Cuba.''
And $700 a month is a lot of money in Cuba.
How does this work? They take the food stamp card. They go to the
grocery store. They load up a van with canned goods. They travel back
to Cuba. They just got that food with your taxpayer money. They travel
back to Cuba with duffel bags full of canned goods, and they sell it in
Cuba for a profit--$700 over a 2-month period.
Another man receiving food stamps admitted to State
officials ``that he was living in Cuba for much of 2015.''
A recent arrival with a chronic illness got Medicaid
coverage and turned to [his] attorney . . . of Miami to help
him get SSI as well. But the man was ``going back and forth
to Cuba'' so much that Batchelder eventually dropped the
case. ``It was just another benefit he was applying for.''
This, of course, concerns people who came to the United States as
exiles and are now watching this happen. There is a doctor whose name
is Noel Fernandez, and he recalls when his family arrived here from
Cuba that the U.S. Government helped them a little. When they
immigrated here 20 years ago, he was helped to find work as a
landscaper, he was helped to learn English, and he was helped to
complete his medical studies. Today he is the medical director of
Citrus Health Network in Hialeah.
Fernandez sees Cuban immigrants collecting benefits and
then going back, including three elderly patients who
recently left the United States for good.
``They got Medicaid, they got everything, and they returned
to Cuba,'' he said. ``I see people that said they were
refugees [from] Cuba and they return the next year.''
That is his quote.
State officials--
In my home State of Florida--
have received complaints about Cubans collecting aid while
repeatedly going to Cuba or working as mules ferrying cash
and goods, which is a common way of financing travel to the
island.
How that works is, people know you are traveling to Cuba, and they
have relatives they want to get money to or clothes to or whatever, and
so they pay you. They actually pay you. They give you money and they
say: Will you take this with you on your trip to Cuba and deliver it to
the people we are trying to get it to? That is why they call them a
mule. Well, from the money you get paid to take these things back to
Cuba, that is how you pay for your plane ticket.
Another way of paying for these trips, by the way, is cheating.
According to the Sentinel article:
Like other welfare recipients, some Cubans work under the
table or put their assets in others' names to appear poor
enough to meet the programs' income limits, according to
records and interviews. Some married couples qualify for more
money as single people.
Many of our welfare programs actually give you more money if you are
not married because you don't have to combine your incomes. So because
they were married in Cuba, they simply conceal the fact that they are
married because the United States can't access those records. That is
another way of cheating.
Now look, ``accessing benefits from [someone who is in] Cuba
typically requires a U.S. bank account and a willing relative or friend
stateside.'' By the way, that is just for now because as part of this
opening to Cuba, the Obama administration is going to make it easier
for there to be banking transactions with Cuba. So what we are facing
here, my friends, is that in a very short period of time--once banking
becomes regularized with American banks--they will not even need to
rely on their relatives in order to get this stuff. All they are going
to need is an ATM or debit card or a credit card secured to that
account, and you--the American taxpayer--will deposit the welfare
check, the SSI, into their bank account, and they will then be
conducting transactions or withdrawing the cash from Cuba directly.
So they will not even need a relative to do it, but right now they
still need that. ``Food stamps and welfare are issued monthly to a
debit-type card and SSI payments are deposited into a bank account or
onto a MasterCard.'' And soon they will be able to use that in Cuba.
Then what you need is ``a joint account holder with a PIN number who
can withdraw the money and wire it to you in Cuba.''
Another option is just to entrust the money to a friend who is
traveling to Cuba.
Roberto Pizano of Tampa, a political prisoner in Cuba for
18 years, said he worked two jobs when he arrived in the U.S.
in 1979 and never accepted government help. He now sees
immigrants ``abusing the system.''
He says he has a ``family friend,'' and this family friend got
``disability money from the U.S.'' and with the disability money he
``renovated a house in Cuba.'' The Sun Sentinel found this man. His
name is Gilberto Reyno. You know where they found him? They found him
living in Camaguey, Cuba. Quoting from the article:
The Sun Sentinel found Reyno living in that house in
Camaguey, Cuba. He said he was no longer receiving
disability, but Pizano and another person familiar with the
situation said the payments continue to be deposited into a
U.S. bank account.
[[Page S2080]]
Here is another example that Federal investigators found, according
to the article:
A 2012 complaint alleged a 75-year-old woman had moved to
Camaguey two years earlier and a relative was withdrawing her
SSI money from a bank account and sending it to her. Social
Security stopped payments, but not before nearly $16,000 had
been deposited into her account.
Another recipient went to Cuba on vacation and then stayed,
leaving his debit card with a relative. Social Security
continued his SSI payments for another six months--$4,000
total--before an anonymous caller reported he had gone back
to Cuba.
One woman reportedly moved to Cuba in 2010 and died three
years later, while still receiving SSI and food stamps,
according to a 2014 tip to Florida welfare fraud
investigators.
Five Cubans interviewed by the Sun Sentinel in Havana said
they were aware of the assistance and knew of Cubans who had
gone to America and quickly began sending money back. Two
said they believed it was U.S. government aid.
That means this is now spreading through word-of-mouth. So you live
in Cuba, you know someone who left for the United States, they
qualified for these benefits, and they start coming back and bringing
the money with them or sending it back to their relatives, and word
gets around. That is why it is not a surprise to read in this article:
Outside welfare offices in Hialeah, the Sun Sentinel found
Cuban immigrants who had arrived as recently as three days
earlier, applying for benefits. They said family and friends
told them about the aid before they left Cuba.
``Back in the '60s, when you came in, they told you the
factory that was hiring,'' said Nidia Diaz of Miami, a former
bail bondswoman who was born in Cuba. ``Now they tell you the
closest Department of Children and Families [office] so you
can go and apply.''
This is a quote from another bail bondswoman:
Miami bail bondswoman Barbara Pozo said many of her Cuban
clients talk openly about living in Cuba and collecting
monthly disability checks, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.
``They just come here to pick up the money,'' Pozo said.
``They pretend they're disabled. They just pretend they're
crazy.''
SSI payments, for those who cannot work due to mental or
physical disabilities, go up to $733 a month for an
individual. Most other new immigrants are ineligible until
they become U.S. citizens.
Some Cubans try to build a case for SSI by claiming trauma
from their life under an oppressive government or the 90-mile
crossing to Florida.
Diaz, the former bondswoman, said she has heard Cuban
clients talk about qualifying: ``Tell them that you have
emotional problems. How did you get these problems? Well,
trying to get here from Cuba.''
Here is one that should really gall everybody, though these are all
bad stories.
Antonio Comin collected disability while organizing
missions to smuggle Cubans to Florida, including one he
launched from a house in the Keys, Federal prosecutors said.
Comin claimed he rented the home to celebrate his birthday--
after receiving his government check.
Casimiro Martinez was receiving a monthly check for a
mental disability--but his mind was sound enough to launder
more than $1 million stolen from Medicare. Martinez was
arrested at Miami International Airport after returning from
a trip to Cuba.
While benefits are supposed to be suspended for recipients
who leave the United States for more than 30 days, the
government relies on people to self-report those absences,
and Federal audits have found widespread violations.
So the only way you can find that someone is actually doing this is
they have to call and say: Hey, by the way, I am now living in Cuba,
and I am still collecting my checks. Well, that ain't gonna happen.
This is an outrage.
Listen, my parents came from Cuba. I live in a community where Cuban
exiles are a plurality of the people who live there. So no one can say
this is an anti-immigrant thing or a mean-spirited thing. We have the
support of every elected Cuban American Member of the House for this
idea.
I myself come from a Cuban American family. This is an outrage. It is
happening right underneath our noses. Who can be for this? Let me
rephrase it. Who can be against doing something about this? We are
talking about close to $700 million a year of American taxpayer money
that could be spent right now to deal with the Zika virus issue that we
are facing, for example. Instead, this money is being abused. It is
being stolen.
So one would think: Wow, that is a commonsense thing; right? People
here in the gallery, people at home--if anyone is actually watching C-
span--would say: That is common sense. They will do something about it.
Yet I can't get a vote on this amendment. I cannot get the Senate to
vote on an amendment to stop this practice.
Here is the only thing I am asking. I am asking that if you come from
Cuba, you have to prove you are a refugee. Prove that to us. I am not
even saying we are not going to let you in. I am just saying that if
you come from Cuba using the Cuban Adjustment Act, prove that you have
been persecuted in Cuba. That is not hard to do. You were in jail; you
were beaten. We know who the people are who are being persecuted. All I
am saying is prove that you are a refugee, and then you will qualify
for the benefits because we help refugees. But, apparently, that is too
much to ask.
Here is the thing. Everybody here comes up to me and says: I am for
your amendment. I support what you are trying to do. Great. Why can't
we vote on it? We can't vote on it because if we give you your
amendment, then we have to give the other side their amendments. And
let me just tell you guys that this is why people are so sick of
politics.
I don't want to get too much into the weeds on this, but suffice it
to say I have spent from April 13 of 2015 through very recently
traveling all over this country on another endeavor, and one of the
things you hear from people is that they are just angry. They are just
fed up. They think: Nobody whom we elect, whom we vote for, whom we
send to Washington--nothing ever changes or happens. It doesn't matter.
You can vote Republican, you can vote Democrat, or you can vote for a
vegetarian. It doesn't matter whom you vote for. Nothing happens. These
people don't do anything.
They are right. I have just come here today and laid this out. No one
can argue against what I have just said--no one. I challenge any Member
of this Senate to come here now--I will give the rest of the time I
have apportioned to me--and tell me why changing this is a bad idea.
But I can't even vote get a vote on an amendment to change this.
The excuses are long: Oh, we can't do it because we don't want to
open the tax portion of the bill because then other people will want
their amendments. This is crazy. This is nuts. We can't solve problems.
We can't solve something as clear and simple as that. We can't even get
a vote. If you want to vote against what I am proposing, vote against
it. We can't even get a vote on an amendment like this. It makes no
sense.
This is not a small issue. We are talking $700 million. This is not
an issue of national coverage. It is not in the news every day. This is
not controversial. This is bipartisan. The chairwoman of the Democratic
National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Congresswoman from
Florida, is a cosponsor of this bill in the House. So this is not
partisan. It is not about getting anyone elected to anything. I am not
running for anything. This is about doing what is right.
This is about being able to go back to my home community and say to
people: This abuse has been addressed. But if I go home tonight or
tomorrow to Florida and I run into somebody at the grocery store, I
can't explain to them with a straight face why the Senate will not give
me a vote on this because it makes no sense. If I came to you and said:
They are stealing $700 million a year from you, and here is a very
simple way to stop it, you would say: Let's do it. We have to do it.
But here they are saying: We can't do it. And no one will tell you why
we can't do it, except for some procedural internal Senate thing.
This is ridiculous. This is why people are angry. This is why people
are so upset. This is why people have taken on this attitude to get rid
of everyone. And I have to tell you, it is hard to blame them after
seeing what is happening here now. This is total and complete outrage.
There is another amendment being debated, by the way, by Senator
Sessions. It is another one of the amendments that was denied a vote.
It has to do with the entry-exit tracking system, which basically means
that when you come into the United States with a visa--you get a visa
to visit the United States for 90 days as a tourist. You want to go to
Washington, you want to
[[Page S2081]]
go to Disney World, you want to go to New York City, and you have 60 to
90 days to visit the United States. When you arrive, we check you in.
But we never check you out. So we never know when or if someone has
left.
As a result, today, of the 12 or 13 or 14 million people who are here
illegally, about 40 percent or so of them are people who have
overstayed their visas. They didn't cross the border illegally. They
came on an airplane, and they overstayed their visa.
Everyone says they are in favor of a system that tracks entries and
exits so we can crack down on these overstayed visas. Everyone says
they are in favor of it. In 2013, the Senate passed a controversial
immigration reform bill that I was a part of and we helped craft, and
an entry-exit tracking system was part of that bill.
Everyone--Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative--says they are
in favor of doing that. But you can't get a vote on an amendment
dealing with it. Again, it makes no sense. This place can't solve
anything, and this is ridiculous.
So what happens when you don't solve things for a long time? The
problems stack up. The problems stack up and people lose confidence.
People lose faith.
Look, I understand this process. I know everyone is not always going
to get everything. You are not going to achieve everything you want
when you get involved in these issues, but these are commonsense
issues. An entry-exit tracking system--of course that makes sense.
By the way, you have to do that on the FAA bill. You have to because
that has to do with airports where most of the entry-exits are
happening. This issue is drafted to this bill because this bill has a
piece of it that deals with the Tax Code and finance. A moment ago, the
chairman said we had a lot of debate. They had an open amendment
process on the FAA bill, but there is a finance component to this bill
that was not offered until it got here. That is what my amendment is
drafted on, so I couldn't have offered this in a committee.
I think people come to Washington and watch this process; they hear
me explain this thing. They are wondering, there has to be a catch,
right? What is the other side of the argument? There is no other side
of the argument. There is none. There is none.
Why should you, the people watching, the people here, why should
anybody, why should the American taxpayer be giving money to people who
don't live here to build houses in another country? That is what is
happening right underneath our noses. Forget about passing it. You
can't even get a vote on it, for reasons no one can explain.
Do you want to know why people are upset and frustrated with the
political process? This is a small but important example of why people
are so frustrated. I hope this will change. I hope it will change. I
hope it will change on this bill because I don't think you can explain
with a straight face why something like this can't pass or why
something like this can't even get a vote on it. This makes absolutely
no sense, but this is what is happening here every single day on a
routine basis. When I say ``here,'' I mean in Washington. The result
is, people start to scratch their heads and say: You know what. It
doesn't matter whom we elect, nothing changes. That explains a lot
about the frustrations that are going on in this country. I hope that
will change.
Honoring Assault Brigade 2506
Madam President, I want to talk about another topic briefly. It is
also related to Cuba but on a much different note. It has to do with
the Bay of Pigs, which is something that happened a while back. April
17 will mark the anniversary of a significant event in history. It is
an event that many in our government over the years have been eager to
forget and is often cited as a blemish on our history, but I beg to
differ in some ways. The result wasn't what we wanted, but we have a
lot to be proud of. I think it has become increasingly important to
remember.
Fifty-five years ago this Sunday, on April 17, 1961, there were 1,500
brave volunteers who embarked upon a mission to liberate Cuba from
Fidel Castro's oppressive grip. This force was primarily made up of
Cuban exiles, but they were a diverse group from all backgrounds within
Cuban society.
They knew they would be badly outnumbered and they would face
extraordinary odds. Yet these men stormed the beaches of Playa Giron at
the Bay of Pigs. They did it for what at the time was their country,
Cuba. They did it for their families. They did it for freedom itself.
Over the next 4 days, nearly 100 members of the Brigada de Asalto--
Assault Brigade 2506--lost their lives--nearly 100 members. Included in
that number were four American pilots and five others who were
executed. The majority were captured and imprisoned for many months and
years and in inhumane conditions.
Though the Bay of Pigs invasion failed, it was a triumph of courage
for the brave Cuban exiles at the mission's helm, and it serves as a
reminder of an era when the U.S. Government actually embraced America's
role as the watchman on the walls of freedom.
Since taking power those many years ago, the anti-American Castro
regime has never relented in its attempts to undermine our security and
suppress its own people. More than 1 million Cubans have voted with
their feet, fleeing the island in search of political freedom or better
economic conditions--we just discussed that a moment ago--often coming
to the United States.
Many of these refugees are my neighbors, my friends, and
constituents. My own parents left Cuba several years before Castro took
over, but their lives were nonetheless marred by his rule as well. The
relationships with family and friends and access to their homeland were
abruptly severed.
For the nearly 1,500 Cuban exiles who made up the Assault Brigade
2506, Fidel Castro was not the leader of their country. He was what he
has always been--a thief and an imposter. They knew liberty was a God-
given right, and they needed to do all in their power to reclaim it.
Their story says as much about their own resilience as it does about
America. The very building I stand in, and the proud body I am a Member
of, would not exist were it not for men like them over 150 years
before.
America's Declaration of Independence says of mankind's inalienable
rights that ``whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government.''
Those who undertook the Bay of Pigs invasion fought for their
country, not against it. Their cause was a humanitarian cause, a noble
cause, in many ways, an American cause. Many of those who were captured
and eventually released and exiled to the United States came with
nothing--not a penny--and in many cases no English skills. They went to
work and embraced America's blessings, but they never forgot their
homeland.
Some made it their life's work to promote the cause of a free Cuba.
Others went to work on a different endeavor to provide for their
families but dedicated countless hours as faithful volunteers of the
cause. Many of the former members of the Brigade 2506 would take up
arms for the United States, serving in our Armed Forces with the same
bravery and distinction they showed at the Bay of Pigs. In doing so,
they served as teachers to an entire community.
For example, today in Miami a Brigade 2506 monument and museum now
exists as much to commemorate these heroes as they do to educate
others. Far from being forgotten, the example of these brave men has
inspired others to carry on their work. Their legacy lives, and it
lives on among those of us who follow in their footsteps by making
their cause of a free Cuba our cause.
Today the spirit of those who paid the ultimate price is alive and
well in the brigade's Veterans Association and continues to stand
firmly against the Castro brothers' dictatorship. Their spirit is also
alive inside Cuba, represented by all those who stand up to the
repressive regime and its beatings, detentions, and suppressions of
speech. A strong dissident movement within the island refuses to be
silenced, demanding change and the right of every human being to be
free.
Sadly, this administration has betrayed that spirit of dissension by
treating the Castro government as if it were democratically elected.
The President's actions have only motivated the dictatorship to
increase in
[[Page S2082]]
its very nature, but as long as the spirit of the brigade lives on, the
dream of a free Cuba will never die.
Following the Bay of Pigs invasion, in December of 1962, President
Kennedy delivered a speech in Miami honoring those who fought.
Accepting an honor from them in return, he accepted the flag of their
brigade. President Kennedy said: ``I can assure you that this flag will
be returned to this brigade in a free Havana.''
That assurance was not made by a man but by a nation. It came with no
expiration date. I believe we as Americans owe it to the fearless men
who fought at the Bay of Pigs to ensure that their flag, which last
touched the shores of Cuba 55 years ago this week, is one day returned
to a free Havana and that everything that flag represents--freedom,
sacrifice, the dreams of the Cuban people--remains the cause of the
United States.
To the veterans of Assault Brigade 2506, thank you for your service
and God bless you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Rubio for his comments
and his heartfelt expressions. It is important, and his amendment is
very commonsensical. It deals with a very real abuse that I know he and
many Cuban Americans understand to be an abuse and want to see ended.
This would be a good opportunity for us to pass it, and I understand
Senator Rubio's frustrations that we seem to be unable to fix problems
around this body.
That is my feeling this afternoon, too--this frustration that we are
not able to finally take action on things like the entry-exit visa
system and complete it, as we promised to do for years. We get very
close, but we don't get there. I thank Senator Rubio for his excellent
leadership on this issue and support for the amendment that I have
worked on. I think it is very reasonable and an appropriate amendment.
It gives plenty of opportunity for us to carry out the necessary
program in a reasonable way.
The amendment I submitted will ensure the implementation of the
statutorily required biometric exit system. It has been in law for a
long time. It was first set in law in 1996--20 years ago. There were at
least eight or more times where we mandated this legislation. The first
one was in 1996. These requirements were basically ignored. They were
eventually modified and then the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, occurred.
Congress responded to that by demanding the government implement this
entry-exit system when we passed the PATRIOT Act to provide greater
security for America. It stated that an entry-exit data system should
be fully implemented for airports, seaports, land border ports of entry
``with all deliberate speed and as expeditiously as practical.'' That
was in 2001.
If you remember what happened after 9/11, we had a 9/11 Commission--
and it was a bipartisan Commission--and that Commission was charged
with a serious responsibility of analyzing our immigration system,
analyzing our public safety system, our intelligence system, and all
kinds of problems that made us more vulnerable than we need to be. One
of their recommendations was that we have a system when you come into
America on a visa, you clock yourself in--like many workplaces have--
and you clock yourself out when you leave the country and your time on
your visa expires. Then the United States would know who would come and
who had exited.
Of course, we also know, if you recall back to that day, a number of
the 9/11 attackers who killed 3,000 Americans came on visas lawfully.
Several of them overstayed with the visas they had. So this was the
response.
We have the capability of doing this. We have had the capability for
many years, and it has not happened. Ten years after 2001, the 9/11
attack, the
9/11 Commissioners met again. The purpose of their meeting was to
ascertain how much of what they had recommended had actually been
accomplished by the U.S. Government. One of the very first things they
noted was the failure to complete the exit system. This is why it has
become such a big issue.
In 2002 we passed a law that further moved forward with the system.
It required the government to install biometric readers and scanners at
all ports of entry of the United States. In fact, we have a system to
collect biometric information from individuals who wish to enter the
country, but oddly we don't have the exit system. Why is it so much
harder to have a system to allow you to document your exit than it is
to document your entry? This is a serious problem.
Subsequently, and consistent with the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004, which mandated the entry-exit system be
complete and be biometrically based. That is different from biographic.
In a biographically-based system, you give your Social Security number
and name and they check to see if somebody has a warrant out for your
arrest or if you should be on a no-fly list or if you are connected
with terrorism or organized crime or drug-dealing gangs or whatever is
in our systems. You can just give a false name. That is not a very
secure system at all.
What the 9/11 Commission correctly concluded was, if you used a
biometric system where they read your fingerprints, somebody couldn't
come in and say they are John Jones and they are really Ralph Smith,
who has a warrant out for his arrest for terrorism somewhere. That is
the kind of thing this system was designed to do and can be done.
Despite the relatively successful implementation of a biometric entry
system, the Department has largely failed to implement the
requirements. To date, the Department of Homeland Security has only
implemented a handful of pilot programs. It is not hard to do. Yet they
have been dragging their feet for years now. However, there are some
promising developments on this system. The Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2016 created a dedicated source of money for implementation of
the biometric exit. It has been estimated that this will result in
approximately $1 billion in funds that will be used solely for the
implementation of the biometric exit system. That is already in law and
required to be a part of our legal and immigration system.
Yet, even with this source of funding, hurdles remain to the
implementation this system. My amendment will remove one of the biggest
remaining hurdles to the implementation of the system. It simply states
that no funds from this Federal aviation bill, which funds airports,
runways, safety systems, and all of those different systems, can be
expended ``for the physical modification of any existing air navigation
facility that is a port of entry or construction of a new air
navigation facility intended to be a port of entry, unless the
Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that the owner or sponsor of
the facility has agreed to a plan that guarantees the installation and
implementation of the [biometric exit system] at such facility not
later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of the Act.'' In
other words, it gives them 2 years. They have to reach an agreement to
actually take steps to fix this problem.
I modified my amendment in an attempt to address some concerns that
were raised by the airlines by explicitly referring to the $1 billion
appropriated for this system. We received positive feedback from U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, which has to deal with this every day.
My amendment also has been endorsed by the Border Patrol Union. They
know this is a loophole in our system, a gaping hole in our security.
They want to see it completed, and it is long overdue.
The amendment allows the U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers
and each airport that serves as a port of entry to create a solution
that works specifically for the needs of the CBP and the limitations of
each individual airport. It does require, however, that the parties
agree to a plan that guarantees the system will be installed and
implemented.
The suggestions we have had in response as to the kind of language
critics and objectors would like to see--it never has an end date. They
say, well, you can begin a pilot project or you can do this, that, and
the other, but they never give a date as to when it should actually be
completed.
Colleagues, this system can be made to work. In my opinion, it can be
implemented in every airport in 6
[[Page S2083]]
months. We have companies that have this kind of system that is used
all over the place, and even Disney World and Disneyland use a
fingerprint system. It is on our cell phones. This is the kind of thing
that is really no problem to make happen, but we lack the will and
determination to see it through, and we let people who don't like it--
special interest groups--push back, and as a result, it somehow never
gets completed.
In fact, Homeland Security, airports, and airlines have already had a
generous amount of time in which to get this completed. It could be
done quickly.
One manufacturer said: We should host a special products day. You
should just have a day out here. People think it can't be done. Have a
day and ask all the manufacturers around the country to bring forth
their equipment that is being used in businesses and places all over
the country, such as nuclear plants, and set them up and let us show
you what we can do with it.
Another company said: You don't even have to touch a screen. You can
wave your hand in front of the screen, and it will read your
fingerprints.
These are proven products, and the prices are low and falling and at
the most basic level. If Apple and Samsung can put it on their phones,
we can certainly do it at the airports.
The special interests also say it will take up a lot of space. It
will not take up a lot of space. Police officers have these kinds of
fingerprint-reading systems in their automobiles. When they arrest
somebody for a crime and want to know if there is a warrant for that
person's arrest somewhere around the country, they ask that person to
put their hand on the screen. The computer reads it and runs the
fingerprint against the National Crime Information Center records. If
it says bingo, there is a warrant for his arrest for murder, robbery,
or drug dealing, they can detain that person.
CBP can work with larger airports with international terminals and
install physical equipment at their international departure gates. It
is only the international departure gates. CBP--Customs and Border
Patrol--can work with smaller airports and even deploy handheld systems
similar to the ones that are in cars at the gates that handle
international flights. Ultimately, all passengers exiting the United
States need to do is place their hands on a simple screen--or with some
devices, just wave their hands at it--and it will biometrically
identify the passenger as truly the one shown on the flight documents
as exiting the United States.
You can come here with a false document. Terrorists work on these
things all the time. Terrorists use false identification. We know there
are systems out there making them by the thousands and tens of
thousands. But if your fingerprint doesn't match the fingerprint of the
person whose name you are using and it turns out to match somebody who
is on a terrorist watch list, then you can stop it and create safety.
If a person puts out their hand and there is a hit because the person
boarding the plane is on a no-fly list, the passenger can be denied
boarding or removed from the plane before it takes off, and their
baggage can be removed from the plane before it takes off.
Importantly, the United States will have a unified, automatically
produced list of people who departed when their visa said they should
depart and a list of people who did not depart when their visa expired.
By the way, colleagues, several years ago the Congressional Budget
Office found that 40-plus percent of people illegally in America came
by visa. They came legally; they just did not leave. They said that
number is increasing. I believe it is increasing rather rapidly, and we
are going to see more of it in the future. If you don't have a system
to identify people who overstay their lawful entry, then you do not
have a lawful system of immigration. It is just that simple.
For a host of reasons, this system should be based on fingerprints.
The former Secretary of Homeland Security and former Governor of
Pennsylvania, Secretary Ridge, set up this system some time ago. When I
talked to him about it, I told him as a former prosecutor that it
needed to be based on the fingerprint system. Some people had other
ideas about it, such as eye or facial recognition. These things can
technically be done, but they can't run a check on somebody who
committed murder somewhere and has a warrant out for their arrest and
is fleeing the United States, because our basic law enforcement system
only has certain data of people who are wanted for criminal activity.
You need to use the fingerprint. It has been proven, it works, and it
is used in every criminal justice system in the United States.
When he left office after going round and round about this subject,
Secretary Ridge said: I have one bit of advice for my successors, and
that is, use the fingerprint. I believe he was totally correct, and it
still remains the only real system that will work.
Let's also be aware that numerous countries across the world--
including New Zealand, Singapore, and Hong Kong--have been using
biometric systems for years. This is nothing new. Others do it, and we
can do it too.
Ending this failure has bipartisan support. My subcommittee, the
Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, held a hearing
on January 20 of this year entitled--I thought it was a pretty good
title--``Why is the biometric exit tracking system still not in
place?'' That is a pretty good question. Well, during the hearing, we
got promises from government officials, but there was no commitment
that they would actually complete the system. They said: Oh, we are
doing pilot projects. We are considering this and working on it. Well,
they have been working on it for 20 years. We had our members who were
there--all three Democratic members who were at that subcommittee
hearing said they favor this. There is no real opposition to it.
Just a few weeks after the hearing, Secretary Johnson of Homeland
Security made public statements directing DHS to begin implementation
of the system at our airports by 2018. To begin implementation when? In
2018. There was no promise that it would be completed, and there was no
assurance that they were going to make the system a reality. This is at
least an acknowledgement that it is needed, but we need a completion
date.
It is these kinds of lulling comments that we have heard for years
that have resulted in no action. If people in the Senate would like to
know why the American people are not happy with the performance of
Congress, this is a very good example. Congress promises to fix the
problem, even claims we voted for and passed laws to fix a problem, and
then it stands by while two decades go by and nothing happens. Why?
Well, their special interests speak up. We have lobbyists sending out
letters telling Members to oppose the Sessions amendment.
It is time for us to represent the national interest. The time for
the special interests is over on this subject. Congress has spoken
repeatedly. The American people are getting tired of this. I am getting
tired of this. Who runs this place? Elected representatives or some
high-paid lobbyist somewhere? They have been dragging this out and
fighting it tenaciously with every effort they have had for years, and
it has not happened and America is at risk because of it. Airports and
airlines are happy to get Federal assistance whenever they can. They
better be trying to cooperate and make their airlines even safer than
they are today.
It is time to fulfill the promise and commitment we made to the
American people. How much longer can this go on? We promised the
American people a system that will demonstrably improve our national
security. We voted for it time and again. We have bipartisan support
for it. If we can get a vote on this amendment, we will see a huge
bipartisan majority vote for it. I don't know who would vote against
it. But we don't get to vote, and as a result nothing happens for
years.
This was noted by the former Commissioners on the 9/11 Commission in
a report issued in 2014:
Without exit-tracking, our government does not know when a
foreign visitor admitted to the United States on a temporary
basis has overstayed his or her admission. Had this system
been in place on 9/11, we would have had a better chance of
detecting the plotters before they struck.
That is why it is important. We have long known that visa overstays
pose a serious national security risk. A number of the hijackers on
September 11
[[Page S2084]]
overstayed their visas. The number of visa overstays implicated in
terrorism since that date is certainly a significant number.
A new poll came out earlier this year that indicates that three out
of four Americans not only want the Obama administration to find those
aliens who overstay their visas but to also deport them.
Why not? They came here for a limited period of time. We have a law
that says they can stay for a certain amount of time. It is not that
hard to get a visa to the United States, but shouldn't they leave when
their visa is up? Do they just get to stay here and take a job, perhaps
from an unemployed American citizen?
The same poll indicates that 68 percent of Americans consider visa
overstays as a ``serious national security risk'' and 31 percent
consider visa overstays as a ``very serious'' national security
risk. There is no doubt as to why.
The risk to our national security is too high for us to maintain the
status quo. We must fulfill this promise. We must do everything we can
to implement the system. I hope that some way, somehow, before this
bill goes to final passage--dealing with airports and public safety
issues--we fix this problem. Why not? I don't know a single person who
opposes it, but we couldn't get the amendment up; we couldn't make it
pending. The Democrats objected to it. Now we have an objection to
having a vote on it before final passage of the legislation.
So I am frustrated. I have been pushing this for years. Even the Gang
of 8 bill had it in there. So this is not something that I think is in
any way unreasonable. It is time to bring it to a conclusion. I urge my
colleagues: Let's figure out a way to make this happen.
I appreciate Senator Thune, who is managing the bill. He is
definitely for it and wants to see it happen. But right now we have
objections from the Democratic side, and we don't seem to be able to
get it through.
I urge my colleagues to reevaluate and approve passage of this
amendment that should have virtually unanimous support in the Senate.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the opening on the
Supreme Court. Today I am going to focus my remarks on how important
filling the current vacancy on the Supreme Court is for our system of
governance.
When our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, they envisioned a
system of governance upheld by three branches of government. The
Federalist Papers outline this balance of power in detail. In
Federalist Paper No. 51, James Madison spoke about the importance of
checks and balances among three branches of government. As Madison
stated: ``It is . . . evident that the members of each department
should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others.'' I
don't think we always refer to ourselves as members of a department,
but what he meant by this is that there are three departments in our
government--the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the
judicial branch. In Federalist Papers 78 and 80, Alexander Hamilton
wrote about the important role of the Federal judiciary in particular.
The writings of the Founders make clear that our democracy only works
when all three branches are functioning.
In recent years, gridlock has hobbled the ability of the legislative
branch to function. Although we have made some progress in starting to
turn that around with the passage of the recent Transportation bill,
the Education bill, and the budget, we also have had some very
difficult times--fiscal cliff, the government shutdown. We cannot take
that dysfunction to the third--as was called by James Madison--
department of government, which is the judiciary. We cannot have a
Supreme Court that doesn't function, which is exactly what is happening
as some continue to obstruct the process, when all we want is a
hearing.
We have already witnessed the Court split evenly without a ninth
Justice to break the tie this year. These types of decisions can
prevent the Court from responding to pressing issues in a timely
fashion. In some decisions where there has been a 4-to-4 split, the
result is effectively the same as if the Supreme Court never heard the
case to begin with.
What if there was an emergency case like we had with Bush v. Gore?
Again, do we want a 4-to-4 split in a case like that? Justice Kagan has
said the current Justices on the Court are doing everything they can to
avoid a 4-to-4 split, but that is not how it should work. Often these
types of decisions provide less guidance to States, offering them less
legal certainty.
Last week I held a meeting of the Steering and Outreach Committee,
where I heard firsthand about what a serious issue this is for State
and local governments. You have patchwork decisions across the country
with perhaps 2 years that will go by before you have a High Court of
the land that can decide which case and which decision rules when there
is a split in the circuit. You can't continue to have a split on the
Court.
As the former chief prosecutor from Minnesota's largest county, I
know from my own experience how important it is to have an ultimate
arbiter to settle the law of the land. Cases challenging critical laws
are now before the Supreme Court. We want those laws to rise or fall
because the Supreme Court has decided the issue--not because of a 4-to-
4 split, not because they were unable to do their job.
More split decisions are not the only risks we are facing. The
current vacancy on the Supreme Court also has implications for the
number of cases the Court is able to take in the first place.
In March of last year, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari--
that means they took the case--in eight cases. This year, it only did
so for two cases. The current situation is compromising the integrity
of our judiciary. If we allow the Supreme Court to become a casualty of
the polarization in our politics, if we let politics impede the Court
from having another Justice and from doing its job, people will lose
confidence in the Court.
That is what sets our country apart. When you talk to companies
across the world that want to invest in different countries, they look
at the fact that we have a functioning judiciary.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30
p.m. on Monday, April 18, notwithstanding rule XXII, the Thune
amendment No. 3680 be agreed to; the substitute amendment, as amended,
No. 3679, be agreed to; and the Senate vote on the motion to invoke
cloture on H.R. 636.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, again I say to my colleagues that we made a
lot of good headway on the FAA reauthorization bill. Throughout the day
today--as we did quite late last night--we have attempted to negotiate
a path forward to adopt more amendments. We have a package of
amendments that have been cleared. A number of our colleagues wanted
votes on their amendments, but there have been objections on both sides
of the aisle which prevented us from getting to a final resolution.
This morning we adopted cloture on the substitute with a very big
vote, but we still have to have a cloture vote on Monday on the
underlying bill, which will occur at 5:30 p.m. So I am here to inform
my colleagues that there will be no further rollcall votes during
today's
[[Page S2085]]
session of the Senate and we will proceed with the cloture vote on the
underlying bill at 5:30 p.m. on Monday. Shortly after that vote, I hope
to get to final passage on the FAA reauthorization so we can move on to
other business in the Senate.
____________________