A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding United States support for the State of Israel as it defends itself against unprovoked rocket attacks from the Hamas terrorist organization.

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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I join my colleague from Washington who was just on the floor to take a moment to recognize the heroic efforts that are underway in the State of Washington, battling wildfires with individuals who are trying to protect their homes and property. Our hearts go out to the family and friends of Robert Koczewski, a retired State trooper and veteran who suffered a heart attack and died while trying to save his own home.

I thank the local, State, and Federal agencies that are working together to meet the logistical needs of extinguishing these multiple fires and for the efforts they have already made to help save lives and minimize damage in what is the largest wildfire in our State's history.

I thank all of the community organizing individuals who have done so much work in their individual communities to support the efforts of the firefighters and to work with everybody in the community to make sure every aspect of security and safety is there for the families who have lost their homes.

I thank the individuals who have been working to provide shelter and to help their neighbors no matter what it takes.

There is a huge spirit alive in the Okanogan people who are working very hard to make sure they are also contributing. They have a great deal of self-reliance, spirit, and they want to make sure that, as FEMA and others are moving in, they are also responsible in helping with fighting the fires and to work to make sure as many people as possible in the community can be saved from this devastation.

We are hearing many moving stories of Washingtonians donating their time, volunteering goods, things everybody in the community needs.

So I thank the people of Washington and particularly in the central part of the State for everything they are doing to help battle this fire.

Export-Import Bank

Madam President, I also come to the floor to talk about the Export- Import Bank and the fact that we still need to work out a deal on the Senate floor so we can move this legislation. Time is running out. We only have a few days before the August recess and literally only a few legislative days when we return to make sure we reauthorize this important credit agency that helps manufacturers export their products.

When you grow U.S. manufacturing, you grow U.S. jobs. What we want to do is make sure our manufacturers have a fair shot at getting their products sold overseas. So it makes no sense to me that the fate of an organization that is such an important tool to businesses and comes at no cost to the taxpayers cannot get reauthorized. In fact, I am sure there are colleagues in the House of Representatives who would, if they had a chance, just outright kill the credit agency altogether.

Last week 31 Governors signed a letter that basically called for the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. That brings the total number of Governors to 37. I am proud my Governor, Jay Inslee, along with Governor Robert Bentley from Alabama, led an effort to say to the Congress: This is important to do. They see the result in their States as it relates to jobs, and they want to make sure we get this reauthorized.

There are Governors from all over the political spectrum--liberal Democrats, to moderate Democrats, to moderate Republicans, and even tea party Republicans--so there are Governors out there from Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, to Governor Paul LePage of Maine, who want to get this important tool reauthorized. Even though they are from many different spectrums, they see that this creates jobs in their State.

I would like to point out that nine of those signatures come from Republican Governors, plus five Republican Governors sent their own letter. So that is 14 Republican Governors who joined a chorus of voices in the legislative body to make sure we are doing what is right for the economy and renew this charter for the important Export-Import Bank.

I wish to point out from the letter that it basically says that without the financing, U.S. firms would have lost sales to overseas competitors.

So this is what the Governors are trying to tell us. They are stewards in their States of jobs and the economy, and they are very concerned about the Export-Import Bank. So we want to make sure we continue to listen to those Governors and get their help in making sure their Members of Congress from their individual States support this legislation.

They also are talking to thousands of small business owners who are saying that failing to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank would lead to fewer exports and a loss of jobs in all 50 States. They are out there trying to make sure they are drumming up support in the congressional delegations of their States. That is because trade is a critically important aspect to our economy.

I just talked to one of my colleagues today who was telling me how much their State was recovering, but in the areas where they were doing the most exports, their State was really growing--that particular part.

In 2013, U.S. exports reached $2.3 trillion in goods and services. So exports across the Nation that are attributable to the Ex-Im Bank support about $37 billion worth of U.S. exports and about 205,000 related jobs. So you can see that the Export-Import Bank is a vital tool to creating jobs in our U.S. economy, and it does all of this returning $1 billion to the Federal Treasury. To me, it is a win-win for taxpayers and it is a good aspect for jobs. As I said, it is 205,000 export-related jobs and $37 billion in exports. That supports over 2,000 small businesses throughout our country. That is actually the direct impact of businesses that are exporting with the help of the Export-Import Bank. I say that because there are so many more people who are involved in the supply chain, and we talked about that last week.

I would like to address one issue today that I hear about from a lot of colleagues: Well, isn't this just something the private sector can do?

I guarantee you, if the private sector could just do it and would do it, we would be very happy. I am here to debunk that myth. In fact, in the words of the private sector, it is all about them needing the help of the bank to actually make deals work. Anyone who thinks they know what they are talking about, I want to make sure they understand.

First and foremost, in the bank's charter, it prohibits them from competing with private financing and requires that all financing have a reasonable chance of repayment. So literally in the bank's charter it says they are not there to compete with these banks. Yet I hear so many times my colleagues on the other side trying to say: Oh, well, this is just something that we, the government, should not be involved in.

I just pointed out that we actually make money off of it. So that part is really good for us because it helps us pay down the Federal deficit. And I just mentioned how banks want to partnership with this credit agency because it helps them, but it is actually in their charter that it prohibits them from doing so. Specifically, the charter says, in section 2, that the bank should ``supplement and encourage, and not compete with, private capital''--``not compete with, private capital.'' So there it is in their own charter, exactly how they are supposed to operate. So this is not a bank that is somehow competing with banks across America. They are partnering with financial institutions that see risks in overseas markets that they think are undeveloped and do not have the banking and financing institutions in their organization to help get these things done, and so they want to partner with the Export-Import Bank.

It is helping businesses all across our country. In fact, 98 percent of the Export-Import Bank's transactions were involved with banks throughout 2013. So it is not taking business away from them; it is actually helping businesses throughout our country.

The Export-Import Bank is a leading indicator for U.S. companies in how to get business done in these developing markets, and it is often in the national and local banking interest to have a partner such as this because they see deals and opportunities that come through their local communities.

I know there are banks--the Presiding Officer's major banks in parts of the Midwest, KeyBank--and others have talked to me about how important it is because they have homegrown businesses that come to them, and they see the opportunity but they also see the risk, and having this credit agency be a partner with that local bank helps them secure the deal.

As we look at this chart, it basically shows that 98 percent of the Ex-Im Bank transactions are involving commercial banks. So, again, there is this notion that somehow this bank is competing with the private sector when, in fact, it is basically prohibited in their charter, and 98 percent of the deals are actually done with an individual bank, which shows that this is really a tool for our commercial banking.

So these are banks everywhere, from the Alaska Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank in Anchorage, to the Wallis State Bank in Texas, as well as national banks such as Wells Fargo and others. So they find it a very viable tool and something that is important to do.

According to a recent statement by the Bankers Association for Finance and Trade and the Financial Services Roundtable, the Export- Import Bank of the United States plays a critical role ``in international trade and US job creation by providing export financing products that help fill gaps in trade financing otherwise not provided by the private sector.''

So we are hearing from these individual banks that are saying this and basically articulating that this is a tool. In fact, one CEO, John Stumpf from Wells Fargo, recently talked about his work with a company called Air Tractor. Air Tractor is a Texas company that manufactures agricultural aircraft, with 50 percent of its business being overseas. He said how important it was that the Export-Import--I am going to quote him: Air Tractor would not be where they are today without the Export-Import Bank and there are certain things that would not have been done without them.

I want to go back to the fact that the banking industry really does believe the Export-Import Bank is a necessary tool. ``The Ex-Im Bank remains a vital partner for the lending community,'' according to the bankers association.

I think this shows there are people who are just not educated on the structure of the bank, how it works, how important it is to be an important tool for us. I want to make sure we understand why the private sector cannot do these loans.

If people understand how the bank works, some still want to come back and say: Well, they still should be doing it themselves.

I want to go to one chart that basically shows some of the challenges bankers face when they are dealing with this. They face bank balance sheet limitations; that is, the ability to hold all of those deals on their books over the period of the loan. They have the added risk of exporting to foreign markets, which can be challenging at best. And they have the lack of the financial sector presence in those emerging markets.

So as to all of those things, if you are, as I just mentioned, one of these banks--from the Wallis State Bank in Texas to the Alaska Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank--you can see that they want to help this business in their State export or like this company I mentioned--Air Tractor in Texas that manufactures aircraft for agricultural purposes. You can see they want to help them. But, again, is the Wallis State Bank going to be able to go out and assess all these international marketplaces and assess whether that end customer is going to be able to continue to pay on the life of this purchase? No. This bank is not figuring out how to do that. So basically they are just turning this business down. Yet we have a U.S. manufacturer that has figured out a great product, figured out how to make it, figured out how to get customers overseas, figured out how to compete with international competitors, and we have people here strangling the one tool they need--the credit agency that helps the local bank in their community finance the deal.

So I just want to say I hope we resolve this issue with the Export- Import Bank. I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle can come to terms with the amendments that are necessary to move this bill to the Senate floor. I know last time we had a similar debate and a lot of discussion, but in the end there were about 79 votes for the Export- Import Bank.

I guess I would ask all of my colleagues now to think about our economy and how much U.S. manufacturers need to sell in overseas markets. We are having an unbelievable growth in the middle class around the globe. It is going to double in the next 15 years. That is 2.7 billion more middle-class

consumers who could buy U.S. products and U.S. services, but they will not if we hamstring the export-import credit agencies that help support banks in the financing of U.S. manufacturers' goods sold overseas.

I hope my colleagues will help us get this bill to the floor, get it reauthorized, and not for a short term, not for 3 months, not for more mischief to be had, but to give predictability and certainty to people who are actually growing jobs in the United States of America, our manufacturers.

Unanimous Consent Agreement Executive Calendar

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the confirmation votes on Mendez, Rogoff, and Andrews occur following the vote to confirm the Disbrow nomination, and with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Virginia.

Export-Import Bank

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

Madam President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the legislation pending before the Senate, the so-called Bring Jobs Home Act. I oppose this bill because it is a political stunt designed as an election-year campaign ploy that will have no meaningful impact on job creation or on economic growth. In fact, this bill is a carbon copy of a bill the Senate rejected 2 years ago when it was offered by another Democratic Senator who just happened to also be up for reelection.

Simply put, if there is a Democratic bill on the Senate floor supposedly about outsourcing, you can rest assured it must be election season. The bill before us purports to deal with the problem of companies relocating jobs from the United States to foreign countries by denying the deduction associated with doing so. This must be the tax benefit for shipping jobs overseas that we heard so much about from the Obama campaign in 2008 and again in 2012.

There is only one problem with repealing this special tax break for companies that ship jobs overseas. It does not exist. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, ``Under present law, there are no targeted tax credits or disallowances of deductions related to relocating business units inside or outside the United States.'' That is from the Joint Committee on Taxation.

This statement is not surprising, given that numerous independent fact checkers disputed the repeated claims in 2008 that companies were receiving tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. These fact checkers called that statement ``false'' and ``misleading.'' But I guess the facts do not matter when it is an election year. What this bill will do is insert yet more complexity and uncertainty into our Tax Code.

The reality is the United States economy is a $17 trillion enterprise, with businesses all across this country constantly closing old operations and opening new ones. If this bill becomes law, companies that might want to close an old factory or open a new one would now have to worry if they will have to pay a tax penalty, even if their decisions are totally unrelated to any business decisions they might make outside of the United States.

The legislation also includes a new tax credit for companies that eliminate a business operation in a foreign country and move that operation to the United States. Well, that sounds like a good idea. But consider how this would tilt the playing field against companies here in America that have not opened operations overseas. A purely domestic company that opens a new factory in my State of South Dakota will not get a Federal tax credit for doing so, but a global company with jobs overseas will get a generous credit under this bill.

Consider what a coalition of leading business organizations made up of the Business Roundtable, the Information Technology Industry Council, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Foreign Trade Council, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had to say recently in a letter regarding the legislation that is pending before us.

Many of the major business organizations in this country said:

While intended to promote U.S. job creation, the

legislation actually would have the unintended consequence of

making it even more difficult for American worldwide

companies to compete at home and in world markets, thereby

placing at risk jobs of American workers.

This is a letter from some of the major business organizations in this country.

If we want greater economic growth and more jobs, we need a Tax Code that creates a level playing field, not one that picks winners and losers based on the preferences of Members of Congress.

Even if we were to assume that a new tax credit for insourcing would be a good thing, the official estimate of the bill from the Joint Committee on Taxation tells us that this particular tax credit will have essentially no impact on our economy. According to this new estimate, the new insourcing credit will provide a tax credit to U.S. companies of $35 million a year. That is $35 million out of a $17 trillion economy or, put another way, this credit will equal .000002 percent of annual U.S. economic activity. Yes, that is a decimal point followed by five zeroes. This bill isn't a drop in the budget; it is more like a drop in the Pacific Ocean.

Yet despite the fact this legislation won't help our economy or create jobs or make America more competitive in the global economy, I voted with most of my colleagues to move forward with this debate because I believe we need to have a robust debate about those measures that will energize our economy.

As such, I filed a number of amendments that would have a meaningful, positive impact on our economy--unlike, I might add, the underlying bill. For example, I filed an amendment to make the small business expensing limits, which expired at the end of last year, permanent, something that I hear about consistently from farmers, ranchers, and small businesses in my State of South Dakota.

These limits allow small businesses, farmers, and ranchers to deduct up to $500,000 per year in expenses, making it easier for these businesses to grow and to hire new workers.

I filed an amendment to make the R&D tax credit permanent. This amendment would also strengthen the credit by raising the credit rate from 14 percent to 20 percent, thus making this credit more competitive with the research incentives offered by many European and Asian nations.

I have also filed an amendment to improve the tax treatment of S corporations if they convert into a C corporation, thus making this popular form of business operation more easily accessible. This amendment would also make it easier for S corporations to give appreciated property to charity.

I filed an amendment to make permanent the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which currently protects most Internet users in America from taxes on their Internet access. This law was first enacted in 1998. For more than 15 years it has helped our economy grow, and it has helped the digital economy flourish by keeping State and local taxes off of Internet access, regardless of consumers' access to the Internet via their home computers or by handheld device. Unfortunately, this law is scheduled to

expire in just over 3 months on November 1 if we don't take action to prevent that.

Some may claim that my amendments are partisan amendments--that these tax relief measures are simply Republican priorities that can't muster support on the Democrat side of the aisle. The problem with this claim is that all the measures I have just mentioned have found Democratic support already--significant Democratic support.

Consider the R&D amendment I just mentioned. It is identical to the bill that passed the House of Representatives with 274 votes in favor, including 62 House Democrats. That is right, roughly one-third of House Democrats have already voted for this exact amendment.

The same is true for the small business expensing amendment I mentioned. An identical measure passed the House in June with 272 votes, including 53 House Democrats. Consider the S corporation improvements, which were passed by the House with 263 votes, including 42 House Democrats voting yes.

Consider my amendment to make the Internet tax moratorium permanent. My bill, with Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, to make this law permanent has 52 Senate supporters.

In fact, this bill has so much support that an identical bill in the House, just last week, passed by a voice vote. This measure, supported by a majority of Senators, sponsored by the Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee, and approved by the House of Representatives by a voice vote isn't even scheduled for a vote in the Senate. What a shame.

Consider the medical device tax repeal, which is supported by 79 Senators, including 34 Democratic Senators.

Unlike the minuscule economic impact of the bill pending on the Senate floor before us now, repealing the medical device tax would remove an ObamaCare tax increase totaling $24 billion over 10 years on some of the most innovative companies in America. According to a survey by the trade association AdvaMed, the medical device tax is estimated to destroy as many as 165,000 American jobs.

So let's be clear. It is not that there aren't reasonable measures to boost our economy that we could be considering. All of the measures I have mentioned have broad bipartisan support. The problem is simply that the Democratic majority refuses to allow their consideration.

The Senate majority would prefer we spend our time on inconsequential election-year gimmicks rather than any of the job-creating measures I have just mentioned.

In fact, Senate Democrats have chosen to block nearly all Republican amendments rather than risk having to take difficult votes. Consider that the Senate has had rollcall votes on only 12 Republican amendments since last July. House Democrats--the minority in the House of Representatives--in contrast have had 189 amendments voted on during that same period of time.

Put another way, House Democrats have been allowed, on average, more than one vote for each legislative day the House has been in session over the past year. In the Senate, Senate Republicans have been allowed just one vote per month.

Let me repeat that. The minority in the House is being allowed one vote per legislative day. The minority in the Senate is being allowed one vote per month.

The Senate used to be known as the world's greatest deliberative body. That description now sounds like a cruel joke, considering how few amendments we have been allowed to consider.

The other measure our economy desperately needs is comprehensive tax reform. If we really care about making America a more attractive place to do business so as to lure new business investment jobs, we need to have a much simpler Tax Code with tax rates that are competitive with our global competitors.

Let's consider the facts. When President Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 into law, the United States had a corporate tax rate that was more than 5 percentage points below our major economic competitors.

The U.S. corporate tax rate has basically stayed the same since 1986. Yet today our tax rate is the highest in the developed world and is more than 14 percentage points higher than the average of developed economies.

Why? Look at what has happened. Unlike the United States, other nations decided they needed to lower their tax rates to spur economic growth and job creation. Unfortunately, today we are reaping the negative consequences of inaction as we see more and more investment and economic activities moving to those nations that have created a more favorable business environment.

If we want to keep the best, highest-paying jobs at home, we don't need new tax credits targeted at a narrow set of companies. We need a complete overhaul of our tax system with new, competitive tax rates and a modernized system for taxing the global revenues of American companies. Yes, it is going to be a difficult lift, but it is far from impossible.

Consider the United Kingdom, which as recently as 2010 had a 28 percent tax rate and an outdated system for taxing global income. The UK enacted tax reform that will result in a 20-percent tax rate by next year and has already resulted in a modernized system for taxing the income earned by global U.K. companies.

Over the past 5 years, Japan--another major economic competitor of the United States--has done something similar. Japan cut its corporate tax rate by 5 percentage points and has moved to a more competitive system for taxing global income.

If the UK, Japan, and other nations can modernize their Tax Code for competition in the 21st century global marketplace, certainly we in the United States can do it as well.

In closing, I hope the Senate Democrats will change course and allow for an open and robust amendment process to allow a wide variety of job-creating measures to be considered.

Our economy, still mired in the sluggish Obama economy, could certainly use it. But, if not, I look forward to a future Congress where the Senate can get back to real debate and real solutions.

I hope that once the campaigning is done, once the election-year slogans have been retired, we can get back to real, substantive legislating.

American families and workers deserve permanent tax and regulatory relief. They deserve a better economy than they have today, and they deserve a Senate that once again functions as the world's greatest deliberative body and puts their interests first, and their futures, their quality of life, and their standard of living where they should be.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, on June 11--a month and a half ago--in a very strong bipartisan way, the Senate voted 93 to 3--an overwhelming vote--to pass legislation written by Senator John McCain, a Republican, and myself to address crises facing our veterans community and the VA and to protect and defend the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend us. I wish to take this opportunity again to thank Senator McCain for his very strong efforts on getting that legislation passed.

As you know, the legislation we passed was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, to cost about $35 billion. At just about the same time, the House of Representatives passed legislation dealing with, more or less, the same issues, and the bill they passed in the House was estimated by CBO to cost $44 billion--$9 billion more than what we passed in the Senate.

In the last 6 weeks, my staff, my colleagues, and I have been working very hard to refine this legislation, to come up with a more reasonable pricetag, and to address the needs of our veterans community in a significant way. In that process, I have been accused by some of ``moving the goalposts.'' I guess I have. I have moved the goalposts so the legislation we are introducing today is substantially lower-- substantially lower--than what passed the Senate and what passed the House. If that is called moving the goalposts, I suspect in this case it is moving the goalposts in a positive direction. In fact, the bill we are presenting would cost less than $25 billion--a lot of money, no doubt--but that is some $10 billion less than what we passed on the Senate floor, and it is $19 billion less than what the House passed.

Our proposal is a commonsense proposal which deals in a significant way with the needs of the veterans community. What it does is provide emergency funding for contract services so veterans can, when they find themselves in long waiting periods--as in fact is the case in a number of locations around the country--they can go outside of the VA and get private health care or care at a community health center or whatever. They no longer have to wait during this emergency period for long periods of time to get into the VA. I think that is a very important part of this proposal. It is something we have to do.

In addition, what we also say is if a veteran is living more than 40 miles from a VA facility--and there are veterans who in some cases are living hundreds of miles away--they do not have to, when they are ill, get in their car and travel for 3 or 4 hours to get health care at a VA facility. They will be able to go to a non-VA facility, a private physician, if they live more than 40 miles away from a VA facility. I think that is a significant step forward.

But what our legislation also does is address an issue of huge concern to the veterans community. Just yesterday--just yesterday--I received, and many members in the Veterans' Committee received, a letter from 16 major veterans organizations. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, 16 major veterans organizations, including the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars--the VFW--Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Military Officers Association of America, and many others--wonderful veterans organizations that have worked for years representing the needs of millions and millions of veterans--what these organizations say in this letter is that while we must address the immediate crisis of doing away with these long waiting lines and allowing veterans to get private care, what they also say--loudly and clearly--is that the VA must have the doctors, the nurses, and the space capacity that it needs so that in the future it will be able to permanently eliminate these long waiting lines so that 2 years from now, 3 years from now, when veterans come into the VA, they will get quality care, they will get timely care. That is what the veterans organizations have said.

I will quote to you one small paragraph of a long letter. They say that the charge of the conference committee should be ``to ensure that all veterans currently waiting for treatment must be provided access to timely, convenient health care as quickly as medically indicated,'' and at the same time ``protect, preserve and strengthen the VA health care system so that it remains capable of providing a full continuum of high-quality, timely health care to all enrolled veterans.''

Last week, in a Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee meeting, Sloan Gibson, the Acting Secretary of the VA, stated that the VA needed over $16 billion in order to hire thousands and thousands of doctors, nurses, other medical providers. In many VA facilities doctors do not have the examining rooms they need. There are space problems all over this country. What the veterans organizations--16 of them--said loudly and clearly is that Sloan Gibson, the new Acting Secretary of the VA-- approved with wide Republican support--they said we support his proposal.

Our legislation does not give the VA all that Mr. Gibson would like, but we do provide them with the doctors and the nurses and the medical staff they need so we do not continue to have

long waiting lines at VA hospitals all over this country, so we do not come back 2 years from now in the same position, with veterans not being able to get timely care.

I have worked for a month and a half with my House Republican colleagues, led by the Veterans' Affairs chairman there, Jeff Miller, to find a compromise. Everybody knows the House looks at the world differently than the Senate--we all know that--and if we go forward, we need a compromise.

We have put good-faith offers on the table time and time again and we have tried to meet our Republican colleagues more than halfway, but I am very sad to say that at this point--and I hope this changes--but at this point I can only conclude, with great reluctance, that the good faith we have shown is simply not being reciprocated by the other side.

Standing here and saying this is the last thing I want to be doing. Our veterans deserve a responsible solution to this crisis.

Last night--this is an example of what has happened--somewhere around 10 o'clock in the night, the cochairman of the veterans conference committee, Mr. Miller in the House, announced unilaterally, without my knowledge or without my concurrence, that he was going to hold a so- called conference committee meeting in order to introduce his proposals.

Needless to say, his proposal is something I have yet to see. I do not know what it is. This is a proposal nobody on our side has seen. My understanding is he then wants to take this to the House on Monday to come up with a vote. In other words, his idea of negotiation is: We have a proposal. Take it or leave it. Any sixth grader in a school in the United States understands this is not negotiation, this is not what democracy is about.

I note the presence on the floor of the coauthor of the bill passed in the Senate, Senator McCain, and I am happy to yield the floor for Senator McCain.

First of all, I want to thank Senator McCain again for all of his hard work on this issue.

Let me ask a few questions. The Senator and I have been talking the last few days. Does the Senator not think--he has been here for 1 or 2 years--that the best way to go forward is for people to sit down at a table and knock out their differences? And then the idea of presenting it to a conference is absolutely right. But the Senator knows, and I know, that what conference committees are largely about are 5-minute speeches.

I have been disappointed that I have not--I think the Senator will agree with me, maybe not, that the best way forward is for people to sit down in a room and work out their differences, not to go forward with unilateral statements. Does that make sense?

Let me ask Senator McCain one more question. I thank the Senator very much. He is not on, at this moment, the Veterans' Affairs Committee, but he has jumped into this with both feet and is playing a very big role. Would the Senator be prepared if, generally speaking, what happens is the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and the House get together--you are not the chairman, you are not the ranking member, but I think you could play a good role. Would the Senator be prepared to sit down with the other four members, myself, the other three, and help us reach a compromise?

One more second. I wanted to paraphrase. Tell me if I am misquoting. I do not have it in front of me, but when we were debating this bill on the floor, the Senator said--we were talking about emergency funding--something to the effect of if this is not an emergency, I do not know

what an emergency is. Is that a correct paraphrase?

I thank Senator McCain very much for his statements and for his hard work on this and would reiterate what he said; that is, my belief that what we have here on the Senate floor, that if taking care of the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend us and who came home without arms or legs, or without their eyesight or 500,000 of them who came home with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury--if that is not an emergency, taking care of those brave men and women, I agree with Senator McCain, I do not know what an emergency is.

I am happy to yield the floor for my colleague from Alaska, Senator Begich.

I thank Senator Begich.