A bill to provide for the expedited processing of unaccompanied alien children illegally entering the United States, and for other purposes.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, this is a very important week for Americans with disabilities. Just a few hours ago, at the White House, the President signed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act which includes a reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act. This will ensure that young people with disabilities have the skills and experiences to enter into competitive integrated work settings and will be ready to be economically self-sufficient--one of the key goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This bill received extraordinary bipartisan support from an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans. The final vote in the House was 415 to 6 and the final vote in the Senate was 95 to 3. This is a great testament to the bipartisan support in Congress for advancing the rights and opportunities of people with disabilities in the United States.

Also this week, on Saturday, July 26, we will celebrate the 24th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act by then-President George Herbert Walker Bush. As the chief Senate sponsor of that law in 1990, I worked closely with Senate and House colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance the bill. Again, we couldn't have succeeded without the strong and active support of a Republican President, George H.W. Bush, and key members of his cabinet.

When we passed the ADA, as it is known, 24 years ago, the vote was overwhelmingly bipartisan. In the Senate, we passed it by a vote of 91 to 6, and in the House it was 403 to 20. So not only were the votes bipartisan, the arduous work of crafting the ADA and getting it to that point was also bipartisan. I worked shoulder to shoulder with indispensable partners, including Boyden Gray, President Bush's White House Counsel; Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United States at that time; and here in the Senate Senator Bob Dole, who was so key in helping us to move this legislation forward at that time.

Senator Dole was instrumental. In fact, I always remind my colleagues the first speech Senator Dole ever gave on the Senate floor when he was elected to the Senate--his maiden speech--was on that topic, the topic of people with disabilities and their rights and how there should be more opportunity for people with disabilities. It was a great speech.

I think it is also known that today is Senator Dole's birthday. So I, and I am sure my colleagues will join with me, am wishing Senator Dole a very happy birthday today and asking to recommit ourselves, as he did at that time, to work in a bipartisan fashion to make sure people with disabilities not only in this country but around the world have more opportunities to live a full and meaningful life. So happy birthday, Bob Dole. We worked together for a long time on these issues.

Today is another interesting day. Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on a bipartisan vote of 12 to 6, passed out of the committee the United Nations treaty on disabilities, formally known as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. A major part of my remarks today is about the United Nations treaty, now known as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities--or the shorthand version is CRPD as it is known here and globally.

For most of our recent history, support for disability rights, as I have just mentioned, has been across the political spectrum. But now, as the full Senate looks ahead to the consideration of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, we are beginning to see an unfortunate erosion of the bipartisan support for disability policy.

Now, again, I wish to make clear that the Foreign Relations Committee reported the bill out this morning on a 12-to-6 vote. It was bipartisan. A couple things are in order: first, a recap of the history; and secondly, a very profound thank you to Senator Bob Menendez, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, for his tremendous leadership in crafting and getting this bill through this Congress in his committee. I have spoken with Senator Menendez many times about this issue. He has been dogged in his pursuit of getting a bill and getting it through the committee and to the Senate floor. And it hasn't been easy, quite frankly. Again, I will recap a little bit of that history for the benefit of my fellow Senators who may not follow this as closely as I follow it.

Again, this convention came through the committee this morning. It is now awaiting a 24-hour layover before it can go on the executive calendar. As I said, there has been some erosion in the bipartisan support for disability policy, but it is limited because I think most Republicans and Democrats agree there is no objective reason for partisan discord when it comes to disability rights. Senator John McCain is a tremendous supporter of disability rights and was with us when we passed the ADA in 1990 and was, again, a strong supporter at that time. He has been a strong supporter of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and other legislation dealing with disability rights, including disability rights amendments we passed in 2008. So Senator McCain has long been a strong supporter of enhancing and improving the rights of people with disabilities to have a full and meaningful life--to be able to have the opportunity to go to school, to learn, be educated, and to have people work and to live independently.

So here is what Senator McCain said this morning in support of this disability treaty. He said: ``Ratifying this treaty affirms our leadership on disability rights and shows the rest of the world our leadership commitment continues.''

Senator Mark Kirk is not a member of the committee but he said this about the disability treaty:

I want to say as a recently disabled American . . . how

important it is to adopt this Convention . . . Too often we

have a problem of thinking of our veterans as victims. They

are victors. . . . This convention allows people to become

victors instead of victims.

And again, one of the true giants of the Senate, former Senator Bob Dole, who, as I mentioned, celebrates a birthday today--had this to say about this disability treaty:

U.S. ratification of the CRPD will increase the ability of

the United States to improve physical, technological, and

communication access in other countries, thereby helping to

ensure that Americans--particularly, many thousands of

disabled American veterans--have equal opportunities to live,

work, and travel abroad.

The fact is this treaty is supported by many respected, thoughtful, conservative Republican leaders. I can cite many more statements from colleagues and other Republicans. The simple truth is that Republican leaders who care deeply about our Nation's sovereignty are equally impassioned in their support of this disability treaty.

So the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities does not need to be and should not be a partisan issue, despite the misguided efforts of

some to make it so. It is deeply unfortunate that narrowly focused opposition from groups with special interests that are far afield of the bipartisan consensus in support of disability rights have tried to drag this treaty into partisan warfare. These groups have spread fear about some imaginary, hypothetical, unreal loss of U.S. sovereignty. They try to scare parents into thinking they are going to lose control of the education of their children or that they won't be able to home school their children or they have raised the issue of abortion, which has nothing whatsoever to do with this treaty. None of these things are relevant to or are embedded in the treaty.

What we are seeing here is an action by some narrow special interest groups to advance their intentions by making utterly unfounded claims about the disability treaty.

So, again, this is rhetoric we should not be listening to. We should listen to the voices of the better angels of our nature. This is an important convention, an important treaty.

Even as recently as this morning I heard that in the Foreign Relations Committee someone raised the issue of sovereignty. Well, we passed a lot of treaties here in the past--lots of treaties over the lifetime of our Nation. Are we less sovereign today than we were 10 years ago? Are we less sovereign than we were 30, 50, 100 years ago? I would have to have someone prove to me how we have lost our sovereignty. We haven't--not at all. And in every treaty that we have signed in the past, there is always a clause in the reservations, understandings, and declarations that attaches to the resolution we pass here on the treaty. There is always one clause that is attached and I will read it to my colleagues. It says:

Supremacy of Constitution. Nothing in the Convention

requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the

United States of America that is prohibited by the

Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the

United States.

That is it. That goes on every treaty we sign. It says, look, we are signing the treaty, but our Constitution is supreme.

Continuing:

Nothing in this treaty requires or authorizes any action by

the United States prohibited by the Constitution as

interpreted by the United States of America.

Who interprets the Constitution? The Supreme Court. But then we can always pass amendments and change it--by the United States of America.

So we have offered that this is the same language we ought to attach to this convention--the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Someone said: We don't know what the United Nations is going to do in the future. We don't know how they might want to change it.

It makes no difference. It makes no difference what the U.N. does in the future. Our Constitution is still supreme, and this is the clause we put on there to say so. We do it on every treaty.

We just passed a treaty here in 1999 that I was involved in--a treaty on the convention on the worst forms of child labor. It has that clause in it. We didn't give up any of our sovereignty by agreeing to that convention on child labor, and we won't give up any of our sovereignty here. So for anyone who is saying they are concerned about our sovereignty on this convention, we can put that clause in, as we have with every other treaty.

There are some Senators here who were here when we passed that treaty in 1999, and they didn't say anything about sovereignty or that they were concerned about sovereignty. But now some are saying they are concerned about sovereignty when it deals with people with disabilities. Why? Why? Why?

In 1999 we passed a convention dealing with the worst forms of child labor--a good treaty, by the way. No one here raised the issue of sovereignty. Today--what, 15 years later--we have a Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and a number of people say: Oh, no, we are worried about sovereignty.

Someone please explain this to me. It is not about sovereignty. Anyone who is hiding behind that issue does not want to vote for this treaty for some other reason, but it cannot be the reason of sovereignty.

Now, again, we have to look a little bit at the history of this treaty. The drafters of the convention modeled it after the Americans with Disabilities Act. In fact, if you read it, and you look at the ADA, we informed the United Nations--and I talked to people who have been involved in this in the U.N.--we, our laws, informed the U.N. as to what they ought to do in drafting this convention. Why shouldn't we then be a part of it, take the expertise we have and apply it globally?

So it was drafted. It was sent out to the nations for their adoption. It was sent to our President. Under our system, the President sends this proposed treaty out to all of the Departments of the executive branch, including the Office of Management and Budget to see what budget impact it will have, and their charge is to see what laws do we have to change in order to comply with this treaty or what budget impact does it have.

Well, it takes about a year to get this through all the Departments and agencies. But then, when it came back to the President, guess what: We do not have to change one law--not one--to conform to this treaty because the treaty is based on, basically, the Americans with Disabilities Act. So we do not have to change any laws. And, secondly, there is no budget impact.

So then the President sent it down to the Senate for ratification under our Constitution. Then Senator Kerry, who was the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, had hearings. In fact, the two leadoff witnesses were Senator John McCain and me. Well, then there were other witnesses from the business community, from the disability community-- from all over.

The treaty was reported out of the committee, I believe, in July of 2012. We were not able to get it on the floor until December 2012. Thirty-eight Republican Senators had signed a letter saying we should not vote on a treaty--on a treaty--in a lameduck session. Then there were some other things that came up about home schooling and stuff like that.

To make a long story short, when we brought it on the floor, and we thought we had the votes, we fell six votes short. We had 61 votes. We needed 67. We fell six votes short. A lot of Senators told me at that time we should not be voting on this in a lameduck session. In fact, if you check the Record, you will see remarks made by a lot of Members on the Republican side saying we should not vote on this in a lameduck session.

Well, OK. That Congress dies. We now have a new Congress starting in 2013. Then Chairman Kerry becomes Secretary of State and our new chairman is Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey. So we started working to bring it back. Now again, it all has to come right back from the White House. It has to go back through the hurdles. It has to go back to the committee.

I talked a couple times with the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and he wanted to have some more hearings. So I talked to Senator Menendez about it. Senator Menendez agreed, and he held more hearings on it in this Congress--in this Congress--and a lot of voices were heard. A lot of people testified on it.

Then it has to work its way through the committee. The committee has been very busy on a lot of things, but Senator Menendez never gave up, and so this morning, as I stated earlier, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported out the treaty. I am so grateful to Senator Menendez for not giving up, for being dogged in providing that kind of leadership to get this treaty through. So now it is ready for us to bring up here.

Well, guess what. We are not in a lameduck session, so that excuse has gone by the wayside. And we have answered, I believe, the questions on sovereignty and other issues. Now we have to look at who supports this.

Well, I know some people were kind of nervous about the treaty and voting for it because they were concerned, quite frankly, for their political life. I guess some people in the tea party were making this sort of a litmus test, which I thought was kind of interesting. Why? Why this, of all things?

So what we did was we wanted to see how broad the support was out there. It is immense. The support for this treaty cuts across all lines. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce--Tom Donohue--are strong supporters of it,

wrote a very strong letter and has been contacting Senators about the Chamber of Commerce's support for this treaty.

I spoke a couple months ago with former Governor John Engler, who is now the head of the Business Roundtable, and informed him about it. He said they would look at it, they would consider it. He took it to his Business Roundtable about a little over a month ago, I believe, if I am not mistaken, and the Business Roundtable wrote a very strong letter of support.

So two of the leading business groups in America are supporting this strongly. Every veterans group supports it. The American Legion, the VFW, the PVA--you name it--the Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans all support this. Every major religious group supports it. All the disability groups support it.

So what are we afraid of? Some people say, well, they are concerned about this sovereignty issue again. Are you telling me that former President George H.W. Bush is not concerned about our sovereignty? Are you telling me that former President George W. Bush is not concerned about our sovereignty? Are you trying to tell me that the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable are not concerned about our sovereignty or that Tom Ridge, former Governor of Pennsylvania, the first Director of Homeland Security, who strongly supports this treaty--are you telling me he does not care about our sovereignty?

Are there just a few people on this side of the aisle who know what sovereignty means? Of course not. Former President George H.W. Bush, former President George W. Bush, former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, Boyden Gray, former counsel of the President--Steve Bartlett, former Congressman, a Republican from Dallas, a mayor of Dallas, came back and ran the Financial Services Roundtable, is a strong supporter--strong supporter--of this. Are you telling me Steve does not care about our sovereignty? I would like you to tell Steve that. He cares very much about our sovereignty. That is why it is a phony issue--a fraudulent phony issue.

We have it within our power now to join the rest of the world. I think 148 nations--148 countries--have now signed this.

I was recently in China, and I was meeting with disability groups there. China signed the convention. I met with some disability groups that are not governmental, NGOs, which is interesting. This is now springing up in China.

I also met with a person who is the head of the federation of disability groups in China. Madam Zhang, Haidi Zhang, is a very prominent woman in China, known all over the country because she is a famous author. She now heads this federation. They all told me they want the United States to be a part of this because it would strengthen them in working to change in their country, to make their country better and more supportive of disability rights.

I questioned that because some people said to me here: Well, we do not need to join this treaty. We can work with countries one-on-one. You are going to work with 100 countries one-on-one? I do not think we have the personnel to do that.

But here is what someone said to me who brought it home to me. They said: Look, if you come to our country and you want to discuss disability policy from the standpoint of your laws--the Americans with Disabilities Act--and we are a part of the CRPD, then we are talking two different languages. But if you are a part of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, we speak the same language. Then we can start talking about how we work together to enhance the rights and opportunities of people with disabilities, not just in China but in Africa.

Earlier this year, 21 countries met in Malawi on this issue. I was asked to come to speak. I could not because I was here in the Senate. They desperately want the Americans--us--to be a part of this, to lend our expertise, our leadership--not as a single country but with other countries--to, again, advance the cause of the rights of people with disabilities in accommodations, accessibility.

This spring I was in Colombia--Cartagena--on a trip with other Senators, Congressmen, and I remember our colleague Senator Johnson from South Dakota and his wife were there. I remember Mrs. Johnson-- Barbara--saying: Boy, I can't wait to get back to the United States because it is hard for Tim using his wheelchair to get around anywhere.

This is what I mean. We have to start working with these other countries to help them change their systems, their accessibility.

I have talked to many veterans who would like to travel with their families or maybe even work overseas. They cannot do it. They are not accessible. I have talked to students who got a Fulbright scholarship or one of those things to go to another country, but since they were disabled, they could not take advantage of it because there were not accessible places for them to live or to get around.

So if we are proud--and we should be--proud of the work we have done as a nation, bipartisanly--there has never been a partisan hint to anything we have ever done with disability policy in this country. So if we are proud of what we have done in this country to enhance the well-being of people with disabilities, to make sure they have a full and meaningful life, that they contribute to the best of their ability, to get them out of institutions, living in the community, working in jobs--not subminimum-wage, dead-end jobs, but I mean real jobs; and we have come a long way--so if we are proud of it, why shouldn't we be proud enough to join with the rest of the world in saying: Let's work together. Let's work together to provide in other countries that same kind of support and accessibility for people with disabilities?

It is not going to happen overnight. I understand that. Sometimes these things take a long time. This weekend will be the 24th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

As I travel around, one thing that always catches my eye--when I see new buildings, new housing, and stuff--is it accessible? I just saw some this weekend--new housing, multifamily housing--not accessible. Well, someone said to me: Well, you know, maybe people with disabilities can't live here, but there are plenty of other places. I said: Well, that is not the point. What if I want to live there and I want to invite my nephew who is a paraplegic to come visit me and have dinner? He can't even get in the door. Oh, well, that kind of puts a different color on it. I cannot even associate with people with disabilities because they cannot even come over to my house.

So while we have come a long way, we have things we have to do. But we have to, again, be a part of this global effort to advance the cause of people with disabilities. Other countries are starting to catch on. They are starting to do things--some countries more than others. This treaty, and our joining it, means that we join with them in common effort--in common effort--to make sure people with disabilities are not shunted aside any longer.

I think it is beneath us as Senators, beneath us as a nation, to somehow not accede to this treaty because of phony issues such as sovereignty.

We can take care of that, as we have in other treaties. Or homeschooling or abortion. We can take care of that. We can say our laws are supreme. If someone says, ``Well, the U.N. might change it in the future,'' so what? It does not make any difference what they change. It does not affect our sovereignty whatsoever. So I think it is beneath us if we do not adopt this treaty, if we do not become a part of this global effort.

Ronald Reagan referred to America as the ``shining city on a hill.'' Well, I think it is. Nowhere is America more of a shining city on a hill than in how we treat our citizens with disabilities. We have the gold standard. Now it is time to empower us to work throughout the world, to assist countries as they implement the treaty founded on the rights and principles embedded in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

It is time for us to reassert our global leadership in disability policy. So let's rise above partnership. Let's rise above some unknown fear that something might happen in the future. Let's rise above those narrow interests that say ``Well, we will lose our sovereignty'' or something like that or all of those other phony issues that are coming up because they want to undermine the treaty. We can rise above

that, just as we have done many times in the past, just as we did in 1999 when we became a part of a convention on the worst forms of child labor. We put reservations and we put understandings and declarations in that convention, by the way. So we spelled out how we were adapting that to our own Nation. We can do the same with this one too.

I have been told--I do not know if this is true--I have been told that some say: Well, it does not make any difference what we put in there; there are some people who will not vote for it, period.

Well, are those the same people who would not vote for the Americans With Disabilities Act if we were to bring it to the floor today? Would they say: No, we should not change our policies that people with disabilities had to be institutionalized; that they do not deserve to work in the workplace; that they do not deserve the freedom to travel on buses that are accessible and trains that are accessible or subways that are accessible; that we do not need curb cuts and we do not need widened doors. No, we do not need to do any of that stuff.

Would that be what they would say today if the Americans with Disabilities Act were on the floor? Any Senator who says: I like the Americans with Disabilities Act, and I think it has done a good thing for our country--anyone who says that ought to be voting for this treaty. That is what we intend. That is what we would do--reject that kind of fear and be a part of this global effort.

Again, I commend Senator Menendez for his great leadership on this issue. I am hopeful that before we leave here next week, we might reach a time agreement with the other side to have a meaningful debate, have amendments. There is nothing wrong with having some amendments on this if people have amendments that are germane to the treaty. Let's debate those in a timely fashion and then have a vote on it. We need to do this. We need to do this to reassert America's leadership worldwide on disability policy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make my statement.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the unique and essential role of the Senate in our constitutional system of government. In doing so, I am of course addressing the American people whom we all serve, but my message today is intended especially for my colleagues in this body.

I had the honor of serving here for more than three decades with one of my closest and dearest friends, the late Ted Kennedy. Our friendship inevitably invited others to describe us as the Senate's odd couple given the vast differences in our backgrounds and our outlooks and because of the many fights we had on the floor as well as the many successes we had together. But my friendship with Teddy flourished, as did our legislative partnerships. Even with polar-opposite political philosophies, we were able to find significant areas of mutual agreement, and we both maintained a great affection for the Senate--an institution to which we had each devoted most of our adult lives.

Toward the end of his life, as Teddy suffered through the terrible affliction that eventually took him from us, he watched his beloved Senate with growing concern. He observed a growing dysfunction beginning to overcome this body. He believed this institution, which he loved so dearly, was breaking down. The man rightly described as the liberal lion of the Senate concluded that this body was no longer working as it must.

My friend Teddy was right, and the Senate has only gotten worse since he diagnosed its ills several years ago. The Senate is more dysfunctional today than at any other point during my nearly four decades as a Member of this body.

I am not alone in this assessment. Former colleagues from both political parties--from Chris Dodd to Olympia Snowe--have spoken out with great passion about the breakdown of the Senate as an institution. It would be hard to find a current Member of this body who, in moments of honest reflection, did not feel as if the Senate is in many respects broken.

Most importantly, the American public has lost faith in this body and largely views the Senate as an institution characterized by dysfunction. To say that today Congress is held in low esteem is an understatement. Our approval rating ranges from the teens to the single digits. One survey found that the public has a higher opinion of

brussel sprouts, root canals, and used car salesmen than of Congress. In many respects, this popular assessment is justified. Throughout my 38 years of service in this body, I have never seen it this bad.

For the sake of our country and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we must restore order and function to the Senate so we can fulfill our constitutional responsibilities and once again conduct the people's business.

In reflecting on the past four decades in the Senate, I have come to realize that I possess an increasingly unique perspective. I have been in the majority for a total of 16 years and in the minority for a total of 22 years. I have served in this body with eight different majority leaders, four Republicans and four Democrats. By contrast, the majority of my colleagues--56, to be precise--have served in the Senate only during the tenure of the current majority leader. Nearly as many have served alongside only the current President. These numbers will increase in the coming months with the retirement of six of our senior colleagues and the potential electoral defeat of others.

To my colleagues who as a matter of firsthand experience don't know anything different, let me say this: The Senate has not always been as dysfunctional as it is today. Quite the opposite. Until recently, this Chamber often lived up to its reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body. We regularly worked together in an orderly and constructive fashion to advance the common good, and we routinely defended our institutional prerogatives against executive encroachment. Unfortunately, none of that is true of the Senate today.

I intend to speak in greater detail later this week about what I believe ails the Senate and how we can restore the health and dignity of this venerable institution. But to understand where we have come from and just how far we have strayed, we must begin at the beginning.

Remarking on the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, James Madison wisely observed that in determining the form the Senate should take, it was necessary to consider the purposes it would serve. The Framers were clear about these objectives. The Senate was to serve as a necessary fence against what they described as the fickleness and passion that drives popular pressure for hasty and ill-considered lawmaking--what Edward Randolph called ``the turbulence and follies of democracy.'' In fulfilling this purpose, the Senate was to be a place of thoughtful deliberation, an assembly dedicated to careful scrutiny, and a body with great concern for the sovereign States and the individual liberties of all Americans. These were to be the purpose of the Senate. Its institutional design followed directly from these principles.

The relatively small membership of the Senate would amplify the importance of each individual Senator as opposed to Chamber leaders or large voting blocs. Unlike in the House of Representatives, where robust participation by individual Members would be impossibly cumbersome, in this body each Senator could become intimately involved in all aspects of the Chamber's deliberation and debate. Longer terms would allow Senators to resist initially popular but ultimately unwise legislation and allow for vindication of this more measured approach prior to facing reelection. Staggered terms would create a continuing body that could temper unwieldy swings of public passion. Statewide constituencies would require appealing to a broader set of interests than more narrow and homogenous House districts.

In addition, the Senate's authority to determine its own rules would allow the gradual development of traditions and precedents unique to this body and essential to its ends. Building upon the Constitution's defining institutional contours, these historic rules and traditions have shaped the Senate into a body that Gladstone called ``the most remarkable of all of the inventions of modern politics.''

The Senate's most characteristic operating procedure became unanimous consent, which requires the agreement of not just a majority or even a supermajority but of all Senators.

As Senate Parliamentarian emeritus Robert Dove testified before the Rules Committee in April of 2010, the two key features that have come to define to Senate through its history are ``the right of its members to unlimited debate and the right to offer amendments practically without limit.'' With these historic rules and defining modes of operation--unlimited debate and amendments--the Senate rightfully earned the title of the world's greatest deliberative body.

In his 1897 farewell address, the first Adlai Stevenson, then Vice President, captured the essence of the Senate:

In this Chamber alone are preserved without restraint two

essentials of wise legislation and good government: the right

of amendment and of debate. Great evils often result from

hasty legislation; [but] rarely from the delay which follows

full discussion and deliberation.

Stevenson went on to locate in the Senate's time-honored rules and traditions the very foundation of our Republic:

The historic Senate--preserving the unrestricted right of

amendment and debate, maintaining intact the time-honored

parliamentary methods and amenities which unfailingly secure

action after deliberation--possesses in our scheme of

government a value which cannot be measured by words.

In keeping with its institutional design and longstanding traditions throughout most of its history, the Senate has engaged in robust discussion and meaningful debate rather than being dominated by partisan grandstanding and cheap political theater; the Senate has sought to chart a path toward the common good rather than simply messaging to particular interests or serving narrow constituencies; the Senate has acted to cultivate common cause and has enabled constructive compromises and accommodations to advance national priorities even during times of great ideological division; and throughout the Senate's history, individual Members have worked to develop meaningful and enduring partnerships with colleagues on both sides of the aisle rather than marching lockstep with their respective parties and simply heightening the divisions in society.

This institution has served the Nation well when adhering to its enduring principles and characteristic practices. Indeed, for most of the last four decades, as I have witnessed firsthand, the Senate's robust deliberation and open amendment process has facilitated and enabled some of the greatest legislative achievements of the modern era.

One of the most historic of such debates in which I took part occurred in my fifth year as a Senator. President Reagan took office in 1981 facing enormous challenges--stagflation, out-of-control spending, a crushing tax burden, and an underfunded military. His first legislative priority was to cut marginal tax rates, restrain Federal spending, and bolster our national defense. As part of the vanguard of the Reagan revolution in the Senate, I steadfastly supported these policies and campaigned tirelessly to enact these landmark reforms.

In the Democrat-controlled House, the drama unfolded predictably between party leadership and various voting blocs, with conservative Democrats eventually joining Republicans to support what became the Gramm-Latta budget. But in the Republican-majority Senate, while debate was equally passionate, our deliberation was of a very different sort. We discussed many of the legislative provisions at length and voted on dozens of amendments from Senators of both parties covering a wide range of subjects. Many were tough votes on heart-wrenching issues-- from child nutrition to cost-of-living adjustments for seniors--but we took those tough votes and ultimately made the difficult choices necessary to usher in unprecedented economic growth.

By allowing numerous votes on minority amendments, Democrats received the hearing they deserved on the issues about which they cared most, and having had the opportunity to fight for their causes, many of these Senators rightly felt they had done everything possible to improve the underlying bill. So when it came to final passage, the Senate's budget passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 88 to 10.

Given the nature of the reforms, that margin was striking. It demonstrates that the opportunity for extended deliberation and an open amendment process tends to yield a final product that can win broad support by giving Members confidence that the ultimate

result represents the considered judgment of the whole Senate.

From the perspective of committed conservatives such as President Reagan and myself, the final amended Senate bill was far from ideal. In the end, while we won support for the tax cuts that spurred growth and for the defense buildup that helped win the Cold War, we could not convince Congress to make meaningful cuts to Federal spending or even to restrain the growth of Federal spending. But to have opposed the final package because it wasn't perfect, because it only achieved some of our goals, would have been madness. Absent passage of the final bill's reforms, the central accomplishments of the Reagan years would never have come to fruition.

In reflecting on how the Senate can and should work, let me also commend the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I am struck by the similarities between the 1996 election and the 2012 election when voters reelected a Democrat to the White House and a Republican majority to the House. Back then, both sides understood the voters' mandate to seek areas of agreement and develop consensus wherever possible--in short, to set aside partisanship and work together for the common good on the critical issues of the day.

Republicans wanted significant tax cuts and spending controls that many Democrats opposed. Democrats--led by my friend Senator Kennedy-- had for years sought an expansion of health care to uninsured children who neither qualified for Medicaid nor had families who could afford health coverage. The debate that transpired over these measures seems almost foreign in today's Senate. Rather than being presented with a final bill as a fait accompli, we had a truly deliberative committee process, a meaningful floor debate, and the opportunity to vote on numerous amendments.

Ted Kennedy and I used the opportunity of an open process to make a key step toward consensus. Teddy was wise enough to realize that I shared his desire to provide health care for uninsured kids who were in need, and I recognized that he was open to innovative means of delivering that care and did not insist on an inflexible, big government bureaucracy to control it. Together, we crafted an amendment that created the State Children's Health Insurance Program--fully paid for, with flexible means of delivery and true State authority over the program. SCHIP is not beloved by ideological purists, especially on the right. But I believe its approach is fully compatible with my conservative principles and a model for a basic, efficient social safety net run by the States.

More importantly, our partnership on this issue demonstrates how the Senate ought to work. This Chamber provides a unique environment--its constructive character, its respect for individual Senators' participation in the legislative process, its forum for thoughtful deliberation, and its open amendment process. Without these, we could never have passed SCHIP and the larger 1997 budget--that was a budget compromise--of which it was a part.

The same is true of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which has since served to safeguard fundamental individual liberties, and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which is arguably the most important law enforcement measure of the last half century, and so many other landmark accomplishments of the Senate during my time here.

I am proud to have played a role in shaping each of these laws--as part of a constructive legislative process that was possible only as a direct result of the Senate's longstanding rules and traditions. Without this body's characteristic structure and mode of operation, which facilitates meaningful deliberation and ultimate cooperation between diverse viewpoints, such legislative achievements could never have occurred.

Throughout its history, the Senate has advanced the common good--not simply through refining public opinion and translating it into well- considered legislation but also because this body has defended its institutional prerogatives and essential role in our system of constitutional government.

Senators of both political parties have often stood up to executive encroachment--not for partisan gain or political grandstanding but in defense of Congress as a coordinate and coequal branch of government with its own essential authorities and responsibilities.

Implicit in the constitutional design of separating the Federal Government's powers is the idea that each branch would have the incentive and authority to resist encroachments from the other branches, ensuring that unfettered power is not concentrated in any one set of hands.

The Founders recognized this as indispensable to preserving the individual liberty of all citizens. For as Madison counseled in Federalist 51: ``[T]he greatest security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.''

Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia embodied this institutional ideal as much as anyone with whom I have served. Although he helped lead this body for more than a half century and left us just 4 short years ago, I was surprised and dismayed to learn that a full third of current Members never served alongside him.

Senator Byrd fiercely defended this body's prerogatives and independence against the encroachments of the executive branch. And he neither censored his criticisms nor weakened his defenses based on the President's political party. Even in his twilight years, when President Obama took office with extraordinarily high approval ratings, Senator Byrd was willing to hold the new President's feet to the fire to defend the Senate's right to give advice and consent to nominees.

He publicly chastised the new White House for its excessive reliance on czars, observing that unconfirmed policy chieftains ``can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.''

In addition to defending the Senate against executive encroachments, Senator Byrd was a stalwart defender of the Senate's most characteristic and historic features. He regularly spoke to newly elected Senators, admonishing each of us before we even took office to learn about the body to which we had been elected and in which we would serve. Senator Byrd was as good as anyone I have ever known at explaining the direct connection between the design of the Senate and the liberty that all Americans cherish.

In November 1996, for example, when speaking to the incoming freshman Senators, he stressed the two most critical and distinguishing features of the Senate's operation. Like so many other students of the Senate, he steadfastly maintained that ``as long as the Senate retains the power to amend and the power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will remain secure.'' That was Robert C. Byrd, one of the leading Democrats of all time. Throughout his time in this body, Senator Byrd never abandoned this message. He stood up for the Senate's defining characteristics, no matter which party was in the majority and no matter who occupied the Oval Office. He even took on his own President from time to time.

A few months before his death in 2010, he wrote to his colleagues identifying the right to amend and the right to debate as ``essential to the protection of the liberties of a free people.''

We need a renewed dedication to the special role of the Senate and its institutional prerogatives that Senator Byrd exemplified so well. He was right to counsel incoming colleagues to ``study the Senate in its institutional context, because that is the best way to understand your personal role as a United States Senator . . . [Y]ou must find the time to reflect, to study, to read, and, especially, to understand the absolutely critically important institutional role of the Senate.''

Many of my colleagues--even those with whom I rarely agree--have the potential to be great Senators and statesmen: worthy stewards of this institution, zealous guardians of its prerogatives, and true defenders of its role in our constitutional system of government.

But, sadly, whether blinded by partisan loyalty to the President or too inexperienced to understand the Senate

from any other perspective than having a like-minded Senate majority and President, too many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have allowed--even facilitated--the breakdown of the Senate's vital institutions and role.

From our right to debate and amend through regular order, to our role giving advice and consent to the President's nominees, the Senate has emasculated itself. By doing so, we only abandon our responsibilities, discard our authorities, and lay ourselves prostrate before a politically destructive President.

It is past time to restore the Senate's rightful place in our constitutional order. I urge my colleagues--both Democrats and Republicans--to join me, to stand and fight for the greatness of this body and start standing for the rights and the powers of the legislative branch. That is what we are here to do, in addition to enacting good laws. But you cannot enact really great laws without full and fair debate, without full and fair right to amendments. This is a great body, but it has gone downhill a long way over the last number of years. No President deserves total fealty by this body or by his or her party Members in this body.

All I can say is, it is time for us to start acting like the Senate. It is time for us to have full and fair debate. It is time for us to have open amendments. And that goes for Democrats and Republicans.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I was listening to my colleague from Illinois talking about the need for us to have economic patriotism and to keep people from moving jobs offshore.

I couldn't agree more, but the way to do it is to fix a broken Tax Code. It is frustrating to me that we have the President of the United States, we have Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who have talked and talked and talked about the fact that we need to lower our tax rate and come up with a more competitive international tax system, and yet we do nothing about it. Instead, we are for these one-off political debates that we are going to have on the floor this week, apparently, that unfortunately aren't going to make any difference to the workers in America who are seeing this erosion of their wages, of their benefits, and often of their jobs because Washington is abdicating its responsibility. Washington is not doing what it has to do in order to meet its fiduciary responsibilities.

There is a lot of talk about that with these corporations. Our responsibility is to the people--to have the right tax system in place so that people can succeed so that if they work hard and play by the rules, the Tax Code is actually going to reward them and American companies can be competitive. That is simply not what is happening now. We need to do a lot of things too, such as to be sure we have a regulatory system that works, to have an international trading system that works for the workers of America, and to be sure we deal with our debt, deficit, and other issues.

But because the discussion of taxes is on the floor this week, I thought it would be helpful to talk just generally about where we are. We had a hearing today in the Finance Committee on this topic. We had experts in from across the spectrum. Although they disagreed on some of the specifics about what we ought to do today, they all agreed with one thing, which is that our Tax Code is broken. It is not working.

By the way, the Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan group that advises us on the economic impact of things, has looked at the Tax Code and said if you did deal with our high tax rates in this country and improved the corporate code, who benefits? It is the workers, and it is in terms of higher wages, better benefits, a job. This Congress has let the American people down, and it is time for us to deal with this issue and to deal with it in a way that can be nonpartisan.

We have, again, both sides of the aisle agreeing this is broken, and yet we can't seem to find that common ground to fix it. I would suggest there is common ground out there if we just get off the politics and start working on how we actually help people to be able to get ahead.

The issue that has come to the attention of all of us in Congress in the past few months the most is companies that are--what they call-- inverting. These inversions are when a company in the United States buys a company overseas, merges with it, and then it becomes an overseas company. Often these companies they are buying are smaller than the U.S. company, and they become a foreign company because they are trying to get as far away from our Tax Code as they can. They want to become domiciled--they want to have their headquarters--in a foreign country because that country has a better Tax Code for a corporation to be able to succeed.

Again, there have been discussions on the floor recently about fiduciary responsibility. People do, if you are in corporate America, have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. So they are making these decisions, and Washington sits by the sidelines and lets it happen.

I think the answer is to reform the Tax Code. I think we know what we have to do. I think we have to get busy on it.

Last week we saw another example of this. It was a Chicago drug company called AbbVie. Their bid to acquire a company called Shire looks like it is going to go through, and their combined company is going to move its tax headquarters to the UK, to England. This is hardly the first company to do this, and it won't be the last unless we change the code.

In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, 35 companies have inverted in the past 5 years alone. I think the United States is still the best place to do business.

Despite our bad Tax Code, we have the most productive workforce; we have the best infrastructure; we have the rule of law; we have some great research institutions; we have a lot going for us; and we can compete and attract business from around the world.

So why are these companies going to England? Why are they going to the UK? Well, it turns out they have a tax code that was designed for this century, this decade--unlike here in America, where our international Tax Code was actually developed back in the 1960s. Things were a lot different then.

Our Tax Code itself and the rates of taxation were established in 1986. That is 25 years ago. The international system back to the 1960s, the rate we paid back to 1986--in 1986, ``Top Gun'' was the top at the box office. People still communicated by telegraph. The Mets were World Series champions. Pete Rose was playing for my hometown team, the Cincinnati Reds. That is how long ago it was.

A lot has changed since then. The world has changed. The global economy is far more competitive. It is very difficult for us in the United States of America to have a policy that is not affected by that global economy. And yet while every other one of our global competitors has reformed their tax code, we have not. They all have.

By the way, after the reform, the United Kingdom has a 21-percent corporate tax rate and they have a so-called territorial tax system. That basically means it taxes income in the UK if it is made in the UK, but otherwise it is taxed in the country where it is done. That means they have a competitive global tax system. By the way, about 93 percent of the companies that American companies compete with have that kind of more competitive international system. We have the old-style system.

We also have a higher rate. So we have a deadly combination--a higher rate, 39-percent tax rate, which is now the highest among all the developed countries in the world--not a No. 1 you want to be--but we have also got this international system that is not competitive.

So it is not a mystery why companies are leaving. When we look at the side-by-side, they are making decisions based on what is best for their shareholders. When we look at the changes in the tax rate since the 1990s and 2000s, we can see the United States is falling further behind.

Here is an interesting chart. This shows, just in 2004, what the tax rates were and now what they are in 2014. That is just 10 years ago. The United States is the same, 39 percent. And that 39 percent includes the Federal rate plus the State rate.

People say, well, the effective rate is less than that. Yes, it is less than that because people do take advantage of some of the so- called tax preferences. But even so, our rate is higher than these other countries.

We go from 39 percent to 39 percent; the UK, 30 to 21; Canada, 34.4 to 26, and they are going even lower at the Federal level; Netherlands, 34.5 to 25 percent; Ireland, 12.5; Switzerland, 24 to 21. And they have gone to these territorial tax systems that we talked about.

What has happened? Well, these are the companies that have left the United States of America to go to these countries. We mentioned Abbvi. That is the latest one last week. Medtronic, that was a couple weeks ago. On and on. There are companies in here from the State of Ohio. There is a company listed there from my home State of Ohio that chose to incorporate somewhere else because of the Tax Code. Guess what. They are going to save about $160 million on their tax bill this year. That is a pretty darned good savings, and that is wrong. We have to reform this Tax Code.

In 1960, 17 of the world's largest 20 companies were U.S.- headquartered. By 2010, only six were headquartered in the United States. In 2012 alone, our global 500 companies, the bigger companies' share fell from 36 percent to 26 percent.

I am not saying it is all due to taxes, but a lot of it is. If we talk to these companies, we find that out.

Again, I don't think anyone in the Senate--or in the White House, for that matter--disputes that tax reform is needed. I don't think so. Yet we aren't seeing it. Instead, again, we are hearing about these one- offsies, these small things that seem politically popular but aren't going to make a difference in terms of truly bringing the jobs back and attracting more jobs--attracting companies that want to headquarter here in the United States of America.

It is an admission that the United States is no longer the best place in the world to invest if we say we are going to require companies to do certain things so they can't follow the Tax Code. I think it is a futile effort to try to keep companies here with these new requirements, because ultimately if we do that and make it more disadvantageous to be an American company--so you have companies competing not just with one hand tied behind their back but with two hands tied behind their in a global economy--what will they do? Well, they will probably sell, because foreign companies can come in and buy them. And that has happened and is happening.

If you are a beer drinker, like I am, try to find an American beer these days. The largest share is probably Sam Adams, with about 1.4 percent market share. The rest are all foreign-owned. Yuengling is up there too at about 1.4 percent. But all of them. And foreign companies have come in here and bought these companies because they can pay a premium for them, because their aftertax profits are greater because their tax code in their country is more advantageous. Who does that hurt? It hurts American workers.

I am not saying they don't have facilities here. They do. But when they move their corporate headquarters out of the United States, the tax headquarters out of the United States, the history is, when you look at this, that jobs follow--including the higher paid executive jobs.

Also, an intangible but really important thing to American communities is, when you have a U.S. company headquartered here, they tend to invest in the communities. So think of the nonprofits involved with charities we help out with. There are probably some companies that help out there too and probably it is an American company.

So of course we have to keep up with the times, and we aren't doing that. If we don't, we are going to see more and more companies leave our shores. I don't think these companies want to leave our shores. I think they are doing it because Washington is letting them down.

Let's imagine for a second that a company did decide not to do one of these inversions because we did some one-off things, including to say: You ought to stay here. You ought to not take advantage of a company with a $160 million a year benefit.

I think what is going to happen is we will see more and more companies become foreign companies. American workers and American jobs are going to be lost because we are going to see foreign companies come in and buy these U.S. companies.

If we are truly patriots, economic patriots, we need to look at tax reform, and we need it as soon as possible. This can't, by the way, be just a Republican or Democrat priority. It needs to be an American priority. And it should be, because as far as I can tell in talking to people, the consensus is that it is broken. We have a pretty good sense of what we ought to do to try to fix it.

One, I think we have a pretty good sense that we ought to reduce the rate. So the corporate rate ought to be reduced. I think it has to get down to at least 25 percent for us to be competitive. Back when we last did this in 1986, we purposefully lowered the rate under Ronald Reagan to get it down to 34 percent so it would be below the average of the other developed countries of the world. That is what we have to do again. So, at least 25 percent.

And we need to do this, by the way, at the same time we eliminate some of these preferences, the deductions, the credits, the exclusions. I know that is tough, and some people are going to say: Well, gosh, I am going to lose my special preference or this is going to hurt my company. If they get a lower rate, one, they get a benefit. But, second, it helps the whole economy to have a lower rate.

Economists who look at this all agree, this will generate economic growth and will result, by the way, in more revenues coming in through growth as well. So we broaden the base by getting rid of a lot of the preferences, take those savings to lower the rate.

Then, finally, we need to do something about this international side. If we don't, we are not going to be able to be competitive. Even if we have a low tax rate, if we don't figure out a way to ensure we go to a system that is more like these other countries have all gone to--about 93 percent of the companies that we compete with have this what is called territorial system where you tax income where it is earned. If we don't do that, then I think we are going to end up making this problem worse, not better, by some of these proposals that say let's just kick the can down the road and immediately do something to create a requirement on companies to do this or that.

With regard to the anti-inversion rules, we are going to talk about that now. Let's not reform the Tax Code; let's just do something on inversions to make it harder to invert. We did that back in 2004. We enacted anti-inversion rules that were supposed to stop companies from moving overseas. As we saw in the first chart, that didn't work. Companies did anyway. And I don't think it is going to work today. In fact, I think it could make the problem worse, again, because those companies could then be targeted for foreign acquisition.

So if businesses are more valuable overseas than the United States and businesses can't move under the U.S. themselves, I think the foreign corporations will step in and buy them.

The Bring Jobs Home Act is a great title, and that is legislation we are going to consider here on the floor tomorrow. I think we ought to have a debate on it, so I am going to vote to proceed to have that debate. It is a great title, but I don't think there is anything in the legislation that is going to help to actually bring jobs back. I don't think anything in this legislation is going to address the fact that we have this high tax rate. I don't think there is anything in this legislation that is going to address the fact that we have a worldwide system that is way out of step with all our competitors.

It claims to remove deductions and tax credits and incentivize companies to move overseas. Unfortunately, that is not as easy as it sounds because, according to the Joint Committee on Taxes, which is the group here that advises us, under present law there are no targeted tax credits or disallowance of deductions related to relocating business units inside or outside the United States. There aren't any. So it is sort of tough to say we are going to do something with regard to credits or disallowances of deductions when there are none that relate directly to that.

There have been claims to the contrary that the media, looking at it routinely, says that is just false or misleading.

Finally, when it comes to proposed deductions for bringing jobs back to our shores, the proposal would likely pose some really serious administrative difficulties for an Internal Revenue Service that already has plenty of problems. The legislation, as I read it, gives the IRS authority to subjectively judge whether the IRS thinks that business deductions were made specifically for the purpose of bringing jobs to the United States or moving jobs overseas. Because there are no specific targeted tax deductions for this, the IRS would have to somehow subjectively determine whether that was true. That is going to be tough, because multinational businesses create and close businesses around the globe every day, most times because it is the most economically efficient thing to do from a business perspective. They start a company, close a company, move them around. Asking the IRS to determine whether those decisions were made specifically to move jobs to the United States or to move jobs overseas I think is going to be impossible. That is why this legislation, if passed, is not going anywhere.

I do appreciate my colleagues' hard work in trying to come up with real legislation to address the problem. Senator Wyden, who is the Democratic Chair of the Finance Committee, has been working on that, as have others. But this particular one is just not going to help. It is just not going to help. That fact should serve as a stark reminder that the only way we are going to stop these so-called inversions, the only way we are going to stop people from saying I would rather be a foreign company than a U.S. company is to make it more attractive to be here-- to do what we should have done over the last couple decades--and the rest of the world has; all of our competitors have--which is to reform our Tax Code so that it is good for American workers and good for American investors. If we do that, I think America's best days are ahead of us. I really do.

There are a lot of things we need to do, as we talked about earlier, to make this country more competitive and to be sure we are creating the best jobs and the greatest opportunities here for everybody. But one thing we can do that will give the economy a shot in the arm right away is this comprehensive tax reform. When people have analyzed this from a macroeconomic basis, they say: If we did this--lower the rate by broadening the base, go to this competitive international system--we would generate a lot more investment and business in America. That would in turn generate a lot more investments, a lot more business here in America. That would in turn generate more revenue.

So it is growth revenues, which is exactly what we want to see. We want to see more jobs, and we want to see us being able to have the kind of growth and prosperity so we can help to get out of this debt and deficit, which is a real problem. And, going forward, it is

a problem we are going to have to deal with, both because it affects the economy and because it affects what we are doing to future generations.

As legislators, it is our job to fix this problem. That is what we were hired to do. I know it is not easy. I know corporate tax reform is tough to do, because we would take away benefits from one company or another by lowering that rate. But, by the way, when we do this--when we do lower that rate and get rid of some of these preferences to do so, guess what. Everybody has to pay taxes.

People talk about it is unfair that some American companies in some years, because they get a tax break, don't pay taxes. Well, if they can't be as creative because there aren't all these deductions and credits and exemptions to be able to use, they are going to have to pay taxes. Everyone will pay. There will be a lower rate and they will be more competitive, and they won't be having this incentive to move offshore. But everybody will be paying taxes. And I think that is part of what we ought to be doing.

To be able to compete and to succeed and to help American workers, it is time for us to make tax reform a reality. Let's not do things that might feel good politically and do some of these one-offs and half steps that in the end could inadvertently actually make it worse, not better--because, again, if we make it even more difficult to be an American company, we are just not going to have as many American companies because they will be bought by foreign companies that can pay more for them and pay a premium. Let's instead get busy doing what we were elected to do, which is to work across the aisle to come up with sensible tax reform, lowering that rate, a competitive international system, and ensuring that we do create more opportunities for American workers to be able to compete--not just survive but thrive in the global economy.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 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 this because of this week's ObamaCare decisions handed down by the DC 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 DC 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 DC 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 DC 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 DC Circuit, because the Fourth Circuit hears a disproportionate number of significant cases involving Federal law and regulations, as does the DC 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

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 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 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.