[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12950-12974]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 BRING JOBS HOME ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar 
No. 453, S. 2569, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 453, S. 2569, a bill to 
     provide an incentive for business to bring jobs back to 
     America.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Israel-Gaza Conflict

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  For 3 weeks we have seen fighting going on in Israel and the Gaza 
Strip carried on between the Israeli military and Hamas. In both Gaza 
and Israel lives, unfortunately, are being lost, homes are destroyed, 
families are devastated, security is threatened, and daily life is 
polluted by this war.
  Since the fighting began, Hamas has made it abundantly clear it is 
unwilling to behave in any responsible manner. The organization is 
using civilian areas such as schools and hospitals, mosques and 
playgrounds, as rocket-launching sites. Caches of rockets have been 
discovered inside two Gaza schools sponsored by the United Nations. A 
chance for peace emerged when Egypt put forward a cease-fire plan that 
Israel agreed to. Hamas refused to cease hostilities. Later Israel 
agreed to a temporary truce, the pause requested by Hamas to facilitate 
the delivery of humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Despite the Israeli 
cooperation, Hamas quickly violated the cease-fire, resuming rocket 
launches into Israeli territory.
  Hamas's actions seek to kill and terrorize those across the Israeli 
border while they also do great harm to the people of Gaza. Ending the 
rocket attacks would hasten an end to the current violence and 
bloodshed that has taken a disproportionate toll on Gazan lives.
  On July 17, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution to express 
American support for Israeli self-defense efforts and called for an 
immediate cessation of Hamas's attacks against Israel. S. Res. 498 also 
serves as a reminder to anyone ascribing legitimacy to Hamas's deadly 
aggression toward Israel; despite any governing agreement with Fatah 
and the Palestinian Authority, Hamas's violence is not legitimate in 
the eyes of the United States of America. Since 1997, Hamas has been 
included on the U.S. State Department's list of designated foreign 
terrorist organizations. The group's ongoing attack on civilian targets 
further justifies this designation.
  Hamas's participation in a unity government limits improvements to 
life in Gaza as American law restricts U.S. aid to Palestinian groups 
aligned with terrorist organizations such as Hamas. Gaza's poor 
economic state, which is cited by Hamas as justification for their 
attacks on Israel, is not at all improved by Hamas's belligerence. 
Instead, Hamas's strategy of violence only worsens Gaza's economic 
outlook. Hamas's actions compound the consequences of funding weapons 
and smuggling tunnels rather than investing in the future of Gaza and 
its people, the point being that what Hamas is doing is damaging to the 
people of not only Israel but to the folks who live in Gaza.
  This reality begs observers to question Hamas's commitment to the 
people it supposedly represents. Since the beginning of the current 
conflict, Hamas's commitment to violence against Israel appears to be 
their primary mission, not the care and well-being of their people. 
Unless cessation of hostilities becomes Hamas's priority, Israel will 
retain and must retain the right to defend its people and the welfare 
of those living in Gaza will regretfully continue to deteriorate.
  Americans would not tolerate this. We would not. Our constituents 
would be insistent that we not tolerate the threat of terrorism that 
Israel faces on a daily basis. Since 1947, attacks from its neighboring 
Arab States have repeatedly forced Israel to defend its people.
  This Senate has and will continue to demonstrate that the United 
States

[[Page 12951]]

stands with Israel, especially during these turbulent times as Israel 
takes necessary action to reduce Hamas's means of terror, to disarm 
those who stand firmly in the way of a real and lasting peace.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Honoring Federal Employees

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to call attention to the important 
efforts made each day by our public servants. We often forget that our 
public servants are Federal employees who go to work every day with the 
sole mission to make this country a better and safer place to live. Day 
after day they go about their work receiving little recognition for the 
great work they do, and many times, unfortunately, they are actually 
berated rather than acclaimed for what they do during difficult times.
  Since 2010 I have come to the Senate floor on a regular basis to 
honor exemplary Federal employees, a tradition that was begun by my 
friend from Delaware Senator Ted Kaufman.
  Today I wish to take this opportunity to recognize another 
extraordinary public servant who has served in the U.S. Department of 
Treasury for 41 years. Forty-one years. That is not a typo. Mr. Richard 
L. Gregg has dedicated more than four decades to Federal service. He 
most recently served as the Fiscal Assistant Secretary at the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury.
  Mr. Gregg began his Federal civilian service in 1970 at Treasury's 
Financial Management Service. During his 10 years at Treasury, he 
served as the Commissioner of Treasury's Financial Management Service 
and as the Commissioner of the Bureau of Public Debt.
  Mr. Gregg retired--for the first time--in June 2006 and was asked to 
return to Treasury in 2009 to serve as Fiscal Assistant Secretary. Mr. 
Gregg retired again this month, and in honor of his second retirement I 
wanted to highlight a couple of his noteworthy accomplishments.
  During his long tenure at Treasury, Mr. Gregg was well known for his 
innovative thinking, the ability to make hard decisions, and the desire 
to make government more efficient, more open, and, very importantly, 
less costly.
  Mr. Gregg led the Treasury into the 21st century by modernizing 
Federal payment operations. He moved Treasury from paper-based benefits 
payments toward the more sensible, secure, and reliable electronic 
payment system. We should have done that a lot earlier. This is a 
really big deal since Treasury makes more than 1 billion payments per 
year--think about that, more than 1 billion separate payments per 
year--including all Social Security benefit payments as well as others. 
His work will help save taxpayers $1 billion over the next decade. That 
is a pretty great value.
  Mr. Gregg also helped achieve one of the more rare feats in the 
Federal Government--the actual consolidation of Federal programs. Mr. 
Gregg recognized that operations could be improved if Treasury 
consolidated two complementary Treasury agencies into one. By merging 
Treasury's Financial Management Service, which makes government 
payments, with Treasury's Bureau of Public Debt, which borrows the 
money to fund government, taxpayers will save tens of millions over the 
next decade.
  This isn't going to clear up our $17 trillion in debt that goes up $3 
billion a night, but these are the kinds of commonsense steps in the 
right direction we need to see more often.
  I am also proud that Mr. Gregg is not only an inspiring public 
servant, but he is also a Virginian. He resides in Springfield, VA.
  I thank Mr. Richard L. Gregg for his leadership at the Department of 
Treasury and for being a tireless advocate for the American people. His 
work in support of a more efficient, responsive, and accountable 
government will continue to make government work better for all 
Americans for many years to come.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence after 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be 
determined by me, with the concurrence of Senator McConnell, the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 952; that there 
be 4 hours for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the 
use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without 
intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if confirmed, the 
motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to 
the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be 
printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate is postcloture on the 
motion to proceed.
  Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             VA Health Care

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I have come to realize that we are never 
going to get politics completely out of the legislative process. In the 
system we have today, there is always another election and there is 
always another campaign. This political posturing must be addressed. It 
is hurting our democracy, and it is a prime reason Congress's approval 
rating is in the single digits.
  Today politics is hurting the men and women who bravely served our 
Nation. It is hurting our veterans.
  When the news about the problems at the VA became public, lawmakers 
ran to the press and slammed the VA. They called for reform and 
accountability. They even dragged good men through the mud to score 
political points.
  Members from both sides of the aisle said politics needed to be set 
aside because if there is just one thing that should cause our 
politicians to look past political games, it is our veterans. It is our 
commitment to our veterans, our commitment to making sure they get the 
care they have earned. But today some lawmakers decided to forgo the 
hard work of compromise. Instead of putting veterans first, they have 
made improving veterans care political.
  We have been working for 6 weeks to find a compromise bill that 
improves veterans' access to care, that holds the VA more accountable, 
and that hires more medical professionals so veterans can get the care 
they need when they need it. But for 6 weeks Members on the other side 
of the aisle in both the House and the Senate have balked at the cost 
of taking care of our veterans. Many of these lawmakers are the same 
ones--the same ones--who put our wars

[[Page 12952]]

in Iraq and Afghanistan on a credit card. Many of them didn't blink 
twice when we sent hundreds of troops into Iraq earlier this month. Way 
back when, when the Iraq war was authorized, Congress spent less than 3 
weeks debating Iraq. But now when it comes to taking care of our men 
and women who served--many in the same wars they put on a credit card--
they worry about the cost.
  Well, I have news for them: Taking care of our veterans is a cost of 
war. We do not send young Americans to war and then not take care of 
them. And it should not be the case that we rush to war but drag our 
feet when it comes to our vets.
  Republicans today will announce they are forgoing the veterans 
conference committee and introducing a bill of their own. It is not a 
proposal aimed at benefiting our veterans. It is not. It is not a bill 
that takes the best ideas of veterans organizations, experts, or VA 
officials and moves the ball forward. It is a proposal that is meant to 
gain political favor. It is a proposal that sheds the responsibility of 
governing, of honoring our commitment to veterans. It is a proposal 
that is aimed at the November election.
  Chairman Sanders has been working hard to bridge the divide and 
produce a bill that gets veterans the support they need and can pass in 
Congress, but Chairman Sanders can't do it himself, and neither can 
just one-half of the conference committee.
  I am incredibly disappointed by what is taking place today. I had 
real hopes that this conference committee could rise above the 
political process and get something done for our veterans.
  I have been holding listening sessions with Montana's veterans since 
early June. They didn't have much faith. Those veterans did not have 
much faith in Washington politicians solving the problem, but I told 
them it could be done. If we don't change course, if we don't leave 
politics at the door as we promised, then it is going to be hard for me 
to go back to Montana and look those veterans in the eye.
  We can do better, and we must do better.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. 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. SANDERS. Mr. President, on June 11--a month and a half ago--in a 
very strong bipartisan way, the Senate voted 93 to 3--an overwhelming 
vote--to pass legislation written by Senator John McCain, a Republican, 
and myself to address crises facing our veterans community and the VA 
and to protect and defend the men and women who have put their lives on 
the line to defend us. I wish to take this opportunity again to thank 
Senator McCain for his very strong efforts on getting that legislation 
passed.
  As you know, the legislation we passed was estimated by the 
Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, to cost about $35 billion. At 
just about the same time, the House of Representatives passed 
legislation dealing with, more or less, the same issues, and the bill 
they passed in the House was estimated by CBO to cost $44 billion--$9 
billion more than what we passed in the Senate.
  In the last 6 weeks, my staff, my colleagues, and I have been working 
very hard to refine this legislation, to come up with a more reasonable 
pricetag, and to address the needs of our veterans community in a 
significant way. In that process, I have been accused by some of 
``moving the goalposts.'' I guess I have. I have moved the goalposts so 
the legislation we are introducing today is substantially lower--
substantially lower--than what passed the Senate and what passed the 
House. If that is called moving the goalposts, I suspect in this case 
it is moving the goalposts in a positive direction. In fact, the bill 
we are presenting would cost less than $25 billion--a lot of money, no 
doubt--but that is some $10 billion less than what we passed on the 
Senate floor, and it is $19 billion less than what the House passed.
  Our proposal is a commonsense proposal which deals in a significant 
way with the needs of the veterans community. What it does is provide 
emergency funding for contract services so veterans can, when they find 
themselves in long waiting periods--as in fact is the case in a number 
of locations around the country--they can go outside of the VA and get 
private health care or care at a community health center or whatever. 
They no longer have to wait during this emergency period for long 
periods of time to get into the VA. I think that is a very important 
part of this proposal. It is something we have to do.
  In addition, what we also say is if a veteran is living more than 40 
miles from a VA facility--and there are veterans who in some cases are 
living hundreds of miles away--they do not have to, when they are ill, 
get in their car and travel for 3 or 4 hours to get health care at a VA 
facility. They will be able to go to a non-VA facility, a private 
physician, if they live more than 40 miles away from a VA facility. I 
think that is a significant step forward.
  But what our legislation also does is address an issue of huge 
concern to the veterans community. Just yesterday--just yesterday--I 
received, and many members in the Veterans' Committee received, a 
letter from 16 major veterans organizations. I ask unanimous consent to 
have the letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    July 23, 2014.
     Chairman Bernie Sanders,
     Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
     Washington, DC.
     Ranking Member Richard Burr,
     Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
     Washington, DC.
     Chairman Jeff Miller,
     House Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
     Washington, DC.
     Ranking Member Mike Michaud,
     House Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
     Washington, DC.
       Chairman Sanders, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Burr, 
     Ranking Member Michaud: Last week, Acting Secretary Sloan 
     Gibson appeared before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee 
     to discuss the progress made by the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs (VA) over the past two months to address the health 
     care access crisis for thousands of veterans. Secretary 
     Gibson testified that after re-examining VA's resource needs 
     in light of the revelations about secret waiting lists and 
     hidden demand, VA required supplemental resources totaling 
     $17.6 billion for the remainder of this fiscal year through 
     the end of FY 2017.
       As the leaders of organizations representing millions of 
     veterans, we agree with Secretary Gibson that there is a need 
     to provide VA with additional resources now to ensure that 
     veterans can access the health care they have earned, either 
     from VA providers or through non-VA purchased care. We urge 
     Congress to expeditiously approve supplemental funding that 
     fully addresses the critical needs outlined by Secretary 
     Gibson either prior to, or at the same time as, any 
     compromise legislation that may be reported out of the House-
     Senate Conference Committee. Whether it costs $17 billion or 
     $50 billion over the next three years, Congress has a sacred 
     obligation to provide VA with the funds it requires to meet 
     both immediate needs through non-VA care and future needs by 
     expanding VA's internal capacity.
       Last month, we wrote to you to outlining the principles and 
     priorities essential to addressing the access crisis, a copy 
     of which is attached. The first priority ``. . . must be to 
     ensure that all veterans currently waiting for treatment must 
     be provided access to timely, convenient health care as 
     quickly as medically indicated.'' Second, when VA is unable 
     to provide that care directly, ``. . . VA must be involved in 
     the timely coordination of and fully responsible for prompt 
     payment for all authorized non-VA care.'' Third, Congress 
     must provide supplemental funding for this year and 
     additional funding for next year to pay for the temporary 
     expansion of non-VA purchased care. Finally, whatever actions 
     VA or Congress takes to address the current access crisis 
     must also ``. . . protect, preserve and strengthen the VA 
     health care system so that it remains capable of providing a 
     full continuum of high-quality, timely health care to all 
     enrolled veterans.''
       In his testimony to the Senate, Secretary Gibson stated 
     that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has already 
     reached out to over 160,000 veterans to get them off wait 
     lists and into clinics. He said that VHA accomplished this by 
     adding more clinic hours, aggressively recruiting to fill 
     physician vacancies, deploying mobile medical units,

[[Page 12953]]

     using temporary staffing resources, and expanding the use of 
     private sector care. Gibson also testified that VHA made over 
     543,000 referrals for veterans to receive non-VA care in the 
     private sector--91,000 more than in the comparable period a 
     year ago. In a subsequent press release, VA stated that it 
     had reduced the New Enrollee Appointment Report (NEAR) from 
     its peak of 46,000 on June 1, 2014 to 2,000 as of July 1, 
     2014, and that there was also a reduction of over 17,000 
     veterans on the Electronic Waiting List since May 15, 2014. 
     We appreciate this progress, but more must be done to ensure 
     that every enrolled veteran has access to timely care.
       The majority of the supplemental funding required by VA, 
     approximately $8.1 billion, would be used to expand access to 
     VA health care over the next three fiscal years by hiring up 
     to 10,000 new clinical staff, including 1,500 new doctors, 
     nurses and other direct care providers. That funding would 
     also be used to cover the cost of expanded non-VA purchased 
     care, with the focus shifting over the three years from non-
     VA purchased care to VA-provided care as internal capacity 
     increased. The next biggest portion would be $6 billion for 
     VA's physical infrastructure, which according to Secretary 
     Gibson would include 77 lease projects for outpatient clinics 
     that would add about two million square feet, as well as 
     eight major construction projects and 700 minor construction 
     and non-recurring maintenance projects that together could 
     add roughly four million appointment slots at VA facilities. 
     The remainder of the funding would go to IT enhancements, 
     including scheduling, purchased care and project coordination 
     systems, as well as a modest increase of $400 million for 
     additional ``VBA staff to address the claims and appeals 
     backlogs.
       In reviewing the additional resource requirements 
     identified by Secretary Gibson, the undersigned find them to 
     be commensurate with the historical funding shortfalls 
     identified in recent years by many of our organizations, 
     including The Independent Budget (IB), which is authored and 
     endorsed by many of our organizations. For example, in the 
     prior ten VA budgets, the amount of funding for medical care 
     requested by the Administration and ultimately provided to VA 
     by Congress was more than $7.8 billion less than what was 
     recommended by the IB. Over just the past five years, the IB 
     recommended $4 billion more than VA requested or Congress 
     approved and for next year, FY 2015, the IB has recommended 
     over $2 billion more than VA requested. Further corroboration 
     of the shortfall in VA's medical care funding came two weeks 
     ago from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which issued 
     a revised report on H.R. 3230 estimating that, ``. . . under 
     current law for 2015 and CBO's baseline projections for 2016, 
     VA's appropriations for health care are not projected to keep 
     pace with growth in the patient population or growth in per 
     capita spending for health care--meaning that waiting times 
     will tend to increase. . .''
       Similarly, over the past decade the amount of funding 
     requested by VA for major and minor construction, and the 
     final amount appropriated by Congress, has been more than $9 
     billion less than what the IB estimated was needed to allow 
     VA sufficient space to deliver timely, high-quality care. 
     Over the past five years alone, that shortfall is more than 
     $6.6 billion and for next year the VA budget request is more 
     than $2.5 billion less than the IB recommendation. Funding 
     for nonrecurring maintenance (NRM) has also been woefully 
     inadequate. Importantly, the IB recommendations closely 
     mirror VA's Strategic Capital Investment Plan (SCIP), which 
     VA uses to determine infrastructure needs. According to SCIP, 
     VA should invest between $56 to $69 billion in facility 
     improvements over the next ten years, which would require 
     somewhere between $5 to $7 billion annually. However, the 
     Administration's budget requests over the past four years 
     have averaged less than $2 billion annually for major and 
     minor construction and for NRM, and Congress has not 
     significantly increased those funding requests in the final 
     appropriations.
       Taking into account the progress achieved by VA over the 
     past two months, and considering the funding shortfalls our 
     organizations have identified over the past decade and in 
     next year's budget, the undersigned believe that Congress 
     must quickly approve supplemental funding that fully meets 
     the critical needs identified by Secretary Gibson, and which 
     fulfills the principles and priorities we laid out a month 
     ago. Such an approach would be a reasonable and practical way 
     to expand access now, while building internal capacity to 
     avoid future access crises in the future. In contrast to the 
     legislative proposals in the Conference Committee which would 
     require months to promulgate new regulations, establish new 
     procedures and set up new offices, the VA proposal could have 
     an immediate impact on increasing access to care for veterans 
     today by building upon VA's ongoing expanded access 
     initiatives and sustaining them over the next three years. 
     Furthermore, by investing in new staff and treatment space, 
     VA would be able to continue providing this expanded level of 
     care, even while increasing its use of purchased care when 
     and where it is needed.
       In our jointly signed letter last month, we applauded both 
     the House and Senate for working expeditiously and in a 
     bipartisan manner to move legislation designed to address the 
     access crisis, and we understand you are continuing to work 
     towards a compromise bill. As leaders of the nation's major 
     veterans organization, we now ask that you work in the same 
     bipartisan spirit to provide VA supplemental funding 
     addressing the needs outlined by Secretary Gibson to the 
     floor as quickly as feasible, approve it and send it to the 
     President so that he can enact it to help ensure that no 
     veteran waits too long to get the care they earned through 
     their service. We look forward to your response.
           Respectfully,
         Garry J. Augustine, Executive Director, Washington 
           Headquarters, DAV (Disabled American Veterans); Homer 
           S. Townsend, Jr., Executive Director, Paralyzed 
           Veterans of America; Tom Tarantino, Chief Policy 
           Officer, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; 
           Robert E. Wallace, Executive Director, Veterans of 
           Foreign Wars of the United States; Rick Weidman, 
           Executive Director for Policy and Government Affairs, 
           Vietnam Veterans of America; VADM Norbert R. Ryan, Jr., 
           USN (Ret.), President, Military Officers Association of 
           America; Randy Reid, Executive Director, U.S. Coast 
           Guard Chief Petty, Officers Association; James T. 
           Currie, Ph.D, Colonel, USA (Ret.), Executive Director, 
           Commissioned Officers, Association of the U.S. Public 
           Health Service; Robert L. Frank, Chief Executive 
           Officer, Air Force Sergeants Association; VADM John 
           Totushek, USN (Ret), Executive Director, Association of 
           the U.S. Navy (AUSN); Herb Rosenbleeth, National 
           Executive Director, Jewish War Veterans of the USA; 
           Heather L. Ansley, Esq., MSW, Vice President, 
           VetsFirst, a program of United Spinal Association; CW4 
           (Ret) Jack Du Teil, Executive Director, United States 
           Army Warrant Officers Association; John R. Davis, 
           Director, Legislative Programs, Fleet Reserve 
           Association; Robert Certain, Executive Director, 
           Military Chaplain Association of the United States; 
           Michael A. Blum, National Executive Director, Marine 
           Corps League.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, 16 major veterans organizations, 
including the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars--the VFW--Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Vietnam Veterans of 
America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Military 
Officers Association of America, and many others--wonderful veterans 
organizations that have worked for years representing the needs of 
millions and millions of veterans--what these organizations say in this 
letter is that while we must address the immediate crisis of doing away 
with these long waiting lines and allowing veterans to get private 
care, what they also say--loudly and clearly--is that the VA must have 
the doctors, the nurses, and the space capacity that it needs so that 
in the future it will be able to permanently eliminate these long 
waiting lines so that 2 years from now, 3 years from now, when veterans 
come into the VA, they will get quality care, they will get timely 
care. That is what the veterans organizations have said.
  I will quote to you one small paragraph of a long letter. They say 
that the charge of the conference committee should be ``to ensure that 
all veterans currently waiting for treatment must be provided access to 
timely, convenient health care as quickly as medically indicated,'' and 
at the same time ``protect, preserve and strengthen the VA health care 
system so that it remains capable of providing a full continuum of 
high-quality, timely health care to all enrolled veterans.''
  Last week, in a Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee meeting, Sloan 
Gibson, the Acting Secretary of the VA, stated that the VA needed over 
$16 billion in order to hire thousands and thousands of doctors, 
nurses, other medical providers. In many VA facilities doctors do not 
have the examining rooms they need. There are space problems all over 
this country. What the veterans organizations--16 of them--said loudly 
and clearly is that Sloan Gibson, the new Acting Secretary of the VA--
approved with wide Republican support--they said we support his 
proposal.
  Our legislation does not give the VA all that Mr. Gibson would like, 
but we do provide them with the doctors and the nurses and the medical 
staff they

[[Page 12954]]

need so we do not continue to have long waiting lines at VA hospitals 
all over this country, so we do not come back 2 years from now in the 
same position, with veterans not being able to get timely care.
  I have worked for a month and a half with my House Republican 
colleagues, led by the Veterans' Affairs chairman there, Jeff Miller, 
to find a compromise. Everybody knows the House looks at the world 
differently than the Senate--we all know that--and if we go forward, we 
need a compromise.
  We have put good-faith offers on the table time and time again and we 
have tried to meet our Republican colleagues more than halfway, but I 
am very sad to say that at this point--and I hope this changes--but at 
this point I can only conclude, with great reluctance, that the good 
faith we have shown is simply not being reciprocated by the other side.
  Standing here and saying this is the last thing I want to be doing. 
Our veterans deserve a responsible solution to this crisis.
  Last night--this is an example of what has happened--somewhere around 
10 o'clock in the night, the cochairman of the veterans conference 
committee, Mr. Miller in the House, announced unilaterally, without my 
knowledge or without my concurrence, that he was going to hold a so-
called conference committee meeting in order to introduce his 
proposals.
  Needless to say, his proposal is something I have yet to see. I do 
not know what it is. This is a proposal nobody on our side has seen. My 
understanding is he then wants to take this to the House on Monday to 
come up with a vote. In other words, his idea of negotiation is: We 
have a proposal. Take it or leave it. Any sixth grader in a school in 
the United States understands this is not negotiation, this is not what 
democracy is about.
  I note the presence on the floor of the coauthor of the bill passed 
in the Senate, Senator McCain, and I am happy to yield the floor for 
Senator McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could I say that I understand the 
frustration the chairman of the committee feels, and this has been, for 
everyone involved, a very frustrating process. I think to some degree 
the real effort has been diverted on this whole issue of the pay-fors, 
the cost of this legislation. I fully understand the frustration of the 
Senator from Vermont, the distinguished chairman of the committee. I 
would hope we could maybe, all of us, cool down some and maybe go to 
this meeting at noon, and ahead of time--as far ahead of time as is 
possible--tell the chairman what their proposal is and also a 
counterproposal of Senator Sanders' would be fully considered by the 
conference as well.
  It is the proper process to go to a conference. Unfortunately, we 
only did that once, and that was largely a pro forma kind of activity.
  Again, I fully appreciate Senator Sanders, who has worked very hard 
on this very terrible issue. But I hope all of my colleagues recognize 
that for us to not come to agreement on legislation which is not that 
dissimilar, which passed this body 93 to 3, and over on the House side 
I believe it was unanimous, is a gross disservice to those who deserve 
our consideration most.
  There is no group of citizens in this country who deserve our help in 
this time of crisis more than our veterans, the men and women who have 
served. So may I say to my friend from Vermont, who, like me, is very 
given to calm deliberation of all issues, we are very similar in that 
respect. I say, with some humor, I hope, that I hope we can go to this 
conference at noon today and sit down together, and listen to the 
various proposals.
  I believe the fundamentals, as were passed by this body on a 93-to-3 
vote, should be a basis for largely the final legislation we reach. The 
other body's legislation is strikingly similar. It seems to me where we 
have a difference is how much additional funding to the fundamentals of 
the legislation we are considering.
  I was watching my friend from Vermont on the floor here. I want to 
say to him, I fully understand his frustration. I hope we will be able 
to sit down at noon with both Republicans and Democrats, both sides of 
the aisle, with the overriding priority of not leaving and going out 
into an August recess without acting on this issue. Veterans are dying. 
There are allegations that 40 veterans in my State at the Phoenix VA 
hospital died because they did not receive care. There is not a policy/
academic issue here. This is the very lives of the men and women who 
are serving.
  I guess for the third time I would say to my colleague, and I will 
yield to him in just a second: I would be more than happy to look at 
what we have proposed and what has passed through this body, as 
compared to what the other side of the Capitol is proposing. Perhaps we 
can come to some agreement and compromise, which is the way we are 
supposed to pass laws in this body.
  I ask unanimous consent to yield to Senator Sanders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. First of all, I want to thank Senator McCain again for 
all of his hard work on this issue.
  Let me ask a few questions. The Senator and I have been talking the 
last few days. Does the Senator not think--he has been here for 1 or 2 
years--that the best way to go forward is for people to sit down at a 
table and knock out their differences? And then the idea of presenting 
it to a conference is absolutely right. But the Senator knows, and I 
know, that what conference committees are largely about are 5-minute 
speeches.
  I have been disappointed that I have not--I think the Senator will 
agree with me, maybe not, that the best way forward is for people to 
sit down in a room and work out their differences, not to go forward 
with unilateral statements. Does that make sense?
  Mr. McCAIN. Well, could I say to my friend from Vermont, I believe it 
is a matter of simple courtesy, that the Senator, as the chairman of a 
committee, should be asked to come to a meeting with the other major 
chairmen and ranking members of the committees. I hope that kind of 
thing does not happen again.
  What I would like to see--and I beg my colleagues to sit down and 
let's work this out. It is a matter of money. It is not a matter of the 
provisions of the bill. That cannot be the reason for us not to reach 
some agreement. I intend at noon to attend. I intend to make a strong 
case that we would be glad to hear any proposal by the chairmen and 
ranking members on the other side of the Capitol, and that we would 
have a counterproposal and maybe could start a discussion and dialog 
which could lead to an agreement.
  Mr. SANDERS. Let me ask Senator McCain one more question. I thank the 
Senator very much. He is not on, at this moment, the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, but he has jumped into this with both feet and is playing a 
very big role. Would the Senator be prepared if, generally speaking, 
what happens is the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and the 
House get together--you are not the chairman, you are not the ranking 
member, but I think you could play a good role. Would the Senator be 
prepared to sit down with the other four members, myself, the other 
three, and help us reach a compromise?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would be more than glad to do that, I would say to my 
friend from Vermont. I would also like to say I hope the participation 
of a number of people would lead us to some agreement today. Because 
once we reach an agreement, then, of course, we have to go through the 
normal votes and all of the things that require some period of time.
  I want to say to my friends who are deeply concerned about the costs 
here of some of these provisions: My argument is that, yes, we should 
seek ways to pay for as much as we can. I believe we can compromise on 
some areas of spending. But we cannot allow that alone to prevent us 
from acting.
  I thank my friend from Vermont. I look forward to engaging with him. 
I think maybe it is important that we show courtesy to all Members who 
are

[[Page 12955]]

involved in this, including the chairman of the committee. I thank the 
Senator.
  Mr. SANDERS. One more second. I wanted to paraphrase. Tell me if I am 
misquoting. I do not have it in front of me, but when we were debating 
this bill on the floor, the Senator said--we were talking about 
emergency funding--something to the effect of if this is not an 
emergency, I do not know what an emergency is. Is that a correct 
paraphrase?
  Mr. McCAIN. That is absolutely my conviction, that the reason why we 
have emergency funding from time to time in times of crisis is for when 
there is an emergency. I will repeat: I do not know of a greater 
domestic emergency than the care we owe the men and women who have 
served this country.
  I thank my colleague. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank Senator McCain very much for his statements and 
for his hard work on this and would reiterate what he said; that is, my 
belief that what we have here on the Senate floor, that if taking care 
of the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend us 
and who came home without arms or legs, or without their eyesight or 
500,000 of them who came home with post-traumatic stress disorder or 
traumatic brain injury--if that is not an emergency, taking care of 
those brave men and women, I agree with Senator McCain, I do not know 
what an emergency is.
  I am happy to yield the floor for my colleague from Alaska, Senator 
Begich.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. I say to my chairman on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, 
we talked very briefly on the phone. I wanted to come down here because 
I find this amazing. I am new around here. I know it has been almost 6 
years. I still consider myself new in the process. But late last night, 
early this morning, I get a notice of a supposed conference committee 
meeting, which I was totally unaware of, was unaware of the proposals 
they are putting on the other side. I would like to have time--I know 
on the other side they talk a lot about transparency and timeliness and 
making sure the public is aware of what they are doing. But, lo and 
behold, they just kind of snap together a meeting because they have an 
idea that they want to move forward.
  I am all game for more ideas on how to solve the problems with our 
veterans. But the public demands--demands--us to solve this problem, 
and also demands it to be done in a transparent way, not in the dark of 
the night a meeting is called. The chairman of the other side, in this 
case the Senator from Vermont, the chairman of the Senate committee, is 
not even notified.
  I recognize Senator McCain's comments about the courtesy. It should 
be a courtesy. But on top of it, the basic understanding of compromise 
and working with each other--that is what has to happen. We are not 
seeing that. We had a conference committee. We all made 5-minute 
speeches, grand statements about how to help veterans. We all want to 
do that. But it also means sitting down, working with each other, 
putting proposals out. I think the way the chairman described it best 
is: Roll up your sleeves and solve this problem.
  Think about this: What is the real issue here? You heard it from 
Senator McCain, that we pretty much have agreement on a lot of the 
basic issues. It is the money.
  What is so amazing to me--I was not here when the wars were decided 
to be funded or, excuse me, not funded--two trillion dollars, 
Afghanistan even more. But even if you use that $2 trillion number, 
what we are talking about today is about 1 percent, 1 percent to take 
care of the veterans and their families who put their lives on the 
line, have come back, some missing limbs, some having mental issues, a 
variety of services they need, they earned, they deserve.
  You know, when you think about it, my simple statement--the chairman 
has heard me say this before: You are for veterans or you are not.
  We are going to quibble and nickel-and-dime our veterans. I 
appreciate what the chairman has done trying to lower the costs, trying 
to find compromise. But this is, as Senator McCain said, an emergency. 
We need to take care of these veterans. For the House to nickel-and-
dime our veterans is absolutely obscene. It is outrageous. They served 
our country. We need to do what we can to take care of them. It does 
not mean having midnight emails to tell us about a meeting that is 
going to occur on a day 12 hours later when I have no idea what their 
proposal is. They have not shared it with me. It would be nice. They 
are all about transparency. Let's do it. Let's have transparency. Let's 
have a debate.
  I know the chairman has been working on this for the last 6 weeks. 
Many of us met, as the chairman in the last week did, talking about--
with the new potential Secretary, which I am very excited for. He 
already has a 90-day idea, a plan, which I was amazed to see that he is 
already moving forward. I met with him yesterday. I told him: Be bold. 
Start doing things. Get nominated, get approved, let's get some stuff 
going.
  But for this body on the other side to just out of the blue decide 
they are going to have a conference--usually the way it works--maybe I 
am wrong--a conference committee usually means Senate and House. The 
two chairmen talk to each other, pick a time, everyone tells their 
Members, and we all attend. We see proposals. We see paperwork 
beforehand. It is transparent. The press is aware of it, the public is 
aware of it. It is open to the people.
  This is like a midnight ride to, in my view, potentially 
shortchanging our veterans. I am outraged. The chairman probably got 
that sense when I sent an email to the chairman this morning. Within 
seconds we were on the phone, because this is not how we need to do 
this business. The veterans deserve the care; they earned it; we owe it 
to them. The bill is due. It is time to pay up and quit nickel-and-
diming our veterans. Prepare the services they need. Give the VA the 
capacity they need in order to perform the many different services, 
from hiring people--the chairman is right--nurses, doctors, mental 
health providers. We need them all.
  I am very proud of some of the work--you heard me talk about it 
before--in Alaska. But we are one State. There are 49 other States. We 
need to do everything we can. I came down here--I had something else 
going on right now, but I was very frustrated and outraged by this lack 
of transparency on the body that proclaims to always talk about 
transparency.
  But again, I can go on a rant here. I am going to stop. I am going to 
say the last thing I will say is: This is an emergency. We know it. The 
American people know it. Quit nickel-and-diming our veterans. Quit 
complaining about: Is it $25 or $26 billion. It is an emergency. We did 
not complain about one dime when they wanted all of the money for the 
wars: $2 trillion, $3 trillion. Actually, as some remember those 
photos, we put cash on pallets--cash on pallets--and shipped it over 
there. Now it is time to take care of our veterans. It is time to put 
up or shut up. It is time to get the work done. You are for veterans or 
you are against veterans. It is a simple equation.
  It is a simple equation.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank Senator Begich.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.


                               Humane Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, there is no question that immigration is 
one of the toughest, most divisive issues we talk about in Washington, 
DC, perhaps because it is an economic issue, it involves cultural 
considerations, and it also includes security concerns. It is not just 
any one of those things; it is basically all of those wrapped into one.
  At the same time, I have been impressed by the fact that the ongoing 
border crisis that is now occurring in South Texas has produced a 
moment of bipartisan consensus and clarity, which are rare when we talk 
about immigration. For example, we all agree that the United States 
must continue to uphold the rule of law, with which all of us are 
better off--including the people who want to come to the United States

[[Page 12956]]

as immigrants, if they can come through a legal system in an orderly 
way and not as a flood of humanity who have surrendered themselves to 
the tender mercies of the criminal organizations that funnel children 
and other immigrants from Central America through Mexico into South 
Texas.
  We all agree that our policies should be one of not encouraging 
Central American children, and particularly their parents putting their 
lives at risk in the hands of these criminal organizations. We all 
agree that the present levels of chaos and confusion on our southern 
border are totally unacceptable. No one is arguing for the status quo, 
to my knowledge. They are unacceptable from both a security perspective 
and from a humanitarian perspective.
  I said just a moment ago that no one is arguing that the status quo 
is acceptable, but I fear that unless we sit down and reason together, 
we are going to end with a status quo before we leave for the August 
recess. Unless we are successful in passing the needed policy changes 
that will actually address some of the causes of the current crisis--as 
well as appropriate money that is needed on an emergency basis to help 
build capacity to deal with it--the status quo is what we are going to 
get. That would be disappointing and it would be tragic.
  So people may have good ideas, and I would love to hear them. But 
working together with my colleague Henry Cuellar from the House--Henry 
likes to call himself a Blue Dog Democrat, but he is from Laredo, TX, 
lives on the border and understands it very well--he and I have come up 
with a bipartisan, bicameral proposal that would discourage illegal 
immigration from Central America and elsewhere by ending the de facto 
policy of catch-and-release.
  What I mean by that is when people are coming into the country 
illegally, they are detained by the Border Patrol. But we know there is 
a policy of de facto release once they are detained because many of 
them are given a notice to appear for a future court hearing and they 
never show up.
  I had one former head of the Drug Enforcement Administration who 
said: Everybody knows that a notice to appear should really be retitled 
a ``notice to disappear'' because that is what happens.
  If people are successful in navigating this glitch in our enforcement 
system, then they are going to keep coming and the cartels and the 
people who make money off of transporting people through this perilous 
journey will continue--as I have spoken about numerous times--from 
Central America through Mexico--a journey in which women are routinely 
sexually assaulted, the migrants are routinely kidnapped and held for 
ransom, and some never make it because they die of injuries or 
exposure.
  If we don't fix that by the time we leave for our August recess, we 
will have failed in some of our more basic responsibilities. But more 
specifically, our bill would reform a 2008 human trafficking law that 
actually passed, essentially, by unanimous consent. Nobody dreamed that 
it would be exploited as it has been in a way that weakened U.S. 
immigration enforcement and incentivized Central American children to 
risk everything they have to make this perilous journey from Central 
America to Mexico.
  I have said earlier what I believe to be the fact--the cartels are 
smart. I mean, these are rich, wealthy criminal organizations with a 
lot of shrewd and inventive people. What they have figured out is a 
business model to exploit this vulnerability in the 2008 law that we 
need to address before we leave.
  I will give one sense of the problem. On Tuesday of this week, 20 
unaccompanied minors from Central America had hearings scheduled before 
a Federal immigration court in Dallas--20 scheduled; 18 failed to show 
up. So roughly 10 percent showed up, and the other 18 didn't show up. 
We currently don't have the resources through Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement to locate those children and make sure they actually do 
appear. What happens is they are part of that 40 percent of illegal 
immigration, people who enter the country, just simply melt into the 
landscape, and we don't hear from them again, but they are still here.
  Given how few unaccompanied minors actually appear for their 
hearings, Members of both parties have expressed their view that the 
2008 law needs to be changed.
  The Secretary of Homeland Security, whom I talked to as recently as 
yesterday, said on Tuesday: The administration has asked for a change 
in the law, and we are in active discussions with Congress right now 
about doing that.
  That is a little bit mysterious to me because the majority leader has 
said the border is secure and he is not interested in taking up any 
reforms such as the HUMANE Act Congressman Cuellar and I have 
sponsored.
  I would say to the majority leader, if you don't think that is the 
right solution, then where is yours? Are there other ideas that people 
have that are better ideas? I am game.
  I think we ought to have that discussion, and we ought to be focused 
on trying to fix it as Secretary Johnson said is needed. I am sure 
there will be some differences, but that is what this place is for, to 
work out those differences and come up with the 80 percent solution, 
hopefully, and then get the job done.
  But the irony of what Secretary Johnson has said is that the 
administration acknowledges that change is needed. But is any change 
forthcoming from the majority leader?
  Well, apparently it is not, because he is in the process of having us 
vote on a so-called clean emergency appropriations bill without any 
reforms attached to it. I have called this a blank check, and indeed I 
believe it is, because it is not responsible just to spend the money 
without trying to fix the problem. Indeed, if history is any guide--and 
I think it is--we are seeing these numbers go up every year.
  In other words, it is estimated that of the 57,000 unaccompanied 
minors that have been detained at our southwestern border since August, 
that number could grow as high as 90,000 this year. Next year, the 
estimate is it could be as many as 145,000.
  I know the Presiding Officer has read, as I have, stories in the 
Washington Post, the New York Times, and elsewhere about the backlash 
that is occurring around the country as these children are being 
transported and warehoused in different locations around the country. 
This is going to do nothing but get worse, in my view, as the numbers 
continue to escalate and as we don't deal with the source of the 
problem.
  This is a very dangerous situation where the American people are 
demanding we act on our best judgment, trying to work together in a 
bicameral, bipartisan way. But so far at least, the majority leader, 
the Democratic leader has rejected any changes in the 2008 law--even 
along the lines that Secretary Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security, 
has suggested.
  I have actually heard there are proposals, legislative language that 
has been floated among our Democratic colleagues in the Senate. But 
under orders of the White House, none of that has been shared with 
anyone on this side of the aisle. I hope that changes because we need 
to be sharing ideas. We need to be working toward a consensus here 
because we have basically the rest of this week and next week, then we 
are out of here, and the problem is not going to get better. It is only 
going to get worse. We could use some help from the President, using 
some of his political capital--the power and the authority that only 
the resident of the White House has--to try to work together with 
Congress to get something done.
  Seven weeks ago he called this an urgent, humanitarian crisis, but 
for some reason unknown to me, the President has still refused to go to 
the border himself to witness what is happening there. I worry he is 
living in a bubble--which I think all Presidents are prone to do unless 
they are careful and fight against it--that does not allow him to 
appreciate the seriousness of this situation and how bad it will 
continue to grow.
  I was in McAllen, TX, last Friday, and I was pleased to see a number 
of

[[Page 12957]]

our colleagues had traveled down to the border: Senator Murkowski of 
Alaska, Senator Hirono of Hawaii, Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, 
and other Members of the House--from California, Colorado, and Texas. I 
am grateful to them for coming down to the site of this huge crisis and 
trying to help work with us to try to figure out what needs to be done 
in order to resolve it.
  I wish the President would take the same opportunity to see with his 
own eyes what his fellow Democrats saw. When I was in McAllen and then 
in Mission, TX--which is close to McAllen--last Friday, they made 
crystal clear to me and Congressman Cuellar that they didn't care if we 
were Republicans or Democrats. As a matter of fact, that part of our 
State is heavily Democratic. What they cared about is whether we were 
serious about offering a meaningful solution to this crisis.
  Can you imagine what impact there is on the local communities and on 
the State of Texas? I mean, this isn't broadly spread along the entire 
border, this is concentrated on the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas. 
It is overwhelming the capacity of those local communities and of our 
State to deal with it.
  This is why our Governor, in the absence of any Federal response, 
thought it was important to get more boots on the ground in the form of 
the National Guard. That is not a permanent solution by any means, but 
at least Governor Perry is willing to do something when the President 
is apparently not willing to use any political capital to get a 
meaningful response from Washington, DC.
  I would say that it is obvious to any fairminded observer that the 
status quo along the border is unacceptable and unsustainable. But the 
response of the majority leader appears to be: Let's just spend some 
more money on an emergency basis. But I dare to say that if the 
majority leader wants us to spend $2.7 billion on an emergency basis 
now, we are going to be back at the end of the year doing it again. We 
are going to be back in 6 months doing it again. We are going to be 
back in another 6 months doing it again.
  In other words, unless you are dealing with the source of the 
problem, we are going to continue to hemorrhage money to try to deal 
with this crisis when we should be all about deterring people from 
coming into our country when they have no realistic hope of being able 
to stay under our current laws.
  As former Border Patrol Deputy Chief Ron Coburn recently reported: 
Not only has the Border Patrol's morale been lower than ever--we have 
Border Patrol who are being diverted from their law enforcement 
responsibilities in order to change diapers and to feed children. You 
can imagine what advantage the cartels and drug are taking when the 
Border Patrol is being relieved of their duties at the border and is 
busy trying to process these immigrant children through these various 
centers.
  Well, they are having a field day. They are laughing at the Federal 
Government's ineptitude. Our current policies are emboldening 
transnational gangs, jeopardizing public safety, and making a mockery 
of United States sovereignty.
  By contrast, the HUMANE Act that Congressman Cuellar and I have 
offered would accelerate the removal process for unaccompanied minors 
who have no valid basis for staying. It would give those who have a 
valid basis for staying a timely hearing in front of an immigration 
judge so they can make their case. And if they can make their case 
under current law, then they will be able to stay. But it would 
strongly deter and discourage illegal migration, and it would help 
restore something that is sorely needed, which is some order in the 
rule of law in a situation that is characterized now by sheer chaos.
  Just to clarify, this isn't about comprehensive immigration reform. 
We still have a lot of work we need to do beyond this. This is what we 
can do now together on a bipartisan basis that needs to be done on a 
timely basis. It is a narrowly targeted measure designed to alleviate a 
national crisis--nothing more, nothing less. I would think that would 
be something we would all agree is worth doing.
  I would point out that some of the cosponsors of the HUMANE Act 
include Members who voted for the Gang of 8 immigration bill coming out 
of the Senate and Members who voted against it. So this is one of those 
rare points of bipartisanship and clarity as to what the problem is and 
what we need to do to fix it that is bringing people together on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Our legislation transcends the typical left-right, Democratic-
Republican immigration debate. It is a genuine bipartisan solution to a 
genuine emergency, and it deserves a vote. I hope the majority leader 
will reconsider his earlier position that all he wants us to do is 
write a blank check without any real reform.
  The majority leader may not particularly like the legislation 
Congressman Cuellar and I have introduced, but if he doesn't like it, 
doesn't it make sense that he would offer something different, 
something he thinks maybe would be a better solution? I would be glad 
to take a look at it.
  If you don't like our plan, fine. But I would ask, Where is your 
plan? Because if you don't offer one and if you block a vote on 
sensible reforms, all you are doing is guaranteeing that the current 
border crisis will continue.
  Again, I urge the President and the majority leader to come down to 
South Texas, like so many of our other colleagues have done, and take a 
look for themselves. The very least they could do is say thank you to 
the Border Patrol and other Federal officers, such as FEMA, who are 
trying to deal with this crisis. Unless we take action here in 
Washington, the problems are only going to get worse.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the current bill 
before this body, the Bring Jobs Home Act.
  At a time when Washington is stuck in political gridlock, I believe 
Democrats and Republicans should work together on policies that will 
create jobs not only in Nevada but, of course, across this country.
  I have filed five amendments on policies I have been working on here 
in the Senate of this Congress that will spur natural resources jobs 
throughout the West, and I stand before this body today to urge action 
on what I consider to be commonsense proposals.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, roughly 85 percent of the land in 
Nevada is controlled by the Federal Government. Other Western States 
range somewhere between 50 percent and 80 percent. This situation 
presents our local and State governments with a lot of unique 
challenges.
  Our communities' economic vitality is directly tied to the way the 
Federal Government manages our Federal lands. As a result, one of my 
top priorities in the Senate is to implement reforms that streamline 
bureaucratic redtape that gets in the way of natural resources job 
creation.
  I have five amendments I have filed to deal with public land issues 
that specifically directly affect rural Nevada and rural America. I 
encourage my colleagues across the aisle to work with me so we can 
consider my amendments and other job-related amendments. If given the 
opportunity, we could spur natural resources-related economic 
development across this country and especially across the West.
  My first amendment, the Lyon County Economic Development and 
Conservation Act, is a Nevada-centric jobs bill which I have been 
focusing on for years which, to the disappointment of my constituents, 
has been held up through Senate gridlock.
  The Lyon County Economic Development and Conservation Act could 
transform the local economy of the county in my State that is 
struggling the most during this current recession. The bill allows the 
city of Yerington to partner with Nevada Copper to develop roughly 
12,500 acres of land surrounding the Nevada Copper Pumpkin Hollow 
project site. The intent of this legislation is economic growth, and 
the

[[Page 12958]]

land purchased by the city will be used for mining activities, 
industrial and renewable energy development, recreation, and open 
space. Enactment of this legislation is the last obstacle in the way of 
the company moving forward in the creation of over 1,000 jobs. For a 
rural county such as Lyon County, 1,000 jobs truly is a game changer.
  My second amendment, the Public Lands Job Creation Act, will create 
jobs by streamlining the bureaucratic process, cutting redtape, and 
ensuring that the BLM reviews Federal Register notices in a timely 
manner.
  The permitting and approval process for energy and mining projects on 
Federal lands takes several years, largely because of unnecessary 
delays, which costs businesses valuable time, resources, and jobs.
  This amendment, which I have also introduced as stand-alone 
legislation, streamlines the process by holding these agencies 
accountable to work effectively and timely to limit the negative 
effects of bureaucratic delays. Specifically, if BLM does not review a 
Federal Register notice by 45 days, the notice will be considered to be 
approved and the State BLM office will immediately forward the notice 
to be published in the Federal Register. This type of work is basically 
the transfer of paperwork but a transfer that is consistently holding 
up important job-creating projects.
  Earlier this year I facilitated a meeting between a local company 
going through the process to start a large hard rock mineral mine in 
Elko County and the local BLM to break this bureaucratic logjam. This 
mine will create hundreds of new jobs. While we were able to get the 
ball rolling in this particular instance--and I greatly appreciated the 
agency's work to move forward--it also shouldn't require congressional 
interaction to spur prompt action.
  My legislation will provide certainty to our local job creators.
  My third amendment, the Public Lands Renewable Energy Development 
Act, is an initiative we have been working on for many years. This 
legislation is a strong bipartisan proposal that will help create jobs, 
progress toward energy independence, and preserve our Nation's natural 
wonders by spurring renewable energy development on public lands.
  Energy is one of Nevada's greatest assets, and I believe continuing 
to develop renewable and alternative sources is important for Nevada's 
economic future. Geothermal and solar production in my State is a major 
part of the U.S. ``all the above'' energy strategy. In 2013 Nevada 
ranked second in the Nation for geothermal energy production and third 
for solar production. Eighteen percent of our total electricity 
generated came from renewable, compared to the national average of 13 
percent.
  Our Nation's public lands can play a critical role in that mission, 
but uncertainty in the permitting process impedes or delays our ability 
to harness the renewable energy potential. Under current law, permits 
for wind and solar development are completed under the same process for 
other surface uses, such as pipelines, roads, and power lines. The BLM 
and Forest Service need a permitting process tailored to the unique 
characteristics and impacts of renewable energy projects. This 
initiative develops a straightforward process that will drive 
investment toward the highest quality renewable sources.
  In addition, the legislation ensures a fair return for public lands 
communities. Since Federal lands are not taxable, State and local 
governments deserve a share of the revenues from the sales of energy 
production on public lands that are within their county or State 
borders. These resources will help local governments deliver critical 
services and develop much needed capital improvement projects--projects 
such as roadways, public safety, and, of course, law enforcement.
  In my opinion, this proposal is a win-win situation. It is good for 
economic development while at the same time protecting the natural 
treasures out West that all of us value most.
  My fourth amendment, the Energy Consumers Relief Act, gets the 
government out of the way of our private sector natural resources job 
creators.
  Instead of advocating for policies that will put people back to work, 
this administration's EPA continues to develop rules that will increase 
Americans' utility bills, cause companies to lay off employees, and 
stifle economic growth.
  My amendment will specifically require the EPA to be transparent when 
proposing and issuing energy-related regulations with an economic 
impact of more than $1 billion. Additionally, it prohibits the EPA from 
finalizing a rule if the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with 
other relevant agencies, determines the rule would cause significant 
adverse effects to the economy.
  Finally, my final amendment, the Emergency Fuel Reduction Act, 
tackles a major problem many of our communities out West are facing 
right now; that is, catastrophic wildfires.
  One of the greatest challenges facing our western forests and 
rangelands is the growing severity and length of the fire season. 
Nevada is one of a handful of Western States that seemingly keeps 
enduring recordbreaking fire seasons year after year. We are always 
going to have fires out West, but we must be proactive in treating our 
forests and rangelands so that we can reduce the size, the frequency, 
and the intensity of these forest fires.
  My amendment streamlines the bureaucratic process for fire prevention 
projects, where a dangerous density of fuels threatens critical 
infrastructure such as power lines, schools, and water delivery canals, 
private property owners who live adjacent to Federal lands, and areas 
that threaten endangered species candidates such as the greater sage-
grouse.
  Every year I hear from ranchers who live in northern Nevada's rural 
counties, such as Humboldt County, where, through no fault of their 
own, fires on Federal lands spread onto their private property. The 
Federal agencies have to prioritize proactive preventive work in these 
areas. My constituents should not have to suffer because the Federal 
Government is simply not doing their job to properly manage our own 
lands.
  I think nearly everyone can agree on a commonsense proposal such as 
the Emergency Fuel Reduction Act.
  If this body adopts my five amendments, Congress could go a long way 
toward spurring economic development and job creation within the 
mining, energy development, ranching, timber, and outdoor recreational 
industries. These types of jobs are the bedrock of our Western way of 
life, and concurrently these fields are struggling the most under this 
administration's restrictive Federal land management policies. It is no 
coincidence that our western rural communities are suffering from 
unemployment rates well above the national average. Let's get the 
government off their backs and allow them to do what they do best; that 
is, create jobs.
  At a time when the American public continues to lose faith in 
Congress, I hope the Senate can put partisan politics aside and restore 
order to the traditional amendment process this deliberative body has 
been known for over time. We should break through the political 
gridlock and have an open amendment process in the Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                           HARRIS Nomination

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, shortly we will have the opportunity to 
vote on a cloture motion on Pamela Harris for confirmation to the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which includes Maryland. I 
urge my colleagues not only to support the cloture motion but to 
support her confirmation as a judge in the Fourth Circuit.
  Senator Mikulski and I have a process--and I thank the senior Senator 
from Maryland for that process--we use in screening recommendations to 
the President for judgeships. I am very proud of that process. It is 
very open. We think we have recruited the very best in the legal 
profession to serve as our judges, and I am proud to be part of it with 
Senator Mikulski.
  Of all of the candidates I have interviewed for the appellate court, 
Pamela Harris has stood out as one of the most

[[Page 12959]]

qualified individuals we have in the legal community to sit on our 
appellate court. She is exceptional in her qualifications, well 
qualified. She is an excellent Supreme Court litigator, has clerked at 
the Federal appellate court, supervised policy initiatives at the 
Department of Justice, and she has dedicated her career and 
professional life to improving the administration of justice as a 
public servant.
  A little bit of background about her--particularly her family. Her 
grandmother was a Polish Jewish immigrant to the United States who 
valued education and worked hard to overcome personal adversity. Her 
mom put herself through law school, with young children, after a 
divorce, and died from cancer a few years later. Ms. Harris relied in 
part on Pell grants to attend college at Yale. Her story represents the 
American dream and the American experience and the opportunity in this 
country coming from an immigrant family.
  After graduating from public high school in Montgomery County, Walt 
Whitman High School, Ms. Harris received a B.A. summa cum laude from 
Yale College in 1985 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1990. After her 
graduation from law school, she clerked for Judge Harry T. Edwards of 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and 
later clerked with Justice John Paul Stevens of the Supreme Court of 
the United States between 1992 and 1993.
  She became associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law 
School. Beginning in 2007, while she was still in private practice, Ms. 
Harris codirected Harvard Law School's Supreme Court and Appellate 
Practice Clinic and was a visiting professor at Georgetown University 
Law Center.
  In 2009 Ms. Harris was named the executive director of the Supreme 
Court Institute at Georgetown, serving until 2010. Ms. Harris joined 
the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, where she served as 
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General until returning to 
Georgetown in 2012.
  Ms. Harris is currently a visiting professor at Georgetown University 
Law Center and a senior advisor to the Supreme Court Institute.
  It is not surprising that the American Bar Association has given her 
the highest rating of unanimously ``well qualified'' for this 
appointment. She has appeared as counsel or co-counsel in approximately 
100 cases before the Federal courts of appeals and the U.S. Supreme 
Court. Her practice has been pretty evenly divided between criminal 
cases and civil cases.
  When it comes to Supreme Court litigation, I must tell you I don't 
think Ms. Harris has an equal as far as her qualifications. Her clinic 
at Georgetown which she supervises prepares litigants for the Supreme 
Court. In other words, she provides experience for those who are going 
to be before the Supreme Court as to how to properly litigate those 
cases, and she takes them on a first-come, first-served basis. It is 
not ideological at all. It is to make sure the highest quality 
presentations are made in the highest Court of our land so we get the 
best decisions made by the highest Court of our land, the Supreme Court 
of the United States. That is the type of person we need on our court 
of appeals.
  As I said, I don't know of a person whom I have interviewed who is 
more qualified to be an appellate court judge than Ms. Harris. She 
understands the different role of an advocate or someone writing an 
opinion or commentary column and a judge. I want to emphasize this. She 
is a person who brings--we all bring our views and our passion to life, 
but she understands what the judiciary is all about.
  As is the practice of the Judiciary Committee--and I serve on the 
Judiciary Committee and I am proud of my service--I thank Senator Leahy 
for his credible leadership. As you know, after the committee there are 
questions for the record that are submitted by the Senators. That is 
certainly true in Ms. Harris's case, and I have those answers here. I 
would like my colleagues to read these answers because I can imagine 
the people in the White House going through all the legal cites that 
Ms. Harris gave in each of the answers to the questions our colleagues 
requested. It is one of the most thorough answers I have ever seen and 
thoroughly vetted by the Supreme Court decisions. I mention that 
because it is exactly why I believe what she has told us is what she 
will do. She understands the role of a judge in our system.
  Quoting from her answer:

       I fully recognize that the role of a judge is entirely 
     different from the role of an advocate. If confirmed as a 
     judge, my role would be to apply governing law and precedent 
     impartially to the facts of a particular case.

  Pam Harris went on to state:

       It is inappropriate for any judge or Justice to base his or 
     her decision on their own personal views or on public opinion 
     . . . If confirmed as a circuit judge, I would faithfully 
     follow the methodological precedence of the Supreme Court and 
     the Fourth Circuit, applying the interpretive approaches and 
     only the interpretive approaches used by those courts.

  Don't take my word for it. Don't take her qualifications for it. Look 
at the record. Look at the letters that have been sent in support of 
Ms. Harris to the Judiciary Committee. There are numerous letters.
  I will quote from one that was signed by more than 80 of her 
professional peers, and I will tell you it includes individuals who 
were appointed by Republican Presidents to key positions, including 
Gregory Garre, the former Solicitor General for George W. Bush, but it 
includes many in that category, and I am reading from that letter. This 
letter is part of the record. It was made part of the record in the 
Judiciary Committee.
  I would ask unanimous consent it and another letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                    June 20, 2014.
       Re Nomination of Pamela Harris as Circuit Judge, United 
     States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman.
     Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate,
     Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: We write 
     in enthusiastic support of the nomination of Pamela Harris to 
     the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. We are 
     lawyers from diverse backgrounds and varying affiliations, 
     but we are united in our admiration for Pam's skills as a 
     lawyer and our respect for her integrity, her intellect, her 
     judgment, and her fair-mindedness.
       Many of us have had the opportunity to work with Pam on 
     appellate matters. She has been co-counsel to some of us, 
     opposing counsel to others, and a valuable colleague to all. 
     In her appellate work, Pam has demonstrated extraordinary 
     skill. She is a quick study, careful listener, and acute 
     judge of legal arguments. She knows the value of clarity, 
     candor, vigor, and responsiveness. Of equal importance, she 
     has always conducted herself with consummate professionalism, 
     grace, and collegiality, and has a humble and down-to-earth 
     approach to her work.
       After 20-plus years devoted largely to federal appellate 
     practice, Pam is naturally suited to serve as a federal 
     appellate judge. She clerked, first, on the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for Judge Harry Edwards 
     and then on the U.S. Supreme Court for Associate Justice John 
     Paul Stevens. In private practice, she represented a wide 
     range of clients (both corporate and individual) before the 
     U.S. Supreme Court and in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. She was 
     Lecturer and Co-Director of the Supreme Court and Appellate 
     Practice Clinic at Harvard Law School. She was then appointed 
     as Executive Director of the highly regarded Supreme Court 
     Institute at the Georgetown University Law Center, which is 
     heavily involved in preparing advocates for their appearances 
     before the United States Supreme Court. She served as 
     Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of 
     Legal Policy at the United States Department of Justice. And 
     she has taught Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure at 
     the University of Pennsylvania and at Georgetown. Her well-
     rounded experience makes her well prepared for the docket of 
     a federal appellate court. Pam's substantive knowledge, 
     intellect, and low-key temperament will be great assets for 
     the position for which she has been nominated.
       We expect that the Senate, after full inquiry, will see the 
     strengths we know from firsthand experience with Pam. Pamela 
     Harris has exceptional legal ability and personal character, 
     and we urge the Senate to confirm her to be a Circuit Judge.
           Sincerely,
         Gregory G. Garre, Latham & Watkins LLP; Michael Kellogg, 
           Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd Evans & Figel, PLLC;

[[Page 12960]]

           Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP; Scott H. 
           Angstreich, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & 
           Figel, PLLC; Donald B. Ayer, Jones Day; Dori K. 
           Bernstein, Georgetown University Law Center; Richard D. 
           Bernstein, Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, LLP; Rebecca A. 
           Beynon, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, 
           PLLC; Lisa S. Blatt, Arnold & Porter LLP; Steven Gill 
           Bradbury, Dechert LLP; Henk Brands; Richard P. Bress, 
           Latham & Watkins LLP; Caroline M. Brown, Covington & 
           Burling LLP; Don O. Burley, Partner, Finnegan, 
           Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP; Gregory A. 
           Castanias, Jones Day; Adam H. Charnes, Kilpatrick 
           Townsend & Stockton LLP; David D. Cole, Georgetown 
           University Law Center; Brendan J. Crimmins, Kellogg, 
           Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC; Mark S. 
           Davies, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; Susan M. 
           Davies, Kirkland & Ellis LLP; David W. DeBruin, Jenner 
           & Block LLP; William S. Dodge, Hastings College of the 
           Law; Scott M. Edson, O'Melveny & Myers LLP; Clifton S. 
           Elgarten, Crowell & Moring LLP; Roy T. Englert, Jr., 
           Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber 
           LLP. Mark L. Evans (retired), Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, 
           Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC; Bartow Farr; James A. 
           Feldman, University of Pennsylvania Law School; David 
           C. Frederick, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & 
           Figel, PLLC; Paul Gewirtz, Yale Law School; Lauren R. 
           Goldman, Mayer Brown LLP; Thomas C. Goldstein, 
           Goldstein & Russell, P.C.; Irving L. Gornstein, 
           Georgetown University Law Center; Jeffrey T. Green, 
           Sidley Austin LLP; Joseph R. Guerra, Sidley Austin LLP; 
           Jonathan Hacker, O'Melveny & Myers LLP; Mark E. Haddad, 
           Sidley Austin LLP; Mark C. Hansen, Kellogg, Huber, 
           Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC; Scott Blake Harris, 
           Harris Wiltshire & Grannis LLP; Derek T. Ho, Kellogg, 
           Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC; Richard B. 
           Katskee, Mayer Brown LLP; Stephen B. Kinnaird, Paul 
           Hastings LLP; Wan J. Kim, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, 
           Evans & Figel, PLLC.
         Jeffrey A. Lamken, MoloLamken LLP; Christopher Landau, 
           Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Richard J. Lazarus, Harvard Law 
           School; Michael R. Lazerwitz, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & 
           Hamilton LLP; William F. Lee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering 
           Hale and Dorr LLP; Sean A. Lev, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, 
           Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC; Maureen E. Mahoney, Latham & 
           Watkins LLP; Jonathan S. Massey, Massey & Gail LLP; 
           Brian R. Matsui, Morrison & Foerster LLP; Deanne E. 
           Maynard, Morrison & Foerster LLP; Celestine 
           McConnville, Chapman University Law School; Anton 
           Metlitsky, O'Melveny & Myers LLP; Charles B. Molster, 
           Winston & Strawn LLP; David G. Ogden, Wilmer Cutler 
           Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP; Timothy P. O'Toole, Miller 
           & Chevalier; Aaron M. Panner, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, 
           Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC; Richard C. Peppennan III, 
           Sullivan & Cromwell LLP; Mark A. Perry, Gibson Dunn & 
           Crutcher LLP; Andrew J. Pincus, Mayer Brown LLP; 
           Stephen J. Pollak, Goodwin Proctor LLP; David A. 
           Reiser, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP.
         John A. Rogovin, Executive Vice President & General 
           Counsel, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.; E. Joshua 
           Rosenkranz, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; Charles 
           A. Rothfeld, Mayer Brown LLP; John C. Rozendaal, 
           Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC; 
           Stephen M. Shapiro, Mayer Brown LLP; William F. 
           Sheehan, Goodwin Proctor; Paul M. Smith, Jenner & Block 
           LLP; Mark T. Stancil, Robbins, Russell, Englert, 
           Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP; Catherine E. Stetson, 
           Hogan Lovells US LLP; John Thorne, Kellogg, Huber, 
           Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC; Laurence H. Tribe, 
           Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of 
           Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School; Rebecca K. 
           Troth, Sidley Austin LLP; Meaghan VerGow, O'Melveny & 
           Myers LLP; Seth P. Waxman, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale 
           and Dorr LLP; John M. West, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC; 
           Michael F. Williams, Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Paul R.Q. 
           Wolfson, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP; 
           Christopher J. Wright, Harris Wiltshire & Grannis LLP.
                                  ____

                                                    June 23, 2014.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: We write 
     in strong support of Pamela Harris' nomination to the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As current 
     and former partners in the Washington, D.C., office of 
     O'Melveny & Myers LLP, each of us practiced law with Pam and 
     has witnessed firsthand her outstanding legal talent. 
     Moreover, as former colleagues with Pam, we can attest to her 
     collegiality, temperament, and judgment. We are confident 
     that she possesses the professional and personal 
     qualifications to be an excellent judge.
       As a member of the firm's appellate practice, Pam enjoyed a 
     reputation as one of the best brief writers and strategists 
     in the firm. She was the principal author of well-written and 
     important briefs on behalf of a range of clients.
       On behalf of Circuit City, for example, Pam argued for 
     enforcement of its employment arbitration agreements. On 
     behalf of Mobil Corporation, Pam wrote a petition challenging 
     the constitutionality of efforts to try thousands of 
     individual asbestos cases through mass aggregation in state 
     courts. Pam's brief argued that the contemplated mass 
     adjudication of thousands of different claims against 
     hundreds of defendants would violate the Due Process Clause 
     by unduly hindering Mobil's right to defend itself. The brief 
     also argued that pre-trial review was necessary because the 
     potential for enormous liability imposed by unfair 
     proceedings would pressure defendants like Mobil to settle 
     even meritless claims, rendering post-trial review an 
     impossibility.
       Pam was also the primary author of an amicus brief on 
     behalf of a bipartisan group of House members (Members 
     Dingell and Tauzin were the lead amici) in defense of the 
     Federal Trade Commission's ``do not call'' rule. And in 
     Schaeffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005), Pam authored an 
     amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court supporting 
     the Montgomery County, Maryland, public school system. The 
     case arose under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act and concerned the status of the ``individualized 
     education programs'' developed by public schools for each 
     covered student. The Supreme Court agreed with Pam's position 
     and ruled for the Montgomery County schools.
       Appreciation for Pam's work extended beyond the firm's 
     appellate practice and appellate clients. In fact, she was 
     regularly sought after by partners across practice groups to 
     think through briefing strategy and argument presentation in 
     a range of cases, at earlier stages in litigation. Pam's work 
     on behalf of Merck in class action litigation involving a 
     former painkiller drug highlights this range in her practice 
     beyond traditional appellate work. Working with trial teams 
     from O'Melveny's D.C. and L.A. offices, Pam was active in 
     pre-trial briefing and strategy on a range of discovery and 
     evidentiary issues. Pam often found herself engaged in this 
     type of cross-practice and inter-office collaboration, and 
     the firm's clients were especially appreciative of the 
     opportunity to have an appellate lawyer of Pam's caliber work 
     on some of their most difficult problems.
       Pam also found the time throughout her tenure at O'Melveny 
     to maintain an active pro bono practice. As Co-Chair of the 
     National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) 
     Amicus Committee, Pam helped to provide the Supreme Court and 
     countless indigent defendants with high-quality briefing on 
     issues affecting the administration of criminal justice 
     throughout the country. Given the disparity in the quality of 
     representation afforded to many defendants in criminal cases, 
     Justices from across the ideological spectrum have come to 
     rely on the excellent lawyering provided by NACDL. Pam also 
     helped to establish and supervise a partnership between 
     O'Melveny and the Maryland Office of the Public Defender, 
     Appellate Division, under which the firm's lawyers handled 
     appeals for the Public Defender on a pro bono basis. This 
     program, which continues today, provides many of the firm's 
     younger lawyers with an opportunity to get courtroom 
     experience.
       Pam approached all of her work with the utmost level of 
     professionalism, objectivity, and dedication, and we believe 
     she would bring these same qualities to the federal bench. 
     Whether she was working on a brief for a criminal defendant 
     or a major oil company, Pam's singular focus was ensuring 
     that her client received first-rate legal representation. And 
     she did so while also demonstrating many of the qualities 
     that made her such an extraordinary colleague--from her 
     willingness to mentor and support younger lawyers to her 
     openness to helping her law partners with a section of their 
     brief or mooting them for an upcoming argument.
       We conclude by noting that the signatories of this letter 
     span the political and jurisprudential spectrum. Some of us 
     have served in Republican Administrations or worked for 
     Republican Senators, while others have served in Democratic 
     Administrations or worked for Democratic Senators. Some of us 
     are members of the Federalist Society, while others are 
     members of the American Constitution Society. Our ranks 
     include a former White House Counsel to President Ronald 
     Reagan, top Commerce Department and Justice Department 
     officials to Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and 
     senior aides to President Barack Obama. Although we may not 
     all share Pam's views on a range of legal and political 
     issues, we are united in the belief that Pam possesses the

[[Page 12961]]

     intellect, fair-mindedness, humility, and fundamental decency 
     to make an excellent federal judge.
           Respectfully submitted,
         Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr., Walter Dellinger, K. Lee 
           Blalack II, Brian Boyle, Brian Brooks, Danielle C. 
           Gray, Jonathan Hacker, Theodore W. Kassinger, Jeffrey 
           W. Kilduff, Ron Klain, Greta Lichtenbaum, Richard 
           Parker.

  It says in part:

       We are lawyers from diverse backgrounds and varying 
     affiliations, but we are united in our admiration for Pam's 
     skills as a lawyer and our respect for her integrity, her 
     intellect, her judgment, and her fair-mindedness.

  The letter continues:

       Many of us have had the opportunity to work with Pam on 
     appellate matters. She has been co-counsel to some of us, 
     opposing counsel to others, and a valuable colleague to all. 
     In her appellate work, Pam has demonstrated extraordinary 
     skill. She is a quick study, careful listener, and acute 
     judge of legal arguments. She knows the value of clarity, 
     candor, vigor, and responsiveness. Of equal importance, she 
     has always conducted herself with consummate professionalism, 
     grace, and congeniality, and has a humble and down-to-earth 
     approach to her work.

  The letter concludes:

       Her well-rounded experience makes her well prepared for the 
     docket of a federal appellate court. Pam's substantive 
     knowledge, intellect, and low-key temperament will be great 
     assets for the position for which she has been nominated.

  She has the whole package. She has intellectual ability. She has the 
ability to communicate. She has the demeanor we would like to see on 
our Federal bench.
  Let me just add one more characteristic before I yield the floor. I 
see the distinguished Republican leader of the Judiciary Committee is 
here and is going to be commenting.
  She also has empathy for the importance of our legal system to all. 
She has volunteered her time to pro bono work in order to help address 
the growing access to the justice gap in our system for individuals who 
could not afford legal assistance as we still strive to provide equal 
justice under law. While in private practice she established a pro bono 
program in which the law firm where she works worked with the Maryland 
Office of the Public Defender to provide pro bono representation to 
defendants appealing criminal convictions in State courts and she 
supervised attorneys participating in the program, just another 
indication she understands the oath she takes to dispense justice 
without partiality to wealth, that everyone is entitled to access to 
our judicial system and our legal system and she has taken personal 
interest in doing that.
  Senator Mikulski and I are proud that she is a long-time resident of 
Montgomery County, MD, we take great pride in the fact that she is a 
Marylander, and we urge our colleagues to support this nomination.


                           HARRIS Nomination

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we will vote to end the filibuster 
against the nomination of Pamela Harris to serve on the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. She is a highly accomplished lawyer 
with excellent legal credentials and has the strong support of her home 
State Senators, Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin. Her nomination 
received the American Bar Association's highest rating of unanimously 
``well qualified''.
  Pam Harris is currently a visiting professor at my alma mater, 
Georgetown University Law Center. In her diverse career she has served 
in the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice, as a 
partner in private practice, as a professor at University of 
Pennsylvania Law School, and the executive director of the Supreme 
Court Institute at Georgetown. After graduating from Yale Law School, 
she served as a law clerk to Judge Harry Edwards on the D.C. Circuit 
and Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court. She is beyond 
qualified--an experienced appellate practitioner with background in 
both criminal and civil litigation and a command of the law that rivals 
that of any lawyer in the United States.
  Some partisans have tried to misrepresent her past statements in 
order to caricature her. This account of her record is simply 
unrecognizable to those individuals who actually know Pam Harris and 
who know that as a judge she would be committed to the rule of law. 
Many lawyers who have practiced with Pam Harris have written in support 
of her nomination, including many prominent Republicans who are 
respected in the legal community.
  One letter, signed by more than 80 of her professional peers, 
including Gregory Garre, the former U.S. Solicitor General for 
President George W. Bush, reads, ``We are lawyers from diverse 
backgrounds and varying affiliations, but we are united in our 
admiration for Pam's skills as a lawyer and our respect for her 
integrity, her intellect, her judgment, and her fair-mindedness.''
  Another letter of support from a number of current and former 
partners at O'Melveny and Myers LLP, including A.B. Culvahouse, who 
served as White House Counsel during the Reagan administration, and 
Walter Dellinger, who served as Assistant Attorney General of the 
Office of Legal Counsel and Acting U.S. Solicitor General during the 
Clinton administration, reads, ``Although we may not all share Pam's 
views on a range of legal and political issues, we are united in the 
belief that Pam possesses the intellect, fair-mindedness, humility, and 
fundamental decency to make an excellent federal judge.''
  I ask that these and other letters of support received for Pam 
Harris' nomination be printed in the Record.
  When asked about her judicial philosophy at her nomination hearing 
she testified that ``the role of a judge is to decide cases through 
impartial application of law and precedent. It is a limited role . . . 
they decide the concrete disputes in front of them with attention to 
particular facts, attention to the arguments of the parties and their 
briefs, and by applying law and precedent to those facts.''
  Both her testimony and the letters of bipartisan support for her 
nomination demonstrate that Pam Harris has a clear understanding of the 
role of a judge and make clear her commitment to follow Supreme Court 
precedent and to uphold the Constitution. I believe Pam Harris will be 
an outstanding judge, and she has my full support. I urge all Senators 
to vote to end this filibuster and confirm Pam Harris to serve on the 
Fourth Circuit.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    June 20, 2014.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: We write 
     in strong support of the nomination of Pamela A. Harris to 
     the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and 
     urge prompt consideration and confirmation of her nomination.
       As her classmates in the Yale Law School Class of 1990, we 
     have known Pam for more than 25 years. We all believe that 
     Pam would be a tremendous asset to the appellate bench.
       In law school, Pam stood out for her keen intellect, her 
     grasp of legal issues, her intellectual curiosity, her 
     integrity and her fair-mindedness. Because of those 
     qualities, Pam was often able to forge bonds and build 
     consensus among classmates with very different views.
       Many of us have kept in touch with Pam since law school and 
     are familiar with her outstanding legal career. Pam's breadth 
     of experience makes her exceptionally well-suited to serve as 
     a judge on the federal appeals court. After law school, Pam 
     clerked for two distinguished jurists, Judge Harry. T. 
     Edwards of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     District of Columbia Circuit, and Justice John Paul Stevens 
     of the United States Supreme Court. Since then, Pam has 
     served in the United States Department of Justice, 
     represented businesses and other clients in private practice, 
     taught such subjects as constitutional law and appellate 
     practice as a law professor, and served on the boards of 
     directors of both national and local legal and educational 
     organizations.
       Of particular relevance to the Court of Appeals, Pam is a 
     recognized national expert in appellate advocacy, having 
     served as Executive Director of the Georgetown Law Center's 
     Supreme Court Institute and Co-Director of Harvard Law 
     School's Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Clinic.

[[Page 12962]]

       Pam has devoted a significant portion of her career to pro 
     bono work. She has represented numerous nonprofit and public 
     interest organizations as well as individuals. Pam served as 
     Co-Chair of the Amicus Committee of the National Association 
     of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and she established a pro bono 
     program at the law firm O'Melveny & Myers, focusing on 
     Maryland cases, where she handled cases herself and 
     supervised and mentored junior lawyers. Pam has mentored law 
     students and junior lawyers throughout her career. She 
     received a prestigious legal teaching award at the University 
     of Pennsylvania Law School and has been recognized as a 
     popular and highly respected professor at Penn, Georgetown 
     and Harvard Law Schools. Pam grew up in Bethesda, Maryland, 
     and graduated at the top of her class from Walt Whitman High 
     School there. For the last 15 years, Pam and her family have 
     lived in Potomac, Maryland, just a few miles away from her 
     childhood home. Pam is as invested in her community as she is 
     in appellate practice, serving in roles that range from 
     membership on the Board of Trustees at the Norwood School to 
     ``cookie mom'' for her daughter's Girl Scout troop.
       We believe Pam to be exceptionally well-qualified and well-
     suited to serve on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. We 
     urge the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate to promptly 
     review and confirm Pamela Harris for a position on that 
     Court.
       Please do not hesitate to contact any of us if you have any 
     questions.
           Sincerely,
     (Signed by 82 Individuals)
                                  ____



                                  National Women's Law Center,

                                    Washington, DC, June 23, 2014.
     Re Nomination of Pamela Harris to the United States Court of 
         Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Washington, DC.
     Senator Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Leahy and Grassley: on behalf of the National 
     Women's Law Center (the ``Center''), an organization that has 
     worked since 1972 to advance and protect women's legal 
     rights, we write in strong support of the nomination of 
     Pamela Harris to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Fourth Circuit.
       Ms. Harris is exceedingly well-qualified to serve on this 
     important court. She graduated from Yale College and Yale Law 
     School. She clerked for Judge Harry T. Edwards on the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 
     and for Associate Justice John Paul Stevens on the United 
     States Supreme Court. Following her clerkships, Ms. Harris 
     served as an Attorney-Advisor in the Office of Legal Counsel 
     at the United States Department of Justice for two years 
     before joining the faculty at the University of Pennsylvania 
     Law School, where she received the Harvey Levin Memorial 
     Teaching Award in 1998. Ms. Harris then joined the law firm 
     of O'Melveny & Myers LLP as counsel, becoming a partner in 
     2005. During her ten years with O'Melveny & Myers, Ms. Harris 
     served as the Co-Director of the Harvard Law School Supreme 
     Court and Appellate Practice Clinic, and taught at Georgetown 
     University Law Center as a visiting professor. In 2009, she 
     left O'Melveny & Myers and joined the Georgetown University 
     Law Center as the Executive Director of the Supreme Court 
     Institute. In 2010, she became the Principal Deputy to the 
     Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy at 
     the United States Department of Justice. She rejoined the 
     Georgetown faculty as a visiting professor of law in 2012.
       Ms. Harris' legal career reflects excellence, a dedication 
     to public service, and the best contributions of the legal 
     profession to the public interest. During her career, Ms. 
     Harris has appeared in over 100 federal appellate cases, and 
     argued before the Supreme Court. This record reflects her 
     considerable experience, and the brilliant advocacy for which 
     she is properly renowned. In addition to honing her skills as 
     an exceptionally talented litigator in the private sector, 
     Ms. Harris has spent a good part of her career in government 
     service and in teaching aspiring lawyers. Further, Ms. Harris 
     has shown her dedication to the public interest and to 
     improving the administration of justice throughout her 
     career. While at O'Melveny & Myers, she had a robust pro bono 
     practice and established a cooperative program between 
     O'Melveny and the Maryland Office of the Public Defender, 
     through which the firm represents indigent criminal 
     defendants appealing their convictions in state court. She 
     also has worked to improve the quality of appellate advocacy 
     as co-director of Harvard Law School's appellate advocacy 
     clinic and as Director of Georgetown's Supreme Court 
     Institute. In that latter capacity, she led the work of the 
     Institute, which provides pro bono assistance preparing 
     advocates for oral argument before the Supreme Court on a 
     first-come, first-served basis, to elevate the quality of 
     arguments heard by the Justices. In addition to her 
     contributions to the legal profession in private practice, 
     public service, and academia, Ms. Harris has served on the 
     boards of directors of several nonprofit organizations, 
     including the Norwood School in Potomac, Maryland. Ms. 
     Harris' many accomplishments are reflected by the unanimous 
     ``Well-Qualified'' rating she received from the ABA Standing 
     Committee on the Federal Judiciary.
       The Center has had several opportunities to work with Ms. 
     Harris. In particular, Ms. Harris served as co-counsel with 
     the Center in representing Mr. Roderick Jackson before the 
     Supreme Court in 2005, in Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed., 
     544 U.S. 167 (2005). Mr. Jackson was a teacher and girls' 
     basketball coach in Birmingham, Alabama. He described 
     practice and game conditions for the girls' team that were 
     inferior to those provided to the boys' team, and complained 
     to school administrators. He was fired as a coach after doing 
     so, costing him his coaching salary and full retirement. Ms. 
     Harris was part of the legal team that litigated his case 
     before the Supreme Court, successfully arguing that Title IX 
     provided a cause of action for retaliation for those seeking 
     to secure compliance with the law. Working with Ms. Harris in 
     Jackson allows us to personally attest to her outstanding 
     legal skills, judgment, and analytical thinking, as well as 
     to her excellent temperament and collegiality.
       Ms. Harris' litigation experience, commitment to improving 
     the administration of justice, and dedication to the public 
     interest make her exceedingly well-suited for the position to 
     which she has been nominated. In addition, Ms. Harris' 
     confirmation would increase the diversity on the Fourth 
     Circuit, making her only the sixth female judge to ever sit 
     on this court. For all of these reasons, the Center offers 
     its strong support of Pamela A. Harris to the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and urges you to 
     support her nomination. If you have questions or if we can be 
     of assistance, please contact us at (202) 588-5180.
           Sincerely,
     Nancy Duff Campbell,
       Co-President.
     Marcia D. Greenberger,
       Co-President.
                                  ____

                                                    June 27, 2014.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: I write in 
     strong support of Pamela Harris's nomination to the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
       I served as the Senior Vice President, General Counsel and 
     Secretary of The Hertz Corporation from 1998 to 2007. 
     Although it may seem surprising that a car and equipment 
     rental company would face issues with a constitutional 
     dimension, that did indeed occasionally happen. When it did, 
     I turned to Ms. Harris for advice and assistance. The views 
     expressed in this letter regarding her qualifications to 
     serve as a judge are informed by my interactions with her 
     while at Hertz; I hasten to add that those views are my own 
     and do not represent the views of my former employer, for 
     which I cannot speak.
       In my dealings with Ms. Harris, I found her to be highly 
     intelligent, quick to grasp issues, creative in her approach 
     to problems, fair in her judgments, and direct in her advice. 
     When discussing legal matters, she was incisive, objective 
     and principled; it surely helped that she knew the law so 
     well and could speak with authority on the subjects at hand, 
     without a hint of defensiveness or dogmatism. She also was an 
     excellent writer, whose work exhibited the same clarity, 
     honesty and force that she showed in conversation. (She was, 
     moreover, able to write quickly and with little need for 
     revision; she seems to be one of those people who gets things 
     right the first time.) In short, Ms. Harris was a model of 
     professionalism as a practicing lawyer--someone who 
     engendered trust and respect. I note that all those qualities 
     are also vital for a judge, and especially for a judge on a 
     court as important as the Fourth Circuit.
       Ms. Harris's academic achievements, meanwhile, speak for 
     themselves. After graduating from Yale Law School, she served 
     as a law clerk for Judge Harry T. Edwards on the D.C. Circuit 
     and for Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Ms. 
     Harris has also taught at Harvard Law School, the University 
     of Pennsylvania School of Law, and at the Georgetown 
     University Law Center, where she was the Executive Director 
     of the Supreme Court Institute, a unique and respected 
     project dedicated to improving advocacy before the Supreme 
     Court.
       In sum, I believe that Ms. Harris is an ideal candidate for 
     an appellate court judge. As her academic credentials 
     demonstrate, she has a first-rate intellect. Equally 
     important, she is a mature and able lawyer with significant 
     experience in practice, no small part of which consisted of 
     high-quality advocacy for business enterprises. Beyond that, 
     she conveys a sense of fundamental decency, without which her 
     intellectual abilities and professional skills would be for 
     naught. I have no doubt that she would bring to the important 
     judicial seat for which she has been nominated the same 
     qualities that have

[[Page 12963]]

     made her an excellent lawyer, and that she would instill 
     confidence in all litigants that their cases would be decided 
     carefully and fairly. I urge you to confirm her nomination.
           Respectfully submitted,
     Harold E. Rolfe.
                                  ____

                                         The Leadership Conference


                                    on Civil and Human Rights,

                                    Washington, DC, July 23, 2014.

   Confirm Pamela Harris to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth 
                                Circuit

       Dear Senator: On behalf of The Leadership Conference on 
     Civil and Human Rights, we write to express our strong 
     support for the confirmation of Pamela Ann Harris to serve on 
     the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. At every 
     stage in her career, Pamela Harris has distinguished herself 
     through her outstanding intellectual credentials, her 
     independence of thought, and her strong respect for the rule 
     of law, establishing herself beyond question as qualified and 
     ready to serve on the court. In addition, she has 
     demonstrated an unwavering integrity and an outstanding 
     commitment to public service. We urge you to vote yes on 
     cloture and yes to confirm her.
       The Leadership Conference believes Pamela Harris will be an 
     impartial, thoughtful, and highly-respected addition to the 
     court. She graduated summa cum laude from Yale College in 
     1985 and received her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1990. 
     After law school, she was a law clerk for Judge Harry T. 
     Edwards of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 
     She spent one year as an associate at Shea & Gardner (now 
     Goodwin Proctor LLP) before clerking for Justice John Paul 
     Stevens of the Supreme Court. From 2010-2012, she served at 
     the Department of Justice as Principal Deputy Assistant 
     Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy.
       Ms. Harris has devoted her career largely to academia and 
     public service, excelling in both. She has demonstrated a 
     commitment to improving the fair administration of justice 
     and educating new lawyers. In 1996, she joined the faculty of 
     the University Of Pennsylvania Law School, where she taught 
     courses in criminal procedure and received the Harvey Levin 
     Memorial Teaching Award in 1998. At O'Melveny & Myers LLP, 
     where she was counsel, Harris specialized in appellate and 
     Supreme Court litigation and was named partner in 2005. 
     During her ten years in private practice, Harris has become a 
     renowned Supreme Court and appellate advocate, appearing in 
     approximately 100 federal appellate cases. In addition, 
     Harris established a cooperative program between O'Melveny 
     and the Maryland Office of Public Defender, through which the 
     firm provides pro bono representation to indigent criminal 
     defendants appealing their convictions in state court.
       Notably, Harris has used her uniquely broad experience as 
     an appellate litigator to prepare the next generation of 
     legal advocates and improve the judiciary. She was a visiting 
     professor at Georgetown University Law Center and executive 
     director of the law school's Supreme Court Institute. As 
     executive director, she managed and participated in a moot 
     court program that prepares advocates for oral argument 
     before the Supreme Court. During her tenure, she worked with 
     lawyers representing a multitude of interests. For example 
     she assisted both the offices of state attorneys general and 
     lawyers for criminal defendants; helped to improve arguments 
     by lawyers bringing civil rights actions and those defending 
     against civil rights actions; and worked with attorneys 
     representing both plaintiffs and defendant corporations. She 
     has also served as lecturer and co-director of the Supreme 
     Court and Appellate Practice Clinic at Harvard Law School.
       The Leadership Conference believes that Pamela Harris is an 
     extraordinarily gifted nominee, with the ability to make 
     objective decisions on the multifaceted and prominent cases 
     that will surely come before the court. Her impeccable 
     credentials have garnered her the support of a diverse group 
     of attorneys in the legal community and people across the 
     political spectrum. Harris' rich diversity of experience 
     makes her an excellent choice for the U.S. Court of Appeals 
     for the Fourth Circuit, and we urge you to vote yes on 
     cloture and yes to confirm her.
       Thank you for your time and consideration. If you have any 
     questions, please feel free to contact Nancy Zirkin, 
     Executive Vice President, at Z[email protected] or (202) 
     466-2880, or Sakira Cook, Counsel, at [email protected] or 
     (202) 263-2894.
           Sincerely.
     Wade Henderson,
       President & CEO.
     Nancy Zirkin,
       Executive Vice President.
                                  ____

                                     Constitutional Accountability


                                                       Center,

                                   Washington, D.C., July 8, 2014.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: We are 
     writing on behalf of Constitutional Accountability Center, a 
     think tank, law firm, and action center dedicated to the 
     Constitution's text and history, to urge that Pamela Harris 
     be reported favorably out of Committee and confirmed promptly 
     to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
       Pam is one of the country's leading appellate advocates, 
     and her exceptional qualifications to serve as a federal 
     judge are well known to us, as Pam has been a member of CAC's 
     Board of Directors since 2012. After growing up in Maryland, 
     Pam graduated summa cum laude from Yale College and received 
     her J.D. from Yale Law School. She then held two prestigious 
     clerkships, first for Judge Harry Edwards on the D.C. Circuit 
     and then for Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. 
     Following her clerkships, Pam's distinguished legal career 
     has included broad experience in private practice, government 
     service, and teaching. Among other things, Pam has served as 
     the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office 
     of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice and practiced as 
     a partner at O'Melveny & Myers, where she focused on Supreme 
     Court and appellate litigation. Throughout her career, Pam 
     has dedicated herself to improving the quality of appellate 
     advocacy before our courts, believing that the courts are 
     best served when the advocates on both sides of a case 
     present the strongest possible arguments.
       Pam is currently a Visiting Professor at Georgetown 
     University Law Center, where, in addition to teaching the 
     next generation of lawyers, she has also served as the 
     Executive Director of the Supreme Court Institute, working to 
     prepare counsel for oral argument before our Nation's highest 
     court. The Institute's ``moot court'' services are provided 
     without charge, as a public service, on a first-come, first-
     served basis (the Institute will generally ``moot'' only one 
     side of a case), and without regard to the nature of the 
     case, the parties, the arguments being made, or the 
     affiliation or identity of the lawyers. The expert assistance 
     offered by Pam and her colleagues at the Institute to improve 
     advocacy before the Supreme Court is so helpful and sought-
     after that the first call a lawyer often makes after learning 
     that the Court has agreed to review her client's case is to 
     the Institute, to reserve its moot court services before her 
     opponent does.
       Pam's intellect, temperament, integrity, and the breadth of 
     her professional experience make her extremely well-qualified 
     to serve on the Fourth Circuit. This conclusion is 
     underscored by the ABA's rating of Pam as ``unanimously well 
     qualified,'' as well as by the diversity of voices supporting 
     Pam's confirmation. Those who have written to this Committee 
     to express their support include Greg Garre, who served as 
     Solicitor General in the George W. Bush Administration, Seth 
     Waxman, who held the same position during the Clinton 
     Administration, A.B. Culvahouse, White House Counsel for 
     President Reagan, and Walter Dellinger, Acting United States 
     Solicitor General during the Clinton Administration. Indeed, 
     the letter signed by Mr. Culvahouse, Mr. Dellinger, and other 
     ``current and former partners in the Washington, D.C. office 
     of O'Melveny & Myers''--lawyers who have practiced with Pam 
     and know her best--exemplifies the high praise she has 
     received. These attorneys have written:
       [E]ach of us practiced law with Pam and has witnessed 
     firsthand her outstanding legal talent. Moreover, as former 
     colleagues with Pam, we can attest to her collegiality, 
     temperament, and judgment. We are confident that she 
     possesses the professional and personal qualifications to be 
     an excellent judge. . . .
       [T]he signatories of this letter span the political and 
     jurisprudential spectrum. Some of us have served in 
     Republican Administrations or worked for Republican Senators, 
     while others have served in Democratic Administrations or 
     worked for Democratic Senators. Some of us are members of the 
     Federalist Society, while others are members of the American 
     Constitution Society. . . . Although we may not all share 
     Pam's views on a range of legal and political issues, we are 
     united in the belief that Pam possesses the intellect, fair-
     mindedness, humility, and fundamental decency to make an 
     excellent federal judge.
       In her testimony before this Committee on June 24, Pam 
     demonstrated that she understands clearly the difference 
     between the roles she has played in her career as an advocate 
     representing clients and as an academic and an expert 
     commentator on the courts, and the new role she would take on 
     if confirmed as a judge. In particular, pointing among other 
     things to her work ``running the Supreme Court Institute on 
     an entirely nonpartisan basis,'' Pam testified that ``I have 
     never let any personal views I have, political views I may 
     have, affect the discharge of my professional 
     responsibilities. And I would not do that if I were confirmed 
     as a judge.''
       In sum, Pam Harris clearly has the qualifications, 
     experience, intellect and temperament to serve with great 
     distinction on the Fourth Circuit. We urge every Senator to 
     support her confirmation.
           Respectfully,
     Douglas T. Kendall,

[[Page 12964]]

       President.
     Judith E. Schaeffer,
       Vice President.

  With that, I would yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, similar to my colleague from Maryland, 
I come to the floor to discuss the nomination of Professor Pamela 
Harris to the Fourth Circuit. I come for another reason, to give my 
reasons for opposition.
  Contemplating my vote on this nominee has been a particularly 
memorable process. That is because as I reviewed the professor's 
writings, statements, and legal briefs, it seemed as though I was 
reviewing the record of not one but two nominees. The size of those two 
nominees' records was rather unequal. On the one hand, there is the 
record of the pre-nomination Professor Harris. That is the record 
reaching all the way back to her graduation from law school in 1990, a 
record rich in public statements and writings. It is a record long 
enough to develop a distinct and stridently left-wing philosophy. That 
is one record.
  Then, on the other hand, there is the record of the post-nomination 
Professor Harris. It is a dramatically shorter record. That record only 
began a few weeks ago at the professor's confirmation hearing on June 
24. It is a record that consists of the professor's testimony before 
the Judiciary Committee and of course her responses to questions for 
the record from my colleagues and from this Senator. It is a record of 
a jurist who will be faithful to the statutory text and constitutional 
precedents, a record with comments that could be mistaken for those of 
Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas.
  But what is so unbelievable to me is how totally at odds the record 
of the pre-nomination professor is with the record of the post-
nomination professor. As I said before, it is as if there were two 
entirely distinct nominees vying for this single seat on the Fourth 
Circuit.
  So for the next few minutes I would like to share with my colleagues 
some excerpts from the record of the pre-nomination Professor Harris 
and some excerpts from the post-nomination professor. There is no 
question that the professor spent her entire legal career, before 
nomination to the Federal bench, that is, consistently and aggressively 
advocating for a liberal interpretation of the Constitution that is 
well outside the mainstream of constitutional jurisprudence. That is 
the pre-nomination record. But as I said, that all changed when she 
testified before the committee.
  I would start with the professor's pre-nomination views on 
constitutional interpretation. She has spoken with unusual clarity and 
forthrightness on the topic. That is in part because she served for 
many years on the board of the left-wing American Constitution Society. 
That ironically named group spends a lot of time developing theories of 
interpretation that are designed to attack and redefine key 
constitutional principles. The professor was at the forefront of those 
discussions in many years. So how exactly did the pre-nomination 
Professor Harris view the sources of constitutional meaning?
  Here is a statement she made before the American Constitution Society 
in 2008:

       I just don't think that any account of the Constitution 
     that even seems to privilege the Constitution as it was 
     originally ratified is consistent with the way we should 
     think about the Constitution. Yes, the values, the 
     principles, on some level of generality, are there at the 
     beginning, but they take their meaning--and they should take 
     their meaning--from what comes after.

  We should pause for a moment because she said a lot in that quote. 
First, we hear how the professor rejects out of hand the idea that the 
Constitution as originally ratified should guide its interpretation. 
Instead she sees only ambiguous principles. Those principles, according 
to the professor, are more or less empty and meaningless by themselves. 
That is because those principles, as she formulates them, take their 
meaning primarily from subsequent developments. Then the professor goes 
on to specify exactly what subsequent developments she is talking 
about.
  She explains that her interpretive ``source of legitimacy most 
particularly,'' is ``what the People do'' at what she calls ``critical 
junctures,'' including ``the civil rights movement, the women's 
movement, the gay rights movement.'' According to the professor, these 
movements ``reconstitute what it is we're talking about when we talk 
about American constitutional tradition, when we say words like 
equality and liberty, when we change what they mean.''
  We need to pause and unpack that statement. First, the professor 
explicitly identifies for herself ``a source of legitimacy'' to be used 
in constitutional interpretation. That source of legitimacy is not the 
Constitution's text, nor its structure, nor its history, nor its 
original intent, nor any other established interpretive method. It is 
something outside the law altogether, and that happens to be social and 
political movements.
  I will put it this way: They are the social and political movements 
that Professor Harris chooses for inspiration. They are the social and 
political movements Professor Harris has decided to raise all the way 
to constitutional status. It is these extralegal sources that she says 
change the scope of the Constitution's guarantees of equality and 
liberty.
  I am sure you are going to say this sounds as though I am making it 
up, but I am not. The professor literally said, ``We change what they 
mean.'' Who is the ``we'' the professor is talking about? I suspect it 
is the people in social movements that Professor Harris finds 
particularly inspirational. I suspect it is also the people who share 
her view that the Constitution's original guarantees are merely empty 
vessels which can be filled with whatever political or social ideas a 
judge might ``privilege,'' as the professor puts it.
  In other contexts, Professor Harris said the meaning of the 
Constitution changes based on things such as ``an evolving and changing 
public understanding,'' ``the consequences of constitutional rulings,'' 
and ``the circumstances on the ground.'' Note the absence of any legal 
standard on that list which seems to be the basis of the rule of law or 
the basis of stare decisis.
  I will finish up with the professor's quote.

       I think that constitutional legitimacy comes, even in part, 
     from the fact that it does reflect these social movements and 
     what happens at these particular moments when the people come 
     together and force this kind of change in the way we think 
     about ourselves and what it means to be American. And I think 
     there's something about originalism at least as it's commonly 
     understood that's inconsistent with that. And that's why I'm 
     not an originalist, even now.

  Let's recap. The Constitution derives some of its legitimacy, as the 
professor put it, from social movements at particular moments. Again, 
how are we to know which particular moments rise to the level of 
constitutional significance? We will have to ask Professor Harris 
because there is absolutely no principled or objective way of making 
that kind of a decision. It is certainly not a legal decision. It 
happens to be a matter of personal preference.
  What else can we take away from that quote? Well, we also learned the 
professor is definitely not an originalist. She literally says: ``I'm 
not an originalist.'' I want you to keep that in mind because what I 
have to say shows how quickly she can change her views.
  Let's turn now to what the post-nomination professor thinks about 
constitutional interpretation. As I said before, the contrast is so 
striking that it is almost as if we are dealing with two different 
nominees for the single seat on the Fourth Circuit. Does the post-
nomination professor still think constitutional principles change with 
the times?
  In a response to my question for the record, Professor Harris wrote:

       I do not believe that the Constitution's provisions and 
     principles change or evolve, other than by the amendment 
     process in Article V. They are fixed and enduring and judges 
     are not free to change them whether by incorporating public 
     preferences or their own policy views.

  That is astounding. It is like a night-and-day difference with the 
judicial

[[Page 12965]]

philosophy I have previously quoted from the pre-nomination Professor 
Harris, and it is totally incompatible with the philosophy which 
Professor Harris has developed over the decades. Now we suddenly hear 
that the professor believes in unchanging and in fixed--dare I say 
eternal--principles that cannot be changed except by an Article V 
amendment.
  All of a sudden there are no more social movements. All of a sudden 
there are no more ``critical junctures.'' All of a sudden there is no 
more ``what the people do.'' All of a sudden there is no more 
``privileging'' or ``reconstituting''--those are her words. So no more 
``privileging'' or ``reconstituting'' constitutional meaning. All of a 
sudden the meanings are now fixed in our Constitution. All that other 
stuff she previously said happens to be in the rearview mirror.
  Now judges are forbidden from incorporating public preferences to 
change constitutional principles. Public preferences as interpreted by 
the judge, of course. But just a few years ago that was at the very 
core of her interpretative philosophy.
  I have another post-nomination quote.

       I would never suggest that a justice of the Supreme Court, 
     or any judge, should change his or her opinions based on 
     public opinion. That is not the way I view the role of a 
     judge.

  That happens to be the way I view the role of a judge, and now she 
says that is the way she sees the role of a judge, but it is completely 
contrary to what she had thought for decades before this nomination.
  The post-nomination Professor Harris added that courts should be 
``especially cautious on social issues when the political branches and 
political institutions are deeply and rapidly engaged in those issues'' 
and ``leave as much to the democratic process.'' That statement is also 
a massive sea-change.
  For the pre-nomination professor, the democratic process went hand-
in-glove with the judicial process. Now, however, with her confirmation 
on the line, the post-nomination professor sees a wall between politics 
and the courts.
  Let's return to the pre-nomination professor for another quote on 
judicial decisionmaking. Here is what she candidly told a gathering of 
the American Constitution Society about that issue in 2009:

       I always feel unapologetically, you know, left to my own 
     devices, my own best reading of the Constitution. It's pretty 
     close to where I am.

  Where exactly is the Constitution, in her view? She tells us flatly: 
``I think the Constitution is a profoundly progressive document. I 
think it's born of a progressive impulse.'' Well, if that is where the 
Constitution is, where then is the professor? Again, there is no 
mystery here because she is very upfront with that answer: ``I'm a 
profoundly liberal person so we''--she is talking about herself and the 
Constitution as one--``we match up pretty well. I make no apologies for 
that.''
  Think for a moment about what the professor is saying. I frankly 
cannot recall a judicial nominee who has actually expressed her belief 
that the Constitution embodies the nominee's personal political 
philosophy, but that is exactly what Professor Harris does in that 
statement.
  Think about how she put it: The Constitution is pretty much where she 
is as a liberal. It is almost in sync with her views. That was a 
crystal-clear explanation of how the pre-nomination Professor Harris 
viewed her beliefs and the Constitution.
  But what does the post-nomination Professor Harris have to say? At 
her hearing, she told our Judiciary Committee:

       I do not believe that it is the view of a judge ever to 
     import his or her personal values into judicial 
     decisionmaking.

  Again, the post-nomination statement is strikingly at odds with the 
pre-nomination views. Or, perhaps we should actually take the post-
nomination statement at face value. After all, Professor Harris doesn't 
need to import her own views when interpreting the Constitution. As she 
explained, it just happens to be almost as liberal as she is. So that 
is a fortunate coincidence, I suppose.
  What about the professor's views on a particular judicial philosophy? 
Remember earlier her pre-nomination criticism of originalism and her 
assertion that she is definitely not an originalist.
  That happens to be out the window as well.
  Here is her post-nomination testimony: ``I do not reject originalism 
as an interpretive method.''
  Those are just a few of the contradictory quotes from the pre- and 
post-nomination Professor Harris which strikingly illustrate almost 
unbelievable inconsistencies in her judicial philosophy and 
understanding of constitutional interpretation.
  The quotations also point to issues that are deeply troubling about 
this nominee, and I'll discuss a few of them. First, this nominee has 
made many statements suggesting that if confirmed, she would pursue a 
results-oriented, whatever-it-takes approach to deciding cases. From 
this nominee's past commentary, we know that she is not only a devoted 
liberal, but she would also strive to move the courts leftward to suit 
her ideological preferences.
  For example, in discussing the Warren Court, the professor said she 
wondered ``whether we almost have, by now, a stunted sense of what the 
legal choices really are, what really is a liberal legal outcome.''
  Just listen to that phrasing again: ``liberal legal outcome.'' Is 
there any doubt this nominee views the courts as simply a third 
political branch?
  I will quote again:

       If Chief Justice Warren came out a certain way, that must 
     be as liberal as it gets. That's not right! I think that 
     we've stunted the spectrum of legal thought in a way that 
     removes the possibility that there could have been more 
     progressive readings of the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth 
     Amendment.

  It seems Professor Harris doesn't think the Warren court was nearly 
liberal enough. That is a fairly astonishing view in itself.
  I often hear liberals and some of our nominees talk about the so-
called living Constitution. Well, it is clear to me this nominee sees 
not a living Constitution but a profoundly political Constitution. She 
said so herself. She sees judges as proxies engaged in a tug-of-war who 
use judicial power as an instrument of political control. Her 
statements, as I explained a few minutes ago, also are a clear 
indication of her belief that the role of a judge is to reflect those 
political and social forces.
  For example, speaking about Justice Kennedy's stance on gay marriage, 
the professor said that the Justice ``should be changing the same way 
the whole country is changing.''
  That is the language of politics, not the language of law.
  She has said so many things to this effect that I find myself asking 
this question: Will this nominee even consider the law when deciding a 
case or is it all progressive outcomes, social movements, and critical 
junctures?
  So it is clear there are two Professor Harrises: the pre-nomination 
professor and the post-nomination professor.
  Let's not be naive about which Professor Harris will sit on the 
Federal bench--for life--if confirmed, because no one else is being 
naive about that question.
  Take, for example, an article published last May in New Republic 
gushing that the professor is a ``champion of liberal jurisprudence'' 
and will be a ``sympathetic vote for liberal causes.'' We know that 
will be the case from the pre-nomination professor's long record of 
impassioned liberal advocacy.
  The article also observes--accurately, in my view--that Professor 
Harris ``clearly has an interest in using her voice to project a 
liberal jurisprudence perspective.'' That quotation pretty much sums it 
up. All anyone needs to do to confirm that claim is to read the pre-
nomination professor's public statements, because they are all out 
there. It is not a secret what this nominee thinks about the law and 
what she thinks about the courts. And it is no secret what kind of a 
judge this nominee will be if she takes the bench.
  So it seems pretty clear to me that the timing of the vote on this 
nominee is not purely coincidental. We know

[[Page 12966]]

this because of this week's ObamaCare decisions handed down by the D.C. 
Circuit and the Fourth Circuit.
  Last November, when the majority changed the cloture rule on judicial 
nominees, I told my colleagues the decision was a blatant attempt to 
stack the D.C. circuit with judges who would view sympathetically the 
administration's arguments in upcoming ObamaCare lawsuits.
  The other side dismissed the notion that the rules change was 
designed to tilt the court in the President's direction and to salvage 
ObamaCare. Well, as we all know, a three-judge panel of the D.C. 
Circuit decided the Halbig case this week against the administration, 
and it only took the administration about an hour to announce that it 
would seek a rehearing by the en banc D.C. Circuit, which now includes 
four of the President's nominees.
  As we all know, our distinguished majority leader rushed through 
three of those four nominees immediately after the rules change. And 
yesterday the distinguished majority leader finally admitted that the 
upcoming en banc panel on the Halbig ruling vindicated his decision to 
go nuclear. He said: ``I think if you look at simple math, it does.''
  So the distinguished majority leader isn't even trying to disguise 
his intent, and that is exactly what happened with this nominee on her 
way to the Fourth Circuit.
  This nomination is being considered ahead of other circuit nominees 
on the executive calendar. Why is this Fourth Circuit nomination being 
fast-tracked? Why fast-track one of the most liberal nominees we have 
considered to date? If history is any guide, the answer is simple. It 
is all about saving ObamaCare. The other side wants to stack the Fourth 
Circuit just like the D.C. Circuit, because the Fourth Circuit hears a 
disproportionate number of significant cases involving Federal law and 
regulations, as does the D.C. Circuit.
  So my colleagues should understand a vote for this nominee is also a 
solid vote for the Affordable Care Act as the cases make their way 
through the court.
  I am voting ``no'' on this nominee and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same. I yield the floor.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, following the confirmation vote on Executive 
Calendar No. 777, Disbrow, the Senate consider and vote on calendar No. 
919, Mendez; No. 920, Rogoff; and No. 921, Andrews; further, that at a 
time to be determined by me, in consultation with Senator McConnell, on 
Monday, July 28, the Senate consider Calendar Nos. 915, Kaye; 916, 
Kaye; 913, Mohorovic; and 744 McKeon; that there be 2 minutes for 
debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior 
to each vote; that upon the use or yielding back of time the Senate 
proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the 
nominations; further, if any nomination is confirmed, the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no 
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to 
the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be 
printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. For the information of all Senators, we expect nominations 
considered today to be confirmed by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                          Washington Wildfires

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak for 
a few minutes about the absolutely devastating wildfires currently 
burning through the farms, communities, and public lands of our home 
State of Washington.
  As a lifelong resident of Washington State and the Pacific Northwest, 
I have always been aware of the annual risks and dangers that wildfires 
pose to our region. Every summer, a combination of rising temperatures, 
months of dry weather, and our State's obvious abundance of forest and 
fields have resulted in wildfires capable of threatening homes and 
businesses across our State. Each summer we have worked to become 
better and better prepared to help protect our communities.
  But one wildfire burning this year is the single largest we have seen 
in Washington State. Since last Tuesday, massive wildfires covering 
hundreds of thousands of acres have ravaged our farm lands, our 
agricultural areas, our cherished public lands, and, most importantly, 
communities throughout Chelan County, Okanogan County, and others 
across eastern Washington.
  I am talking about a massive wave of flames that has burned an area 
now four times the size of Seattle, which is our State's largest city. 
Even for those of us who have lived our entire lives with the reality 
of wildfires, this is unprecedented. So while I am here in what we call 
``the other Washington,'' today, my heart, my thoughts, and my prayers 
are in Central and Eastern Washington. Even here on the Senate floor, I 
can't help but think of the firefighters and first responders and 
everyone who is neglecting sleep and rest to protect their communities. 
Most of all, I can't stop thinking about the families who lost their 
homes and all they own to this horrific disaster.
  If there is one thing I know about our State, it is that we don't 
turn away from hard times or hard work. Over the last several weeks I 
have talked with a number of the local leaders in the communities that 
are facing these fires, including Sheriff Frank Rogers in Okanogan 
County, Sheriff Brian Burnett in Chelan County, and Mayor Libby 
Harrison in the small town of Pateros, where dozens of homes, including 
hers, have been lost to this fire. Every one of them told me that while 
their community is facing hard times, nobody is giving up. They have 
been doing everything they can to protect each and every person in 
their rural communities, and so far they have been able to do that.
  I wish to share one story that speaks to what is happening in my home 
State right now. As I mentioned, this small town of Pateros has been 
hit very hard. They haven't lost any lives, but they have lost more 
than 100 homes and buildings throughout their community. But one 
building they did not lose was their school, which has always been to 
them the central place of their community, and it is now the central 
staging area as these fires rage on. As in many other small 
communities, the school in Pateros serves kids in grades K through 12, 
and last week that fire came within just a few feet of that school.
  Firefighters and responders were working elsewhere. So the school 
could easily have burned down, until a local man by the name of 
Augustine Morales decided to do something about it. He and a friend 
used hoses on the backs of their own trucks to fight back that fire and 
save their kids' school.
  Augustine was interviewed by a local TV station and here is what he 
said:

       Everything was going through my mind because I have my kids 
     and I have to take care of my kids, and I [was] just thinking 
     . . . if you die, I don't know what's going to happen.

  So that is what so many people just like Augustine are facing right 
now in Central and Eastern Washington, and I know they will not be 
giving up.
  In addition to our thoughts and our prayers, we have to make sure we 
are working to have all of the Federal resources they need available. I 
am thrilled the Senate supplemental funding bill that was released 
yesterday actually includes $615 million for firefighting efforts in 
Western States--money I requested along with my colleague Senator 
Cantwell and 10 other colleagues. But we know there is a lot more work 
to be done. We have to get that funding passed through the Senate and 
the House and to the President's desk right away.
  I am really very pleased that early yesterday morning the President, 
in fact, made an emergency declaration that is going to help those 
communities fight these wildfires.

[[Page 12967]]

  I know that I and Senator Cantwell and all of us are going to be 
working with our local officials and Federal officials all the way up 
to the President to make sure those communities get what they need.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I join my colleague from Washington 
who was just on the floor to take a moment to recognize the heroic 
efforts that are underway in the State of Washington, battling 
wildfires with individuals who are trying to protect their homes and 
property. Our hearts go out to the family and friends of Robert 
Koczewski, a retired State trooper and veteran who suffered a heart 
attack and died while trying to save his own home.
  I thank the local, State, and Federal agencies that are working 
together to meet the logistical needs of extinguishing these multiple 
fires and for the efforts they have already made to help save lives and 
minimize damage in what is the largest wildfire in our State's history.
  I thank all of the community organizing individuals who have done so 
much work in their individual communities to support the efforts of the 
firefighters and to work with everybody in the community to make sure 
every aspect of security and safety is there for the families who have 
lost their homes.
  I thank the individuals who have been working to provide shelter and 
to help their neighbors no matter what it takes.
  There is a huge spirit alive in the Okanogan people who are working 
very hard to make sure they are also contributing. They have a great 
deal of self-reliance, spirit, and they want to make sure that, as FEMA 
and others are moving in, they are also responsible in helping with 
fighting the fires and to work to make sure as many people as possible 
in the community can be saved from this devastation.
  We are hearing many moving stories of Washingtonians donating their 
time, volunteering goods, things everybody in the community needs.
  So I thank the people of Washington and particularly in the central 
part of the State for everything they are doing to help battle this 
fire.


                           Export-Import Bank

  Madam President, I also come to the floor to talk about the Export-
Import Bank and the fact that we still need to work out a deal on the 
Senate floor so we can move this legislation. Time is running out. We 
only have a few days before the August recess and literally only a few 
legislative days when we return to make sure we reauthorize this 
important credit agency that helps manufacturers export their products.
  When you grow U.S. manufacturing, you grow U.S. jobs. What we want to 
do is make sure our manufacturers have a fair shot at getting their 
products sold overseas. So it makes no sense to me that the fate of an 
organization that is such an important tool to businesses and comes at 
no cost to the taxpayers cannot get reauthorized. In fact, I am sure 
there are colleagues in the House of Representatives who would, if they 
had a chance, just outright kill the credit agency altogether.
  Last week 31 Governors signed a letter that basically called for the 
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. That brings the total number 
of Governors to 37. I am proud my Governor, Jay Inslee, along with 
Governor Robert Bentley from Alabama, led an effort to say to the 
Congress: This is important to do. They see the result in their States 
as it relates to jobs, and they want to make sure we get this 
reauthorized.
  There are Governors from all over the political spectrum--liberal 
Democrats, to moderate Democrats, to moderate Republicans, and even tea 
party Republicans--so there are Governors out there from Neil 
Abercrombie of Hawaii, to Governor Paul LePage of Maine, who want to 
get this important tool reauthorized. Even though they are from many 
different spectrums, they see that this creates jobs in their State.
  I would like to point out that nine of those signatures come from 
Republican Governors, plus five Republican Governors sent their own 
letter. So that is 14 Republican Governors who joined a chorus of 
voices in the legislative body to make sure we are doing what is right 
for the economy and renew this charter for the important Export-Import 
Bank.
  I wish to point out from the letter that it basically says that 
without the financing, U.S. firms would have lost sales to overseas 
competitors.
  So this is what the Governors are trying to tell us. They are 
stewards in their States of jobs and the economy, and they are very 
concerned about the Export-Import Bank. So we want to make sure we 
continue to listen to those Governors and get their help in making sure 
their Members of Congress from their individual States support this 
legislation.
  They also are talking to thousands of small business owners who are 
saying that failing to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank would lead to 
fewer exports and a loss of jobs in all 50 States. They are out there 
trying to make sure they are drumming up support in the congressional 
delegations of their States. That is because trade is a critically 
important aspect to our economy.
  I just talked to one of my colleagues today who was telling me how 
much their State was recovering, but in the areas where they were doing 
the most exports, their State was really growing--that particular part.
  In 2013, U.S. exports reached $2.3 trillion in goods and services. So 
exports across the Nation that are attributable to the Ex-Im Bank 
support about $37 billion worth of U.S. exports and about 205,000 
related jobs. So you can see that the Export-Import Bank is a vital 
tool to creating jobs in our U.S. economy, and it does all of this 
returning $1 billion to the Federal Treasury. To me, it is a win-win 
for taxpayers and it is a good aspect for jobs. As I said, it is 
205,000 export-related jobs and $37 billion in exports. That supports 
over 2,000 small businesses throughout our country. That is actually 
the direct impact of businesses that are exporting with the help of the 
Export-Import Bank. I say that because there are so many more people 
who are involved in the supply chain, and we talked about that last 
week.
  I would like to address one issue today that I hear about from a lot 
of colleagues: Well, isn't this just something the private sector can 
do?
  I guarantee you, if the private sector could just do it and would do 
it, we would be very happy. I am here to debunk that myth. In fact, in 
the words of the private sector, it is all about them needing the help 
of the bank to actually make deals work. Anyone who thinks they know 
what they are talking about, I want to make sure they understand.
  First and foremost, in the bank's charter, it prohibits them from 
competing with private financing and requires that all financing have a 
reasonable chance of repayment. So literally in the bank's charter it 
says they are not there to compete with these banks. Yet I hear so many 
times my colleagues on the other side trying to say: Oh, well, this is 
just something that we, the government, should not be involved in.
  I just pointed out that we actually make money off of it. So that 
part is really good for us because it helps us pay down the Federal 
deficit. And I just mentioned how banks want to partnership with this 
credit agency because it helps them, but it is actually in their 
charter that it prohibits them from doing so. Specifically, the charter 
says, in section 2, that the bank should ``supplement and encourage, 
and not compete with, private capital''--``not compete with, private 
capital.'' So there it is in their own charter, exactly how they are 
supposed to operate. So this is not a bank that is somehow competing 
with banks across America. They are partnering with financial 
institutions that see risks in overseas

[[Page 12968]]

markets that they think are undeveloped and do not have the banking and 
financing institutions in their organization to help get these things 
done, and so they want to partner with the Export-Import Bank.
  It is helping businesses all across our country. In fact, 98 percent 
of the Export-Import Bank's transactions were involved with banks 
throughout 2013. So it is not taking business away from them; it is 
actually helping businesses throughout our country.
  The Export-Import Bank is a leading indicator for U.S. companies in 
how to get business done in these developing markets, and it is often 
in the national and local banking interest to have a partner such as 
this because they see deals and opportunities that come through their 
local communities.
  I know there are banks--the Presiding Officer's major banks in parts 
of the Midwest, KeyBank--and others have talked to me about how 
important it is because they have homegrown businesses that come to 
them, and they see the opportunity but they also see the risk, and 
having this credit agency be a partner with that local bank helps them 
secure the deal.
  As we look at this chart, it basically shows that 98 percent of the 
Ex-Im Bank transactions are involving commercial banks. So, again, 
there is this notion that somehow this bank is competing with the 
private sector when, in fact, it is basically prohibited in their 
charter, and 98 percent of the deals are actually done with an 
individual bank, which shows that this is really a tool for our 
commercial banking.
  So these are banks everywhere, from the Alaska Commercial Fishing and 
Agriculture Bank in Anchorage, to the Wallis State Bank in Texas, as 
well as national banks such as Wells Fargo and others. So they find it 
a very viable tool and something that is important to do.
  According to a recent statement by the Bankers Association for 
Finance and Trade and the Financial Services Roundtable, the Export-
Import Bank of the United States plays a critical role ``in 
international trade and US job creation by providing export financing 
products that help fill gaps in trade financing otherwise not provided 
by the private sector.''
  So we are hearing from these individual banks that are saying this 
and basically articulating that this is a tool. In fact, one CEO, John 
Stumpf from Wells Fargo, recently talked about his work with a company 
called Air Tractor. Air Tractor is a Texas company that manufactures 
agricultural aircraft, with 50 percent of its business being overseas. 
He said how important it was that the Export-Import--I am going to 
quote him: Air Tractor would not be where they are today without the 
Export-Import Bank and there are certain things that would not have 
been done without them.
  I want to go back to the fact that the banking industry really does 
believe the Export-Import Bank is a necessary tool. ``The Ex-Im Bank 
remains a vital partner for the lending community,'' according to the 
bankers association.
  I think this shows there are people who are just not educated on the 
structure of the bank, how it works, how important it is to be an 
important tool for us. I want to make sure we understand why the 
private sector cannot do these loans.
  If people understand how the bank works, some still want to come back 
and say: Well, they still should be doing it themselves.
  I want to go to one chart that basically shows some of the challenges 
bankers face when they are dealing with this. They face bank balance 
sheet limitations; that is, the ability to hold all of those deals on 
their books over the period of the loan. They have the added risk of 
exporting to foreign markets, which can be challenging at best. And 
they have the lack of the financial sector presence in those emerging 
markets.
  So as to all of those things, if you are, as I just mentioned, one of 
these banks--from the Wallis State Bank in Texas to the Alaska 
Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank--you can see that they want to 
help this business in their State export or like this company I 
mentioned--Air Tractor in Texas that manufactures aircraft for 
agricultural purposes. You can see they want to help them. But, again, 
is the Wallis State Bank going to be able to go out and assess all 
these international marketplaces and assess whether that end customer 
is going to be able to continue to pay on the life of this purchase? 
No. This bank is not figuring out how to do that. So basically they are 
just turning this business down. Yet we have a U.S. manufacturer that 
has figured out a great product, figured out how to make it, figured 
out how to get customers overseas, figured out how to compete with 
international competitors, and we have people here strangling the one 
tool they need--the credit agency that helps the local bank in their 
community finance the deal.
  So I just want to say I hope we resolve this issue with the Export-
Import Bank. I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle can come 
to terms with the amendments that are necessary to move this bill to 
the Senate floor. I know last time we had a similar debate and a lot of 
discussion, but in the end there were about 79 votes for the Export-
Import Bank.
  I guess I would ask all of my colleagues now to think about our 
economy and how much U.S. manufacturers need to sell in overseas 
markets. We are having an unbelievable growth in the middle class 
around the globe. It is going to double in the next 15 years. That is 
2.7 billion more middle-class consumers who could buy U.S. products and 
U.S. services, but they will not if we hamstring the export-import 
credit agencies that help support banks in the financing of U.S. 
manufacturers' goods sold overseas.
  I hope my colleagues will help us get this bill to the floor, get it 
reauthorized, and not for a short term, not for 3 months, not for more 
mischief to be had, but to give predictability and certainty to people 
who are actually growing jobs in the United States of America, our 
manufacturers.


             Unanimous Consent Agreement Executive Calendar

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the confirmation votes 
on Mendez, Rogoff, and Andrews occur following the vote to confirm the 
Disbrow nomination, and with all other provisions of the previous order 
remaining in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Virginia.


                           Export-Import Bank

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I have got a deal for you: Let's create 
American jobs, let's help American businesses find customers abroad, 
and let's do it at no cost to the American taxpayer. I rise to speak 
about exactly the point Chairwoman Cantwell just spoke about, the 
chairwoman of our Small Business Committee, the importance of the 
Export-Import Bank, which expires on September 30 of this year.
  The Senate and House need to act to continue the job so we can 
continue the bank, so we can create hundreds of thousands of jobs, so 
we can help American businesses find customers abroad, and do it at no 
cost to the American taxpayer. Chairwoman Cantwell did a good job of 
explaining the bank and what it does. I will just spend a few minutes 
on that.
  It is an independent, self-sustaining Federal governmental agency. It 
is one of the most important tools that U.S. companies have to boost 
exports to all the countries and all the customers abroad who want 
high-quality products produced in the United States. The bank assumes 
country and credit risks that other private sector lenders are 
unwilling or unable to do, at a reasonable cost. It helps level the 
playing field for U.S. businesses because so many of our global 
competitors have banks just like this that loan even more or support 
even more loans than we do. So this is about leveling the playing field 
for American businesses.
  In fiscal year 2013, the Ex-Im Bank approved an all-time high 3,842 
loan authorizations, with a total estimated export value of $37.4 
billion. That is estimated to have created or sustained over 200,0000 
export-related jobs right here in the United States. Countries such as 
China, France, Germany,

[[Page 12969]]

Korea, and India are extending multiple times as much financing as our 
Export-Import Bank. This is not the time to let international 
competitors eat our lunch. We have to be aggressive and we have to 
compete. That is why this bank needs to be reauthorized.
  I am here today to talk about why it matters in Virginia, using 
Virginia as an example. I know the Presiding Officer will forgive me 
for being partial to the Commonwealth. But anyone can get up here and 
do exactly what I am going to do, talk about businesses in their 
States, to whom the Export-Import Bank is incredibly important.
  In Virginia generally since 2007, the Ex-Im Bank has supported 98 
companies in every congressional district. Fifty-nine are small 
businesses, ten are minority-owned, three are women-owned, more than $1 
billion in exports supported in Virginia since 2007. I have heard from 
everybody in Virginia, from Governor McAuliffe to the Virginia Chamber 
of Commerce, to both the National and Virginia Association of 
Manufacturers saying: Whatever you do, find an agreement to authorize 
the continuation of this very important bank.
  Let me tell you about four companies. They are very different 
companies: rockets, apples, compressors, and paper. It sounds like a 
rock-paper-scissors thing, right?
  Orbital Sciences Corporation in Dulles, VA, right here close. Orbital 
manufactures small and medium-class space systems, mostly satellites 
and rockets. Their headquarters is in Dulles, 3,600 employees, high-
paying jobs. They launch rockets from all over the country, including 
Wallops Island near Chincoteague on the eastern shore of Virginia. They 
build satellites for the U.S. Government but also sell commercial 
communications satellites to many international buyers.
  This commercial business that Orbital has is faced with significant 
competition from European satellite manufacturers, EADS/Astrium and 
Thales/Alenia. So Orbital relies on the Export-Import Bank to level the 
playing field. These European manufacturers get assistance from their 
governments to go out and compete for this commercial business and 
Orbital does the same. This neutralizes the advantage that European 
governments try to give to their satellite industry. In the last few 
years, since 2012, Orbital has produced 38 satellites. Six of them 
relied on Export-Import Bank financing and would not have been done 
without the backstop the Ex-Im Bank provides.
  For every commercial satellite that Orbital builds, 300 jobs are 
supported, direct and indirect, within the company, and then there is a 
supply chain, with suppliers all over the country. There are an 
additional 300 jobs in the supply chain. So the story of Orbital, 
manufacturing rockets and satellites, is illustrative of the 
contribution the Ex-Im Bank makes to U.S. small and medium-sized 
aerospace companies.
  Let's switch from rockets and talk about apples for a minute. Turkey 
Knob Orchard in Timberville, VA. They grow apples on 3,500 acres in 
rural Virginia. It is a longstanding family-owned business that has 
produced apples in the Commonwealth since 1918. This family-owned 
business in Timberville uses the Export-Import Bank to protect deals 
made with companies in rapidly expanding markets such as West Africa 
and India, where the risks are high, and conventional lenders may be a 
little skittish.
  Then it gives their partners peace of mind and a credible system for 
evaluating buyers abroad. The credit insurance is one of the most 
competitive and user-friendly products in the market for small growers 
such as Turkey Knob, who do not have a large international office or 
large international export offices around the globe. Without Ex-Im 
credit insurance, Turkey Knob would export less and their exports would 
be exposed to more risk, more potential liability.
  Additionally, with the credit insurance program, small exporters are 
able to build these deals so they can build long-term relationships and 
expand business that otherwise would not be possible.
  We want importers abroad to buy Virginia apples. We think our apples 
are every bit as good as Washington State's or any other State's 
apples. We are proud to market them, and other products from Virginia 
as well, especially at a time when the economy needs to be stronger. 
But we would not be able to find those clients for growers such as 
Turkey Knob without the Ex-Im Bank.
  Compressors. Bristol Compressors in Bristol, VA, right on the border 
with Tennessee in the State's far southwestern corner. This is a 
manufacturing company, very cutting edge. They design and manufacture 
compressors for residential and commercial applications--air 
conditioning, heat pump, refrigeration. It is one of the largest 
compressor manufacturers in the world. They also serve manufacturers 
and distributors across six continents. I think Antarctica may be the 
exception. They have enough air conditioning there.
  But Bristol has worked directly and indirectly with the Ex-Im Bank 
through their credit lenders for many years. Bristol would not be able 
to service the majority of its international business without the 
support of the Ex-Im Bank. I have been to this company. It is in a part 
of the State that needs more jobs, not less. Without the Ex-Im Bank, 
they would not be able to service their customers on six continents.
  Bristol has told us that without the support, jobs at Bristol would 
be at risk, which would have a negative impact on the local economy. We 
want to promote American manufacturing, not shrink it.
  Finally, paper. Eagle Paper International in Virginia Beach. This is 
an international paper manufacturer and distributor, been around since 
1988. Virginia Beach is an important place, because we have an active 
port in Virginia Beach, one of the busiest ports on the east coast of 
the United States. So it is a great place to find exports and ship 
exports from.
  Eagle Paper has succeeded in its 25 years in business in exporting 
paper worldwide. Eagle has told us very plainly:

       Ex-Im is a crucial part of our business. Without the export 
     credit insurance we would not be able to support the customer 
     base that we currently have. Without this customer base our 
     sales would decrease and in turn we would have to eliminate 
     employees in order to keep our business up and running.

  Not often do we have such no-brainers present themselves on the 
floor. I will end where I started: Let's create American jobs. Let's 
help businesses find customers around the world. Let's do it at no cost 
to the American taxpayer. We do not make general fund applications to 
the Ex-Im Bank because they charge their customers for the services 
they provide. Not only do they break even, they actually raised $2 
billion above the loans they put out in the last few years, which they 
then used to make more loans to more American businesses to create more 
jobs.
  I have been heartened to see 50-plus months of private sector job 
growth. I know the Presiding Officer has as well. But we also know we 
are not where we need to be yet. GDP needs to be higher. More jobs need 
to be created. We need to create more skilled workers to fill those 
jobs. The Ex-Im Bank is one of the best tools we have to help move the 
economy forward. If it did not exist, we would have to create it. The 
good news is, it does exist. All we have to do is vote to reauthorize 
it before September 30.
  It is my hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in 
both Houses will join in this very important and completely logical 
mission.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam 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. Madam President, I rise today to speak in opposition to 
the legislation pending before the Senate, the so-called Bring Jobs 
Home Act. I oppose this bill because it is a political

[[Page 12970]]

stunt designed as an election-year campaign ploy that will have no 
meaningful impact on job creation or on economic growth. In fact, this 
bill is a carbon copy of a bill the Senate rejected 2 years ago when it 
was offered by another Democratic Senator who just happened to also be 
up for reelection.
  Simply put, if there is a Democratic bill on the Senate floor 
supposedly about outsourcing, you can rest assured it must be election 
season. The bill before us purports to deal with the problem of 
companies relocating jobs from the United States to foreign countries 
by denying the deduction associated with doing so. This must be the tax 
benefit for shipping jobs overseas that we heard so much about from the 
Obama campaign in 2008 and again in 2012.
  There is only one problem with repealing this special tax break for 
companies that ship jobs overseas. It does not exist. According to the 
Joint Committee on Taxation, ``Under present law, there are no targeted 
tax credits or disallowances of deductions related to relocating 
business units inside or outside the United States.'' That is from the 
Joint Committee on Taxation.
  This statement is not surprising, given that numerous independent 
fact checkers disputed the repeated claims in 2008 that companies were 
receiving tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. These fact checkers 
called that statement ``false'' and ``misleading.'' But I guess the 
facts do not matter when it is an election year. What this bill will do 
is insert yet more complexity and uncertainty into our Tax Code.
  The reality is the United States economy is a $17 trillion 
enterprise, with businesses all across this country constantly closing 
old operations and opening new ones. If this bill becomes law, 
companies that might want to close an old factory or open a new one 
would now have to worry if they will have to pay a tax penalty, even if 
their decisions are totally unrelated to any business decisions they 
might make outside of the United States.
  The legislation also includes a new tax credit for companies that 
eliminate a business operation in a foreign country and move that 
operation to the United States. Well, that sounds like a good idea. But 
consider how this would tilt the playing field against companies here 
in America that have not opened operations overseas. A purely domestic 
company that opens a new factory in my State of South Dakota will not 
get a Federal tax credit for doing so, but a global company with jobs 
overseas will get a generous credit under this bill.
  Consider what a coalition of leading business organizations made up 
of the Business Roundtable, the Information Technology Industry 
Council, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National 
Foreign Trade Council, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had to say 
recently in a letter regarding the legislation that is pending before 
us.
  Many of the major business organizations in this country said:

       While intended to promote U.S. job creation, the 
     legislation actually would have the unintended consequence of 
     making it even more difficult for American worldwide 
     companies to compete at home and in world markets, thereby 
     placing at risk jobs of American workers.

  This is a letter from some of the major business organizations in 
this country.
  If we want greater economic growth and more jobs, we need a Tax Code 
that creates a level playing field, not one that picks winners and 
losers based on the preferences of Members of Congress.
  Even if we were to assume that a new tax credit for insourcing would 
be a good thing, the official estimate of the bill from the Joint 
Committee on Taxation tells us that this particular tax credit will 
have essentially no impact on our economy. According to this new 
estimate, the new insourcing credit will provide a tax credit to U.S. 
companies of $35 million a year. That is $35 million out of a $17 
trillion economy or, put another way, this credit will equal .000002 
percent of annual U.S. economic activity. Yes, that is a decimal point 
followed by five zeroes. This bill isn't a drop in the budget; it is 
more like a drop in the Pacific Ocean.
  Yet despite the fact this legislation won't help our economy or 
create jobs or make America more competitive in the global economy, I 
voted with most of my colleagues to move forward with this debate 
because I believe we need to have a robust debate about those measures 
that will energize our economy.
  As such, I filed a number of amendments that would have a meaningful, 
positive impact on our economy--unlike, I might add, the underlying 
bill. For example, I filed an amendment to make the small business 
expensing limits, which expired at the end of last year, permanent, 
something that I hear about consistently from farmers, ranchers, and 
small businesses in my State of South Dakota.
  These limits allow small businesses, farmers, and ranchers to deduct 
up to $500,000 per year in expenses, making it easier for these 
businesses to grow and to hire new workers.
  I filed an amendment to make the R&D tax credit permanent. This 
amendment would also strengthen the credit by raising the credit rate 
from 14 percent to 20 percent, thus making this credit more competitive 
with the research incentives offered by many European and Asian 
nations.
  I have also filed an amendment to improve the tax treatment of S 
corporations if they convert into a C corporation, thus making this 
popular form of business operation more easily accessible. This 
amendment would also make it easier for S corporations to give 
appreciated property to charity.
  I filed an amendment to make permanent the Internet Tax Freedom Act, 
which currently protects most Internet users in America from taxes on 
their Internet access. This law was first enacted in 1998. For more 
than 15 years it has helped our economy grow, and it has helped the 
digital economy flourish by keeping State and local taxes off of 
Internet access, regardless of consumers' access to the Internet via 
their home computers or by handheld device. Unfortunately, this law is 
scheduled to expire in just over 3 months on November 1 if we don't 
take action to prevent that.
  Some may claim that my amendments are partisan amendments--that these 
tax relief measures are simply Republican priorities that can't muster 
support on the Democrat side of the aisle. The problem with this claim 
is that all the measures I have just mentioned have found Democratic 
support already--significant Democratic support.
  Consider the R&D amendment I just mentioned. It is identical to the 
bill that passed the House of Representatives with 274 votes in favor, 
including 62 House Democrats. That is right, roughly one-third of House 
Democrats have already voted for this exact amendment.
  The same is true for the small business expensing amendment I 
mentioned. An identical measure passed the House in June with 272 
votes, including 53 House Democrats. Consider the S corporation 
improvements, which were passed by the House with 263 votes, including 
42 House Democrats voting yes.
  Consider my amendment to make the Internet tax moratorium permanent. 
My bill, with Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, to make this law 
permanent has 52 Senate supporters.
  In fact, this bill has so much support that an identical bill in the 
House, just last week, passed by a voice vote. This measure, supported 
by a majority of Senators, sponsored by the Democratic chairman of the 
Finance Committee, and approved by the House of Representatives by a 
voice vote isn't even scheduled for a vote in the Senate. What a shame.
  Consider the medical device tax repeal, which is supported by 79 
Senators, including 34 Democratic Senators.
  Unlike the minuscule economic impact of the bill pending on the 
Senate floor before us now, repealing the medical device tax would 
remove an ObamaCare tax increase totaling $24 billion over 10 years on 
some of the most innovative companies in America. According to a survey 
by the trade

[[Page 12971]]

association AdvaMed, the medical device tax is estimated to destroy as 
many as 165,000 American jobs.
  So let's be clear. It is not that there aren't reasonable measures to 
boost our economy that we could be considering. All of the measures I 
have mentioned have broad bipartisan support. The problem is simply 
that the Democratic majority refuses to allow their consideration.
  The Senate majority would prefer we spend our time on inconsequential 
election-year gimmicks rather than any of the job-creating measures I 
have just mentioned.
  In fact, Senate Democrats have chosen to block nearly all Republican 
amendments rather than risk having to take difficult votes. Consider 
that the Senate has had rollcall votes on only 12 Republican amendments 
since last July. House Democrats--the minority in the House of 
Representatives--in contrast have had 189 amendments voted on during 
that same period of time.
  Put another way, House Democrats have been allowed, on average, more 
than one vote for each legislative day the House has been in session 
over the past year. In the Senate, Senate Republicans have been allowed 
just one vote per month.
  Let me repeat that. The minority in the House is being allowed one 
vote per legislative day. The minority in the Senate is being allowed 
one vote per month.
  The Senate used to be known as the world's greatest deliberative 
body. That description now sounds like a cruel joke, considering how 
few amendments we have been allowed to consider.
  The other measure our economy desperately needs is comprehensive tax 
reform. If we really care about making America a more attractive place 
to do business so as to lure new business investment jobs, we need to 
have a much simpler Tax Code with tax rates that are competitive with 
our global competitors.
  Let's consider the facts. When President Reagan signed the Tax Reform 
Act of 1986 into law, the United States had a corporate tax rate that 
was more than 5 percentage points below our major economic competitors.
  The U.S. corporate tax rate has basically stayed the same since 1986. 
Yet today our tax rate is the highest in the developed world and is 
more than 14 percentage points higher than the average of developed 
economies.
  Why? Look at what has happened. Unlike the United States, other 
nations decided they needed to lower their tax rates to spur economic 
growth and job creation. Unfortunately, today we are reaping the 
negative consequences of inaction as we see more and more investment 
and economic activities moving to those nations that have created a 
more favorable business environment.
  If we want to keep the best, highest-paying jobs at home, we don't 
need new tax credits targeted at a narrow set of companies. We need a 
complete overhaul of our tax system with new, competitive tax rates and 
a modernized system for taxing the global revenues of American 
companies. Yes, it is going to be a difficult lift, but it is far from 
impossible.
  Consider the United Kingdom, which as recently as 2010 had a 28 
percent tax rate and an outdated system for taxing global income. The 
UK enacted tax reform that will result in a 20-percent tax rate by next 
year and has already resulted in a modernized system for taxing the 
income earned by global U.K. companies.
  Over the past 5 years, Japan--another major economic competitor of 
the United States--has done something similar. Japan cut its corporate 
tax rate by 5 percentage points and has moved to a more competitive 
system for taxing global income.
  If the UK, Japan, and other nations can modernize their Tax Code for 
competition in the 21st century global marketplace, certainly we in the 
United States can do it as well.
  In closing, I hope the Senate Democrats will change course and allow 
for an open and robust amendment process to allow a wide variety of 
job-creating measures to be considered.
  Our economy, still mired in the sluggish Obama economy, could 
certainly use it. But, if not, I look forward to a future Congress 
where the Senate can get back to real debate and real solutions.
  I hope that once the campaigning is done, once the election-year 
slogans have been retired, we can get back to real, substantive 
legislating.
  American families and workers deserve permanent tax and regulatory 
relief. They deserve a better economy than they have today, and they 
deserve a Senate that once again functions as the world's greatest 
deliberative body and puts their interests first, and their futures, 
their quality of life, and their standard of living where they should 
be.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I request unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Highway Trust Fund

  Mr. REED. I wish to support the short-term reauthorization of our 
national surface transportation law. It is urgent that we keep the 
highway trust fund solvent to avoid a shutdown of work on our highways, 
bridges, and transit systems.
  A recent letter from 62 national organizations, including the 
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the 
American Public Transportation Association, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, and the Laborers' International Union, echoed the White 
House's warning: If we don't shore up the trust fund, we put at risk 
100,000 construction projects that support more than 700,000 jobs, 
including 3,500 jobs in my home State of Rhode Island.
  We have to save these jobs, but I have to say that the legislation 
before us is inadequate on two fronts.
  First, instead of a short-term bill, we should be undertaking a long-
term extension of transportation funding to provide certainty to the 
States and create much-needed jobs.
  Second, the House version of this bill uses the very offsets that 
House Republican leaders rejected when they were included as part of my 
bipartisan legislation to extend jobless benefits for the long-term 
unemployed. House leadership has used every excuse to deny these 
benefits to people who have been hurting for months, invoking 
increasingly problematic conditions.
  I, for one, will not stop working to help people who, despite their 
best efforts, find themselves without the opportunity to find work.
  We need this patch--even though it is not the preferred solution--to 
avoid a virtual shutdown of construction throughout the country and 
prevent further job losses. But the mere fact that the trust fund is so 
close to becoming bankrupt has already had an effect. Last month, 
Moody's downgraded the ratings on the GARVEE bonds for 26 
transportation agencies.
  In Rhode Island our Department of Transportation has about $67 
million of projects on hold because of the uncertainty about the trust 
fund. These are projects that could put people to work in a State that 
unfortunately is tied for the highest unemployment rate in the Nation. 
There is more work the State wants to move forward on that would create 
more needed jobs, but we can only do that with a long-term 
reauthorization bill.
  With only a few months of funding under this so-called patch, Rhode 
Island will be able to start little--if any--new construction. Instead, 
the trickle of Federal funding will pay back debt from projects that 
have already been finished and keep ongoing projects from stopping. It 
will support some design work that could help keep contract designers 
from going out of business, but it won't get much new construction 
started.
  So my State and others across the country are forced to wait in a 
very costly holding pattern. Only a bill that invests significant 
resources over multiple years can provide this certainty for States and 
help get new projects underway.
  That was the point made by Secretary Foxx and 11 former Secretaries

[[Page 12972]]

of Transportation in a letter just a few days ago, noting that we are 
more than a decade removed from the passage of the last long-term 
transportation reauthorization bill.
  Another point the Secretaries make is this: While long-term certainty 
is essential, greater Federal investment is needed to ensure our 
transportation infrastructure meets the needs of our people.
  As a nation, our transportation infrastructure system is in desperate 
need of improvement. The most recent report card from the American 
Society of Civil Engineers gave both our roads and transit systems a 
grade of D.
  Our aging infrastructure doesn't get as much attention in the media 
as other issues until the worst happens, such as the collapse of major 
bridges in Minnesota in 2007 and Washington State last year. But there 
are structurally deficient roads and bridges in every State, bridges 
that millions of Americans drive across for work or travel, that 
companies use to transport products, and that our schoolbuses drive 
over with our children.
  Aging infrastructure is a major challenge for Rhode Island, which has 
the highest percentage of roads that are in poor condition and the 
highest percentage of bridges that are deficient or obsolete according 
to the American Society of Civil Engineers and the U.S. Department of 
Transportation.
  In the last 5 years, Rhode Island has had to act to replace two major 
bridges on the I-95 corridor. Luckily, the State has been able to take 
action to avert a disaster, but it hasn't been easy. One of these 
bridges, the Pawtucket River Bridge, was effectively closed to all 
large trucks for several years until it was replaced. The other, the 
Providence Viaduct, which is currently being replaced, has required 
boards to be placed beneath it in order to protect traffic and 
passersby below from falling concrete.
  Each year, these kinds of deficiencies cost American families $120 
billion in extra fuel and time, according to the White House. 
Businesses pay $27 billion annually in extra freight costs, which then 
get passed on to consumers. In Rhode Island, the poor road conditions 
cost $496 million each year in added vehicle repair and operating 
expenses, which is over $650 per year for each motorist.
  To tackle the significant challenges to keep our roads, bridges, and 
transit in a state of good repair, States such as Rhode Island will 
need a strong Federal commitment. According to the American Society of 
Civil Engineers, we need to increase our surface transportation funding 
at all levels of government by $846 billion by 2020 to restore our 
transportation system to a state of good repair and meet the demands 
for our growing population and economy. Without more investment, we 
increase the chance of another infrastructure failure and we create 
inefficiency in our economy.
  Federal funding is critical for all our States in meeting that 
challenge, but it is especially important for States such as Rhode 
Island that struggle to generate their own funds for infrastructure. 
Indeed, stagnant Federal support will make it harder for States that 
are struggling economically to share in our national prosperity, 
running the risk of increasing economic inequality among States.
  However, with added investments in infrastructure, we can improve 
freight, roads, and transit systems, meaning commuters will make it to 
their destinations more quickly and safely while businesses save on 
shipping goods.
  Too many times in the past, the Republican leadership in the House 
has exploited deadlines like this to engage in brinkmanship, shutting 
down the Federal Government and bringing the country to the edge of 
default. In part because we haven't had a manufactured crisis in the 
last several months, we have seen some good signs in our economy, and 
so I am encouraged we will not see a shutdown of work on our roads and 
bridges this summer.
  But again, averting disaster shouldn't be our goal. We need to press 
ahead with a multiyear reauthorization bill to create jobs and improve 
our economy. Unfortunately, when it comes to helping American workers 
and our economy, Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have 
stalled progress.
  Indeed, we have seen Republicans block several measures that would 
help strengthen our economic recovery. As I discussed earlier, House 
Republicans refused to act on restoring emergency unemployment 
insurance, despite the fact that the Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that a year-long extension would generate 200,000 new jobs. 
Republicans have also blocked our efforts to raise the minimum wage, 
let borrowers refinance their student loans, pass a paycheck fairness 
bill or an energy efficiency bill. We need long-term solutions to all 
of these issues.
  In my view, we should make this extension--the one we are considering 
now--as short as possible to increase the likelihood that we can pass a 
long-term bill that increases our investment in our transportation 
system. Regardless of the duration of this short-term bill, we should 
be working to address the issue before the end of the year. As 
Secretary Foxx and his predecessors admonished:

       What America needs is to break this cycle of governing 
     crisis-to-crisis, only to enact a stopgap measure at the last 
     moment.

  The Secretaries made another important point. They wrote this:

       Until recently, Congress understood that, as America grows, 
     so must our investments in transportation. And for more than 
     half a century, they voted for that principle--and increased 
     funding--with broad, bipartisan majorities in both houses. We 
     believe they can, and should, do so again.

  We should follow their advice.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                             Border Crisis

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise again on the Senate floor to talk 
about the crisis at our southern border, and it is a crisis. I don't 
use that word lightly, but it is clearly a crisis on many levels.
  This fiscal year alone, since October 1, 2013, over 381,000 illegal 
aliens have entered our country through that border. Of course, a big 
part of that crisis is unaccompanied alien children--58,000 of them. 
The Obama administration itself says that number will probably grow to 
85,000 or 90,000 in just the next few months, by the end of this fiscal 
year.
  We see on this chart that since 2008, sending these UACs back, 
deporting them, effectively has plummeted--absolutely plummeted. This 
is a key part of the problem.
  Since this crisis came into clear focus, I have been doing several 
things. I have asked the administration, through a letter to the 
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, for facts, 
details about the impact of this crisis--the numbers, the particulars, 
and specifically what impact it can have on Louisiana, my home State. I 
haven't gotten any response. That is very disappointing. I am asking 
publicly again for a detailed response to those legitimate 
straightforward questions.
  I have agreed with many others in the House and Senate to partner 
with the administration around strong action to change this trend, to 
change our policy, to deport illegal aliens effectively, to send a very 
new and different message to Central and South America to stem this 
growing crisis. Unfortunately, that plea has not gotten a positive 
response from the administration either.
  In reaction to that, I have had to dig around wherever I can find 
credible sources and find out key information myself, particularly as 
it affects Louisiana. I have been making calls to military leaders, 
local ICE officials, anyone else with significant credible information.
  Again, this should be able to come directly from the Department of 
Homeland Security. It has not. But this is what I am finding out: The 
Louisiana ICE office has a backlog of juvenile cases--cases involving 
minors. First of all, it already had about 2,000 of those cases in 
Louisiana alone before this wave upon wave of minor illegal aliens 
reached crisis proportions. Adding on to those 2,000 cases--1,956 to be 
exact--

[[Page 12973]]

there are now over 1,200 new juvenile cases in Louisiana. These are 
unaccompanied children coming into the country illegally and then being 
brought into Louisiana, in most cases turned over to the custody of a 
family member or a sponsor, and many of these family members are 
themselves illegal.
  We are not a border State. We are not Texas, we are not Arizona or 
New Mexico. We are not one of the States most affected. Yet even 
Louisiana has this significant impact with very troubling numbers.
  I talked to folks at the Hirsch Memorial Coliseum in Shreveport and 
found out that the International Association of Fairs and Expositions--
a trade association for their sorts of facilities around the country--
was contacted by the Department of Homeland Security about locating 
mass space for housing of illegal alien UACs. The Hirsch Memorial 
Coliseum in particular in Shreveport was contacted to see if they could 
be part of that, and they said they couldn't. It was not practical at 
all. But that inquiry was made.
  On the military side, I talked to leadership at Fort Pope. They were 
contacted by the U.S. Army Installation Management Command Headquarters 
and asked if they could house between 400 and 500 unaccompanied alien 
children. They said they couldn't for very compelling practical reasons 
at Fort Pope.
  Barksdale Air Force Base in Shreveport was asked via the Air Force 
Global Strike Command and the Department of Defense if they had 
capacity for the same mass housing operation. Their response was as 
follows:

       Barksdale's answer has been consistent with our strategic 
     mission and supporting base infrastructure for the nation's 
     #1 mission (nuclear)--we would not support or participate.

  But it is significant those inquiries were actively made.
  Belle Chasse Naval Air Station in New Orleans, again on behalf of the 
Department of Homeland Security, was contacted about their capacity for 
this same sort of thing twice.
  Again, it makes the point that even Louisiana--not a border State, 
not a State most affected--is fielding many inquiries and significant 
impacts--1,259 new juvenile cases being brought into the State, all of 
these inquiries.
  I wish I could get this information directly from the Department of 
Homeland Security. I have asked for it. They have not been forthcoming.
  Unfortunately, the administration likewise has not been forthcoming 
about real solutions, partnering with Congress to make changes in the 
law and anything else necessary to stem this tide and reverse the 
policy that continues to encourage this tide. We have seen no 
leadership there either.
  While the President spent the first 10 days of focus on this crisis 
talking about various parts of Federal law that he said were tying his 
hands, when it came to sending a request to Congress, there was no 
request to change any of that law. There was no request to streamline 
any deportation procedures. There was no request to heighten the 
standard for asylum or anything else. The only request was to send him 
a huge amount of additional money, billions upon billions of dollars.
  So in the absence of that leadership and partnership and information, 
I started to develop legislative ideas with many others myself, and I 
have introduced a legislative solution--S. 2632--to address this 
specific unaccompanied alien children crisis, and it has been 
introduced in the House by my Louisiana colleague, Congressman Bill 
Cassidy.
  Fundamentally, this legislation would reverse the policy we have in 
place which accepts these folks over and does nothing to quickly deport 
them to their home country. It would reverse that policy so we would 
have quick, effective, immediate deportations to send the message to 
Central and South America that this has to stop and to stem that tide.
  Specifically, the legislation would do nine things:
  No. 1, it would mandate detention of all unaccompanied alien children 
upon apprehension. No catch and release. No catch and then, yes, here. 
We will further the smuggling and give you to your family members or 
sponsors in this country.
  No. 2, we would amend the law to bring parity between UACs from 
contiguous and noncontiguous countries. All UACs, regardless of country 
of origin, will be given the option to voluntarily depart. That is a 
practical solution, in the case of those coming from Mexico and 
Canada--obviously many more from Mexico.
  No. 3, those UACs who do not voluntarily depart will be immediately 
placed in a streamlined removal process and detained by the Department 
of Homeland Security. Currently, they are transferred instead to Health 
and Human Service's Office of Refugee Resettlement, where they are 
basically resettled.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. I have to object. I have no objection to having more time 
after the vote, but I object before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes 
prior to the cloture vote on the Harris nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. I will consider objecting, but I would far prefer to 
amend the unanimous consent request so that I get the additional minute 
I was just denied and the Senator from Maryland gets her time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, my unanimous consent request was for me to 
finish my remarks in 1 minute and then have the Senator----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending unanimous consent request is from 
the Senator from Maryland.
  Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I therefore call for the regular order. 
I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be included in the 
Record, to yield back whatever time we have, and that we move 
expeditiously to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                           Harris Nomination

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am so proud to be here today in 
support of the nomination of Pamela Harris--a brilliant litigator, 
professor, and public servant--to serve on the Fourth Circuit.
  Senator Cardin and I recommended Ms. Harris to President Obama with 
the utmost confidence in her abilities, talent, and competence for the 
job. The ABA agreed--they gave her their highest rating of unanimously 
well-qualified.
  I thank Senator Reid for being so prompt in scheduling this vote. I 
also thank Senator Leahy for his expeditious movement of her nomination 
through the Judiciary Committee.
  I have had the opportunity to recommend several judicial nominees for 
our district and appellate courts. I take my ``advise and consent'' 
responsibilities very seriously. When I consider nominees for the 
Federal bench, I have four criteria: absolute integrity; judicial 
competence and temperament; a commitment to core constitutional 
principles; and a history of civic engagement in Maryland. I expect our 
recommendations to not only meet these criteria but to exceed them, as 
Ms. Harris surely does. She has dedicated her career to the rule of 
law, achieving equal justice under the law and the perfection of 
appellate advocacy. She is truly an outstanding nominee.
  Ms. Harris's career spans academia, private practice, and government. 
But

[[Page 12974]]

there has always been a common thread of public service. We are proud 
to say that she is ``home-grown''--although born in Connecticut, she 
has called Maryland home since she was a child, eventually graduating 
from Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, MD. She went on to Yale 
where she received her bachelor's degree summa cum laude as well as her 
law degree. After completing a clerkship on the D.C. Circuit, Ms. 
Harris went on to clerk for Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court. She 
has served at the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel and at 
the Office of Legal Policy under two different administrations. She 
also spent 10 years appearing regularly before the Supreme Court while 
counsel and then partner at O'Melveny & Myers, taking on some of the 
most complex issues of our time.
  Ms. Harris also has a distinguished career in academia as a Professor 
at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, co-director of the 
Harvard Appellate Practice Clinic, and later, at Georgetown, where she 
is today. At Georgetown she serves as executive director of the Supreme 
Court Institute, preparing litigants--first come, first served--and 
regardless of their position--for arguments before the Court. But Ms. 
Harris remained connected to Maryland, whether it was a pro bono 
appellate clinic at O'Melveny to work with Maryland's public defender 
or an amicus brief in major litigation involving Montgomery County 
Public Schools.
  Ms. Harris has a commitment to the legal profession that is 
unmatched. It shows in the students that she has taught, the litigants 
that she has prepared, the briefs that she has written, and the pro 
bono service that she has rendered. She has risen to the highest levels 
of her education and career. Yet she has seen people in her life 
confront adversity and she knows the impact that the law has on 
people's daily lives. I believe it is this which contributes to her 
very humble nature. She believes that the Court is a place for justice 
and not a stepping stone. Ms. Harris continues to give back to the 
community, serving on the board of trustees at her children's school, 
and also to legal scholarship, as a member of the board of directors 
for the American Constitution Society and the Constitutional 
Accountability Center.
  So I am so honored to be here today to support her nomination. I ask 
that you all join me in doing the same. It is critical that we have 
judges with commitment to public service, civic engagement, and the 
rule of law. And we have that in none other than Pamela Harris.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I would just like to again ask unanimous 
consent to be recognized for 1 additional minute following the Senator 
from Maryland being recognized for 4 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired.
  The question occurs on agreeing to the motion to proceed to S. 2569.
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________