Floor Statements

Madam President, how much time do we have remaining?

In the spirit of moving the bill forward, I yield back all remaining time.

Amendment No. 3852

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jennifer Winkler, a member of my staff, be given floor privileges during the course of H. Res. 124.

May I ask a question? Has the Senate returned to legislative session?

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Well, there is the Senate. There they go again. Whenever we women fight for fair pay, we are either sidelined, redlined, or pushed aside.

We, moving for paycheck fairness, feel the way women feel every single day in the workplace. When they are trying to get equal pay for equal work, they are either not listened to or there is some kind of reason to make sure the discussion never comes up. Once again, because of eight votes separating, we could not debate paycheck fairness.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a bill that would finish the job we started with Lilly Ledbetter.

This is not right. When women are out there trying to earn equal pay for equal work, they should have the opportunity to do so. Now they feel stymied. In Lilly Ledbetter, we took the first step to right this wrong, but it was not the only step.

Paycheck fairness closes the innumerable loopholes that prevent women from being able to get equal pay for equal work. All we wanted to do was bring up the bill to debate it, to amend it, and then vote on final passage. We could not get cloture on the filibuster. Those are wonky parliamentary words that said we could have unlimited debate.

If we had gotten cloture under our rules, that would have been 30 hours of debate. I think that is enough time. There could have been amendments but, guess what, they had to be germane; that is, pertinent to the bill, or they had to be relevant or pertinent to the bill. What is wrong with that? That is not a gag rule. That is not muzzling anybody.

No, no, it wasn't good enough. Do you know why we didn't get cloture? They didn't want to bring up this bill for a final vote or amendments. They are hiding behind parliamentary procedure.

Do you know what. Our paycheck fairness bill was so simple and stayed straightforward. Do you know what it would have done? It would have prevented retaliation against workers for sharing information about their wages. Right now, the most secret thing in our country is not only our national security, but what you make. You can't discuss your wages with the person next to you. So if a woman was trying to figure out what the guy next to her was making, and he wanted to tell her--men of quality always support us women as we seek equality. If he wanted to tell her, both could have been fired--her for asking and him for telling. We wanted to close that loophole.

The other thing the bill would do, it would prevent employers from being able to use almost any reason to justify paying a woman less. For years, employers have exploited loopholes in the Equal Pay Act, inventing any number of reasons why a woman should be paid less. It would also prevent women from being limited to just back pay when they are discriminated against. Those are the three major issues.

In the United States of America, when we said all men and women were created equal, we have to be able to be equal, and one of the most important places you are equal is in the workplace. So if women are doing the same job, we ought to get the same pay. That is the American way. But once again we were stymied. Once again they tried to push us back.

I am going to say this today on behalf of myself, the majority of the women in the Senate, and many of the great guys in the Senate: They want to make sure that today's vote doesn't say we are stopping this fight. Once again, we are going to reach out to the grassroots, particularly to the women of America, to join in the fight to change the Federal law books so women can get change in the family checkbooks. They can try to stop us on the floor, but they cannot stop our movement.

Once again, as I have said before, when we have had a setback, we are going to fight. We are going to fight on the Senate floor, we are going to take this to the people in the country, we are going to fight it through the elections, and we are going to fight it through the community. I am going to say to every single person in the United States of America: Be part of this movement.

A special message to the women: Let's suit up. Let's square our shoulders. Let's put our lipstick on and fight for equal pay that won't be stopped. We are going to do it. We are going to fight today, and we are going to fight tomorrow, and I am combat ready.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I first thank the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal, for his words on what the middle class is facing and his particular advocacy on behalf of women. It is well known and much appreciated.

I come to the floor today to talk about middle-class people who are trying to play by the rules. But before I do, on this auspicious day, September 11, 2014, I wish to pay my respects once again and express my heartfelt sympathy to the families of people who died on September 11 throughout this country--at the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, in Pennsylvania--to the wonderful first responders who risked their lives and many themselves who perished, to those who were wounded or sick and bear the permanent burden of their response to that awful tragedy, and to the families of the loved ones who have to live with it every single day--who have an absent chair at Christmas or Thanksgiving, or Hanukkah, whatever faith holiday where families gather and remember.

The Nation cannot forget what happened that day and it cannot forget why it happened, and we cannot forget the people who were there and paid this terrible price of terrorism.

I express my sympathy, my condolences, to say one way we can honor them is to make sure we don't have another terrorist attack in the United States. But what they were doing that day is to believe in America, and that brings me to what I want to talk about today.

The Middle Class

Yes, people talk about when we are out on our break we are on vacation. But I have been moving around Maryland, and one of the things I see and hear that is so clear is that, No. 1, the middle class is worried whether it is going to stay middle class. Those who want to be middle class worry if there is going to be an opportunity ladder for them to achieve middle-class status, where they can earn a decent living, raise a family, and make a contribution to their community.

They are repeatedly told: If you work hard and go by the rules, you will do OK. They are becoming increasingly skeptical of that, because they feel the very rules of government work against them and the very climate of government stops any change to be able to help them. They either feel that we are irrelevant or we are working against them.

That is why they say: All we want is for America to be America again, where if you work hard, go by the rules, you can have a pretty good life and make a pretty good contribution to this great country of ours.

So when they talk about these issues and if you talk to the old- timers--particularly those who are facing families in long-term care-- they worry about the very cruel rules of government that tell them to spend down their life savings until they are eligible for Medicaid; that if you worked hard and you saved, you are actually penalized for that--except for legislation I passed 25 years ago--that if they had gone and squandered their money, they would be better off and more eligible.

Then there are the young people who want to be able to go to school where they can make something of themselves and make America a better place to live.

I held student roundtables, along with my colleague Senator Cardin. People talked to us about the careers they wanted. At Bowie State, four of the young people who were part of the roundtable want to go into nursing, both men as well as women. They think: I could help people. We have a nursing shortage in this country. Yet the very obstacle to them being able to afford to pay for their education will prohibit it.

Why is it that education is so expensive in this country when we look at tuition, books, fees? And then what is it that we do? First of all, we make sure that Pell grants aren't year-long. You can only go two semesters. But if you want to go during the summer to ace that class that you have to do for compliance purposes for graduation, or that especially hard class--you only want to take one class a semester--your government won't help you finish sooner or finish better. We won't help you. We can give tax break earmarks, but we can't give tax breaks or help there.

Then when they look at their student debt and the interest rates they carry, they ask me: Senator Mikulski, why is it that you can refinance a yacht but I can't refinance my student loan?

And I say: Well, you know, we are stuck on the motion to proceed, and we are two votes short of the filibuster; but then we will go backward if we do this.

They don't want to hear this parliamentary wonky stuff. What they want to hear is: We believe in them and we need them and we want them, and we are going to help them for what they believe we are going to help them achieve to be able to get a student loan. But underneath it all is that work should be worth it and work should be rewarded.

That brings me then to paycheck fairness. One of the other rules they feel is against them is: The rules are rigged against you if you want to fight for equal pay for equal work. If you want to fight for equal pay for equal work, you can be retaliated against, you can be humiliated, you can be harassed, you can be fired, simply because you are asking the person standing next to you at the water cooler or the computer printout machine: How much do you make? That simple question, how much do you make, can trigger a whole retaliatory effort against you. That is the rule, and all it is you want to know is what kind of dough the person next to you is making. This is why we once again are bringing up the Paycheck Fairness Act.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is to fill and close the loopholes that came about in the original Equal Pay Act. We have been at this for 50 years. When this fight started under Lyndon Johnson, women made almost 50 cents for every dollar men made--and after 50 years, gee, we are up to 77 cents per every dollar. And for Latino women, African-American women, other women of color, it is even worse.

People might say: Didn't you fix this when you did the Lilly Ledbetter bill? The Lilly Ledbetter bill that we did pass restored the law to where it was before the Supreme Court decision. This updates and strengthens it. What it does is it deals with this whole issue of retaliation. The Lilly Ledbetter bill did not address employers who are currently able to legally retaliate against workers who share salary information. This legislation stops employers from being able to sue or punish workers for comparing wages.

It also helps restore congressional intent. It makes sure that employers who claim that differences in pay based on any factor other than sex are dealt with. This legislation limits employers' ability to exploit this loophole by requiring that this defense can only be used when it is related to job performance and is necessary for business.

This bill creates a fair playing field, simply knowing what the next person earns and being able to work and to negotiate for equal pay for equal work. The Paycheck Fairness Act fixes the law to keep discrimination from happening. It would have helped keep Lilly from having to sue in the first place.

This bill puts an end to the incentives that cause employers to think that paying women less is just a cost of doing business. It gets rid of the secrecy that makes it harder to uncover pay differences. Why should pay be such a secret unless you are ashamed to say what it is? Why would you want to keep it a secret? Maybe it is because

you don't want to brag that you pay the men more than the women. Maybe you are too ashamed. Maybe you think it will lead you to an EEOC lawsuit. We want to end secrecy at the job place, where you know what the person next to you makes--you have a right to ask.

I have heard from women all over America and I have heard from men-- men who work so hard, particularly for their daughters; men who have jobs they hate so their girls can go to school and have jobs they love. Men want equal pay for equal work. They want it for their spouses, they want it for their widowed mothers, and they want it for their daughters.

Listening to the cases--Donna Smith of Maryland's Eastern Shore worked as a retail clerk. She was told not to discuss her pay, but when she found out she was being paid less than a male cook and was doing the exact same job, she filed an EEOC complaint. And what happened? While she fought for her pay, they were fighting her with agitation and humiliation.

Latoya Weaver sent a letter to me. She is a single parent with three children, working in guest services at a hotel. She found out her pay of $8 an hour was $2 less than the males doing the same job. Two dollars when you are at bare minimum makes a pretty big difference. She filed an EEOC lawsuit. Although she only received compensatory damage because of the discrimination, the company's policy against discussing pay means it could happen again.

I could give example after example. I have been talking about this for a number of years. It is time. In the Senate, after all is said and done, more gets said than gets done. But this time, in the next 72 hours, we could actually vote to move the bill to the floor, to continue the debate and discussion and actually right the wrongs in equal pay for equal work. This is why American women want a fair shot. All they want is to be paid exactly the same--equal pay--as their male counterparts.

Mr. President, knowing of your own steadfast advocacy for the middle class in this country and an opportunity ladder in this country, we have to stop and make sure the rules government creates do not rig the game against people who are working hard and trying to play by the rules. The rules should work for the people and not for the government or for those who want to hold down wages or opportunities.

We are not going to accept women being paid less. We have paid attention to this problem, we've listened to the voices of the people, and we have a solution in the Paycheck Fairness Act. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see if there are amendments, whatever we could do to move this process forward. I would love a unanimous vote out of the Senate to have paycheck fairness finally in our lawbooks and in women's checkbooks. It's time to end pay inequity. It's time for Congress to act.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the AmeriCorps program.

I want to take a moment to say thank you--thank you to all of the volunteers and service workers out there. They are selflessly taking time out of their lives to help their fellow Americans in times of need. They are the ones out there building homes, clearing thousands of acres of forest burnt by wildfires, tutoring and mentoring our children, and assisting the elderly. They are unflagging, unflinching, and determined to make a difference.

National service has always been a passion of mine. When we started in the 1970s with the establishment of a domestic volunteer corps-- similar to Peace Corps--I wanted to capture the fervor, the passion, and dynamic qualities of a social movement that would bring people to arms wielding change. At some point, it seemed we lost sight of what Alexis de Tocqueville called

``habits of the heart''--neighbor helping neighbor. I wanted to help turn the ME generation into the WE generation.

That is why in 1989 I, along with Senators Kennedy and Nunn, introduced the National and Community Service Act--a bill to establish the Corporation for National and Community Service to oversee and coordinate our national volunteer efforts. This important legislation also created a demonstration program that has since evolved into what we know today as AmeriCorps.

I believe that AmeriCorps is the embodiment of the spirit of volunteerism and service to our country. When creating this program, I did not just want to create another government program. I did not want this to be another bureaucratic agency. What I wanted to do was capture the fervor, passion, and dynamic qualities of a social movement that would bring people to arms wielding change. I think we were successful in doing just that.

I am so proud of what AmeriCorps has accomplished and become. I never dreamt that I would be standing here 20 years later knowing that the AmeriCorps program would be the force that it is today. The data doesn't lie--it is quite impressive. Over the past 20 years, more than 820,000 AmeriCorps members have served our communities and country, providing more than 1 billion hours of service.

My home State of Maryland is lucky. We have 1,600 AmeriCorps members, and 5,400 Senior Corps members. Their stories are poignant, whether it is a Teach for America Corps member helping a child with long division after school, or a National Civilian Community Corps member helping restore order to communities after a devastating storm or an AmeriCorps member helping veteran families readjust to civilian life. Every day, national service changes lives. They all meet compelling human needs by helping out in our neighborhoods and communities across the country.

I used to be a social worker for Baltimore, but now I am a social worker for America, and I believe civic responsibility is worth investing in. I want to continue to make sure that we make this kind of investment in AmeriCorps because the next generation is carrying the torch for national service. We must remember that it is not only young people signing up to serve their country. It is seniors serving as a foster grandparent to children who have been abused or neglected. It is veterans trading in their uniforms to work with Habitat for Humanity, building homes for their fellow service members. It is seasoned professionals heading into the corps, trading in corporate cubicles for classrooms and putting their real-world education to use. The next generation knows the importance of national service. Their dedication to its mission is inspiring.

Five years ago, I was at Mercy Hospital in Baltimore recovering from ankle surgery. An aide was helping me get back in bed and asked me if I knew Senator Kennedy. She said, ``They tell me you had something to do with National Service. I was in AmeriCorps.'' She was working in modest means--she had heard you could work parttime, earn a bachelor's degree from college, and that there wasn't an age limit. At the local health department, she started to do some outreach. Her supervisor told her, ``You have a real talent.'' This woman said, ``People like me are never told they have a talent, but I found I had a talent by working for AmeriCorps.'' Through an AmeriCorps stipend, she completed her degree in social work and helped her grandson get into college. She is just one of the many who have been touched by AmeriCorps, who have changed the lives of others through service.

These stories and the work that AmeriCorps volunteers do give me profound hope, because while one person can make a difference, together we can make a change. I am so pleased to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the AmeriCorps program and look forward to the next 20 years.

Madam President, I wish to recognize the bicentennial of our national anthem, the Star Spangled Banner, and of Defenders Day. I thank Senator Cardin, my partner in the Senate, for submitting a resolution to commemorate this occasion. Defenders Day, which inspired our national anthem, is momentous in the history of our Nation, the State of Maryland, and the City of Baltimore.

Two hundred years ago, the brave City of Baltimore led the way in the War of 1812 defending our Nation and holding the American line. Our troops stopped the British advance and claimed a much-needed victory for Baltimore and for the Nation.

Some call the War of 1812 the forgotten war. I believe it was the war that forged our Nation. As the United States entered the war, it was a loose collection of States. As we emerged from it, we were on the path to becoming a true Nation.

It was also during this war at the Battle of Baltimore that we gained an enduring icon of national patriotism in our National anthem, inspired by the naval battle at Fort McHenry. Fort McHenry is now a revered National monument and a historic shrine.

The Battle of Baltimore was a rousing victory in the dark days following the British attack on our Capitol. The British had just burned Washington, setting our Capitol and White House ablaze, and hurting America's morale.

Less than a month later, the British sent a fleet of ships toward Baltimore sailing up the Bay to break America at the war's frontline in what is known today as Patterson Park, but first they had to get past Fort McHenry.

The British bombed the Fort for twenty-five consecutive hours. Nearby, a young lawyer named Francis Scott Key watched from a ship where he was being held. When the smoke cleared on the morning of September 14, 1814, he saw the fifteen stars and fifteen stripes of the American flag streaming over the Fort. He was so thrilled that despite the bombs bursting in the air, ``our flag was still there.'' He went on to write the lines of the song that later became our National anthem, the Star Spangled Banner.

That day the line was held in Baltimore in our young country's war against the world's most powerful Nation. Fort McHenry has made history, and Fort McHenry has seen history. I am proud to represent Fort McHenry and Baltimore, and I encourage the passage of this resolution commemorating Fort McHenry, Defenders Day, and the Star Spangled Banner.

Madam President, today we commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act, a landmark piece of legislation that continues to improve the lives of millions of women, their families, and the communities that support them. I was proud to cosponsor this legislation when it was originally enacted in 1994, led by then-Senator, now-Vice President Biden. And I was proud to fight for its reauthorizations in 2000, 2005,

and 2013, each time refining and building upon the great work that VAWA does each day.

This legislation stands today as an as an example of what we are really called here to do--meeting people's day-to-day needs. That means protecting people, making their lives better, and providing vital resources to those in need. No woman in this country should live in fear that her partner will hurt or kill her or her kids. I have zero tolerance for domestic violence. If you are beaten and abused, you should have somewhere to turn for help and a path to recovery.

VAWA is crucial in all of our communities. Every day VAWA is providing services to families in desperate need. I hear from my constituents far too often about the challenges they are facing, often involving significant economic struggles only to be complicated by deep emotional pain and fear.

Here are the statistics: 1 in 4 women will be victims of domestic violence. 16 million children are exposed to domestic violence every day. And over 2 million will be victims themselves of physical or sexual violence each year. 20,000 of these cases are in my own State of Maryland. Since we created the legislation in 1994, the national hotline has received millions of calls. Millions of women felt in danger and had the chance of being rescued.

In my own State of Maryland VAWA is making recovery possible for victims by finding them legal help to separate from their abusers. They are also getting vital services at rape crisis centers and navigating our immigration system to ensure protection.

Through the years I have heard from too many Marylanders about their struggles. Fortunately, VAWA programs existed to help them. I heard from one of my constituents, Jean on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Jean was married to her husband for 10 years and shared 2 children. She benefited from VAWA's Legal Assistance for Victims Grant after being abused so brutally one evening. Jean called the hotline and got the legal assistance to file for a protective order, which she ultimately was awarded and is now living her life safely with her children.

I also heard from Danielle. Danielle was sexually assaulted at the age of 19 by an associate that she knew. She was aided by VAWA's Sexual Assault Services program when she made the connection with the rape crisis center a few days after her attack. Danielle got the support she needed at the crisis center. She received personalized safety planning and counseling and was provided a lawyer to help her get a peace order.

I also hear from law enforcement in Maryland who say VAWA is helping them make communities safer. The Lethality Assessment Program, pioneered in Maryland and now a model for the Nation, was strengthened in the last VAWA reauthorization. The program is used to identify high risk situations at the outset to link up local police with domestic violence professionals to provide wrap around services and empowerment to get victims out of harm's way and reduce homicides. This was made possible because of VAWA which provided the Federal funding to make this a reality.

As chair of the appropriations subcommittee that funds the Justice Department, I have secured funding for the Violence Against Women Act programs at the highest levels ever. These programs ensure tougher penalties for abusers, coordinated assistance with community organizations, and court advocates for abused women to boost reporting and prosecution.

In the fiscal year 2015 CJS spending bill I provided a robust $430 million for Violence Against Women grants, continuing a strong commitment to VAWA programs. I also provide strong investments in core VAWA programs including: $195 million for STOP formula grants, which coordinates community response to domestic violence and also trains police, prosecutors and judicial staff; $30 million for sexual assault services that direct services for victims of rape; $26 million for transitional housing grants so victims have safe and affordable housing after shelters; and $50 million for Grants to Encourage Arrests, which teaches police and prosecutors how to support victims and ensure offender accountability.

So today, as we mark 20 years of VAWA, we reflect on what it has done for families across our country and women in desperate need. But we also reflect with the renewed knowledge that the programs that have been in place are reducing domestic violence and improving outcomes. If it is anything that the last 20 years have shown us, it is that VAWA works. I am proud of it and am so happy to mark this important milestone.

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

Mr. President, I know the Senate is now considering whether we should vote on the motion to proceed to the emergency supplemental bill. That means under our rules of another century we actually don't get to the bill. We have a debate or even have a filibuster on whether we should even move to the bill. It was designed to cool the passions of the time so the Senate could be the greatest deliberative body in the world. However, these procedures now have been distorted. We are no longer the greatest deliberative body in the world; we are the greatest delaying body in the world. Delay has become not only a tactic to come up with better ideas, delay has become an outcome unto itself.

We are facing a serious problem in our country, and I hope we would vote on the motion to proceed so we could actually get on the legislation for the urgent supplemental funding to deal with three crises facing our country, one of which is wildfires burning in the West, in which property, communities, and livelihoods are being destroyed and first responders are being exhausted. While they are being exhausted, local and State funds are being exhausted, along with the Forest Service of our own government.

We need to stand with our neighbors in these Western States because this is a calamity. The Presiding Officer was the mayor of a great city in New Jersey--Newark. He knows what happens when a hurricane hits the city and hits a State. He could tell me and I know he has spoken frequently about how New Jersey is still trying to recover from Sandy.

Well, the fires raging in the Western States are their hurricane. It is their tornado. It is their Sandy. I hope we would pass the $615 million to help our own fellow citizens in the 8 Western States.

Then we have a treasured ally that is under attack by a terrorist organization and needs to defend itself using technology called the Iron Dome. They defend themselves by shooting interceptor rockets. It is not an offensive rocket, shoot to kill, it is shoot to defend. They are using up these rockets at an unprecedented rate, and the Secretary of Defense sent a letter to the Congress asking for $225 million to be able to replenish their arsenal.

We also have a crisis in Central America and the violence by the narcotraffickers--or the narcoterrorists--that is causing a surge of children to come into our country. I hope we will pass the legislation which will allow us to get the money that is needed to address that situation, and I will elaborate on that in a moment.

After all is said and done, I hope this will not be another day where more gets said than gets done. We need to respond to the needs that are presented to us.

I wish to talk about the children at this time. Much has been said on the floor about the current situation, and much has been said about President Obama's failed immigration policy; we need to give the National Guard police powers.

I am proud many Senators went down to the border. I myself went to the border. I went to see the situation, as chair of the Appropriations Committee. No. 1, I wanted to see if there was an urgent need; No. 2, what would it take to meet that need; and No. 3, how we can work together on a bipartisan basis to protect the children and protect our own country. Well, I got an eyeful, and I have to tell you about it.

I traveled with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of HHS, Secretary Burwell, down to the border. We went to the McAllen Border Patrol station. We also went to Lackland Air Force Base, where children are temporarily housed. I had the opportunity to meet with great Border Patrol agents, a wonderful faith-based organization that is caring for the children, and fantastic young lawyers from the University of Texas at Austin campus and St. Mary's Law School. The law students and professors are there to make sure the kids have legal services on a pro bono basis. They are doing it on their own time. We saw a lot. I also had a chance to talk to the children.

First, I will talk about the number of children. There was talk on the floor that made it sound as if we were under siege rather than facing a surge. I think there is a big difference between feeling as if we are under siege and facing a surge. As of this minute, we are talking about 60,000 children. That is a lot of children, but if you went to Baltimore to the Ravens stadium, the Ravens stadium holds 60,000 people. We are not talking 600,000 or 6 million children; we are talking about 60,000 children. Maybe it will swell to 90,000 children. All 90,000 children could still fit in the new Dallas stadium.

We are talking about a number so small that it could fit into an American stadium.

We are a country with 300 million people. We can certainly deal with 60,000 children who are fleeing traffickers, drugs, and sexual slavery. Are we not big enough, tough enough, and strong enough to be able to deal with that? I think we are. If you could see what has been going on, you would know what I mean.

Let's talk about these 60,000 children. It is literally a children's March across Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, through Mexico, and coming up the Rio Grande. They are not coming across all 1,900 miles of the border. They are going to a specific area, and they are crossing the river on rafts, swimming, and doing whatever they can to get to the border.

It starts like this: The children either come on their own or they come because a smuggler or coyote brings them here. That means some mother, father, or aunt in the United States of America, making minimum wage, is scraping together the $3,000 to $5,000 the smuggler is charging to deliver--kind of like a FedEx or UPS for human beings-- these children to the Rio Grande border. The violence is so bad that they are willing to trust a crook to bring the children to this country.

These children trek through a jungle, through filth and dirt and danger. They stop at what they call safe houses. That is an oxymoron; there is nothing safe about a safe house. There are children with all kinds of different people on that road. These people take advantage of the children. I won't describe it.

From this safe house, they finally make it to the border by a train called The Beast. The Beast is a cargo train. This is not a lovely train that goes up and down our coast from Boston to Savannah. This is a train called The Beast. The children ride on the top of these trains, holding and clutching to each other. I talked to a 9-year-old girl who said that she rode for 2 days and had to stay awake for 48 hours because she was worried about falling off and losing an arm or leg or death itself.

Why would children risk this? Why would parents risk this? It is because of the danger, danger, danger in Central America. We are talking about arming the border more. We need to go after these criminals and arm our law enforcement officers so they can fight the narcotraffickers in Central America. We need to deal with our insatiable appetite for drugs that fuels and is driving this movement.

When they send the children back, what are they going to send them back to? We are sending them back to countries that are recruiting boys to engage in criminal activity, and girls are recruited into human trafficking. It is not as though we are going to send them back on a plane and Juan Diaz will be there with yellow roses saying: Welcome back, children of Honduras and El Salvador. They will go back to the very danger from which they ran.

When I went to the McAllen Border Patrol station, which is really a detention facility--it was designed to detain adults--underline that word. It was designed to hold up to 300 people, usually illegal immigrants trying to cross the Rio Grande. These really look like cells. They are cement cinder block facilities that were designed to hold 10 or 12 adults, and they hold as many as 20 or 30 children who are sleeping on the floor.

The Border Patrol is doing the best they can. The Border Patrol is taking care of children because we can't move them to humanitarian facilities as the law requires. The children are taking turns sitting on a cement block to even be able to rest. There are 20 or 30 in a room sleeping on the floor and using empty water bottles for pillows. They

have blankets that look like aluminum foil. These are the lucky ones. They are able to come in from the overfilled outdoor area, where the boys are often put in a covered area where they sleep outside. The girls can be ``inside,'' but they are in these holding cells. They have very limited showers and very limited hygiene.

The Border Patrol is doing everything they can. It is not something we are used to seeing in the United States.

I know there is another codel going to the border. Go, go, go, go. Go and see this.

I talked to a 12-year-old girl. She was in charge of bringing her 6- year-old sister to the border. Their parents sent them here to escape the gang violence. The mother told the older girl to watch out for her younger sister. They said to her: Don't let her out of your sight until you get to America, and then try to get to your aunt.

I talked to a 15-year-old girl from Honduras. Both of her parents had been killed by gang violence. She worked in a restaurant to save enough money to pay the coyote. It took her 2 months to get to the United States. She escaped violence along the route to get here.

Are you going to send her back? Are you going to send the 6-year-old back? Wow.

I then had the opportunity to see what the conditions were like for these children. If you talk to the border law enforcement agents, they want to be law enforcement guys. Gee, are they terrific. They know the surge at the border has been caused by the criminal activity here. They talked openly about it. There are seven organized crime syndicates that are sparking a lot of this. They know about the false recruitment of young people who are promised a new way and new day to get to the United States of America. They know about that, and they want to be able to do what they were hired to do--law enforcement. But in order for them to be able to do what they need to do, we have to have the facilities for the children to be housed, clothed, and fed while their legal status is being determined under the law.

I went up to Lackland Air Force Base. The children are being cared for in unused dormitories that once housed our Air Force. We have new facilities for our enlisted personnel. Did you know we pay for that? The Department of Health and Human Services has to pay the Department of Defense to house those children. It is on a military base with all the rules and regulations associated with that. It is the most expensive housing we have, but it is the best housing we have right now because of this rejectionist fear that is being promulgated through our country that somehow or other these children pose a danger to us. It is the best we can do.

I will say that it is a very nice facility. It is operated by a faith-based organization, the Baptist Conference. My hat is off to them. I speak now as a professionally trained social worker. It is one of the most outstanding child welfare service organizations I have seen, from the nurses to the social workers.

They are doing a fabulous job, but they are under a contract. Although they are a voluntary, faith-based organization, they are being compensated for their time and services because that is what we should do. We want to be able to use such groups all over America. What was so heartwarming to me was that Catholic Charities, based in Oklahoma, came to Texas to see what the Baptists were doing because they were getting ready to take care of the kids. That is the American way--Catholic Charities learning from the Baptists.

They were all concentrating on the welfare of the children. They know these are all children in God's eyes and should be treated with dignity.

I then talked to the legal services people--the lawyers, law professors, law students from the University of Texas at Austin and St. Mary's College. The services they were providing were on their own time and their own dime. They are using their money and their summer vacation to help these children. There was no compensation, even for expenses, so they could begin the interview process to determine if any of these children had the opportunity to voluntarily return home. It is clear the coyotes misled them.

Well, we can't keep doing this on this emergency patchwork basis. We need the urgent supplemental, No. 1, to help Homeland Security's law enforcement and help Health and Human Services. They need to crack this backlog, and they need to be able to place these children in a proper facility. They need to determine if they have a right to refugee status.

Even when you have volunteer legal services such as the outstanding work I saw in Texas--outstanding. I know the Presiding Officer is a lawyer and would have been proud of these volunteers and the way they were responding to these children. They also offered bilingual services. They need more help, for example, from paralegals.

They need help to pay for the backlog of cases. We need to make sure we have enough immigration judges.

There is so much myth, so much misinformation, and so much distortion out there that I am afraid we will end this day and still not have had a vote to proceed to the urgent supplemental. Debate it, discuss it, and then let's vote on it or else it will languish.

As a social worker, I want to say that what I have seen these children go through is unimaginable. They have come here to escape violence and death. They deserve to be treated with compassion and integrity, and they deserve for us to do our job. Anyone who thinks we should just deport these children without giving them every right afforded them under our law should go down to McClellan and look into their eyes and listen to their stories.

The time to act is now. Let's put together a comprehensive program, and I believe we can meet this surge, deal with the root cause, and be able to function in a way in which we are all proud.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we are now in the closing hours of this session of the Congress. We are getting ready to take our break. I am rising to exhort our Members to vote for the urgent supplemental. I appreciate the fact that we have adopted the motion to proceed.

I remind our colleagues what is in the urgent supplemental. First, it is to fight wildfires in our own country: $615 million to fight 27 large fires that are sending homes and communities up in smoke in eight Western States.

Second, it fortifies Israel's antimissile defense system, Iron Dome, by providing $225 million to enable Israel to purchase interceptor rockets that they have utilized in their own self-defense. It is lifesaving technology. It is defensive technology.

Third, and not at all least, it is to deal with issues on the border, providing $2.7 billion to deal with the surge of children coming through Central America, through a treacherous route through Mexico, presenting themselves to our border, asking that we consider their petition for refugee or asylum status. This bill is a reduction by $1 billion of what the President asked for. The President originally asked for $3.7 billion for the surge of the children all by itself and then additional funds for Iron Dome and the wildfires.

When we looked at the request for the surge at the border, we felt we could reduce that by $1 billion, and to ensure the taxpayers that we are doing rigorous and vigorous oversight, we have money in there for the inspector general.

This is an emergency spending bill, which means no offsets are required.

Also, it is meant to deal with humanitarian crises, both in our own country with firefighting and then a crisis a treasured ally is dealing with and then a crisis in Central America, where the violence is so severe that children are on the march to be able to escape it. These funds will pay for additional law enforcement for our Border Patrol, humanitarian assistance for HHS to house, clothe, and feed the children on a temporary basis while we find a relative and their legal status is determined; that is, do they qualify for asylum or refugee status.

Much has been said about the backlog and even a mockery--some States mocked the current system because they said there were so many awaiting these types of hearings. Maybe if we passed regular appropriations, which we haven't done in 3 years, we wouldn't be in this crisis. But this supplemental includes money for additional immigration judges to be able to expedite the determination of these children's legal status.

Also, it goes after the drug smugglers, the human smugglers, the drug traffickers, the human traffickers, and the coyotes who are exploiting, creating the misery and violence in Central America, and also, while they are doing that, exploiting these children who are on the move and on the march.

I understand there is a great deal of reluctance to either vote for the money or to weaken our asylum laws. I would caution us in weakening our asylum refugee laws, particularly as it affects children. I hope we can pass this bill and begin to move forward with it.

I want everyone to be aware we are talking about a surge of children--approximately 60,000 children, not 600,000 children--just barely enough to fill Ravens stadium. We are a country of 300 million; we are talking only about this.

I hope we can move on this bill, meet our responsibilities to our neighbors in the West facing wildfires and an ally who is running out of interceptor rockets to protect itself and not only deal with the children and their request to determine asylum status, but at the same time we put the money in the Federal checkbook to go where the crime and the criminals are, which is the narcotraffickers in Central America.

I will have more to say before we wrap up, but I now yield the floor.

I object.

Madam President----

Madam President, if I could respond to the Senator from Texas, first of all, I do not want my objection to be interpreted by him or by the Senate or those watching as a pugnacious dismissal of the Senator's request. The distinguished Senator from Texas has always stood for Texas and he has also stood for the protection of the border. He comes with an incredible background where he was a judge, a former judge of the highest court in Texas. So I understand. And I have also heard him speak repeatedly about the plight of these children, and he has spoken with great compassion. He and I both agree that we should not have open borders and open wallets, that we have to deal with this.

But I say to my colleague, this bill is a money bill. It is an appropriations bill. We do not legislate on appropriations. There is no legislative language in this bill. What the Senator is proposing, working with the administration, with the Judiciary Committee, on a bipartisan basis--because I think there is a sentiment perhaps we could arrive at some other language, but on this bill I objected because this would be legislating on appropriations. The type of pragmatic approach the Senator from Texas is proposing--and we have perhaps some ideas-- cannot be done on this bill tonight with the urgent nature of it.

So I want the Senator from Texas to know my great respect for him and his advocacy on this issue, and I know of his heartfelt compassion for the children and his desire to have a broader immigration policy. I look forward to working with him on legislative matters in a different forum.

The Senator will yield for a question.

Is that the Senator's question?

First I would like to respond----

Thank you very much. We are eager to engage in conversation with each other.

It is the belief of the members of the Judiciary Committee--at least the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee--that the President has enough

current authority to provide what Secretary Johnson is asking. I too have heard what Secretary Johnson has. So there is a dispute about whether he needs more authority or whether the President can exercise the authority he has. We believe he already has enough authority.

Then there are two large issues. The two large issues are: immigration reform, commonsense, sensible, along the lines that passed the Senate--Senator McCain of Arizona and others have worked on this, Senator Durbin--and then the other is what is going on in Central America with these drug traffickers.

Quite frankly, the fact is we need to start to pay attention to our own hemisphere. I note that when everybody talks about how much money this is, it is less money than we are going to spend to give to the Afghan security force. OK. We give $4 billion to the Afghan security force. Let's hope they are going to use it and shoot in the right direction.

I am looking at making sure our country goes in the right direction, and I am going to work on a bipartisan basis. I say pass this bill. Let's put together a bipartisan task force and see if we can deal with these two problems of both immigration reform--to move it through both bodies--and also bring our focus back to our own hemisphere and deal with the issues in Central America.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, a parliamentary question: Did the Senator from Alabama raise a budget point of order? Did the Senator from Alabama raise a budget point of order?

I say to the Senator from Alabama, do you want to raise it now or do you want to raise it later?

Madam President, I note that the Senator from Maryland wishes to respond.

How much time do the Democrats have in this debate?

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois have 4 minutes to offer a rebuttal and I have 5 minutes for the wrapup debate before we move to vote.

Madam President, as we begin to close out this part of the debate, I would just say that the issues I am advocating are deeply personal to me and, I believe, deeply personal to all Senators.

When I talk about the fact that we have to fund help for wildfires in several States and help them be able to help themselves by replenishing the money for the Forest Service, I am reminded of the fact that a great writer by the name of de Tocqueville came to the United States to hear: What is this thing called democracy? He wrote that famous book, ``Democracy in America.'' In it he called for something that he observed. He said what sets America apart is its habits of the heart, that it helps neighbor helping neighbor.

Now, we used to do that through barn raising and pancake suppers. But, my gosh, these issues have gotten too big, too horrific. We now have thousands of acres burning, homes being destroyed, businesses being destroyed. We need to be able to help our neighbors in the West.

And I say to my colleagues from the West: I appreciate all the support you have given us on the East Coast who faced hurricanes. We didn't say we practice ZIP Code politics, that we only help one part of the country when they are facing a disaster.

Habits of the heart, de Tocqueville said that is what defines us. We now need to help that.

This issue now in terms of the Israelis and Iron Dome began for me right after I was elected to the Congress. When I traveled to Poland I went to Auschwitz and saw forever and a day--6 million Jews exterminated--why they needed a homeland, forever--a homeland safe and secure. Now they are asking for help to replenish their interceptor rockets on the eve of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, where people fought with sticks and stones and children crawled through sewers to defend themselves.

We are not going to fool around here. We are not going to delay until we come back from the 5-week break. Israel is the homeland for the Jews. We need to help them defend themselves.

My journey in Central America began as a brand new Member of Congress, with four Maryknoll nuns and a woman named Jean Donovan, who were raped and killed by the death squads in El Salvador. I watched a gallant, brilliant, charismatic bishop named Oscar Romero killed, gunned down in his own cathedral. Then we finally got around to looking at Central America and what was going on. We were worried more about communism than the rise of violence. For 30 years we have been up and down in Central America. We have inherited the winds. Our way of ignoring these three countries is by turning a blind eye, by always looking elsewhere in the world. If we have $4 billion to arm the Afghan security forces, I think we ought to back our Border Patrol, back our FBI, back our law enforcement to go after organized crime in Central America, because if we don't, it will be an additional threat and it will not only be the children--and now we have 60,000 children crossing the border.

I understand Texas and Arizona, the border States, are facing these problems. We do want to work together. But could we in the final minutes of this Congress get ourselves together enough to meet the urgent supplemental request to do this? This is what America is. This is who we are, helping our neighbors in the West, helping the country fighting for its survival, and also helping our own country dealing with the crisis in Central America facing our border.

I think it is time we pass this legislation, move forward, and come back and deal with the crisis there and also at the same time take a good look at immigration reform and do it in the way I think we can do it.

How much time do I have?

With that I urge the adoption of this bill and hope we could move forward as a united bipartisan Congress.

I yield the floor. I yield what time I would have.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending bill, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, first of all, the Senate is not in order.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 3 minutes in support of my motion to waive.

The bill that is before the Senate contains $3.57 billion of emergency spending, a reduction of $1 billion, to help fund and care for the children who seek refuge and to fight the criminal traffickers at the border. We fund fighting wildfires for our States and we also help Israel replenish its interceptor rockets.

What happens if the motion to waive fails? If the Senate fails to waive the point of order, the bill will go back to the Appropriations Committee, but the urgent need will remain. If the Senate fails to waive the point of order, agencies will take from other programs to fund this compelling need. What does that mean?

It means that HHS, which has already cut $138 million from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and others--we could have an ebola crisis in the world, and maybe even come to our border, and we are fooling around cutting HHS and CDC and other agencies. Please, let's look at what we are doing.

Homeland Security is also spending resources that would otherwise be used to secure the border, such as FEMA disaster relief money has to be there if we have a hurricane.

Simply put, failing to act is irresponsible. Let's waive the Budget Act, let's get on with the bill, and let's do our job.

I yield back my time.

Madam President, I wish to recognize the 70th anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising of 1944.

I am proud to stand here today to remember the heroism of the men and women who took part in the Warsaw Uprising. On August 1, 1944, the Polish Home Army was ordered to mobilize against the German forces. The Red Army had retreated to the outskirts of Warsaw and the Polish people believed the German forces would choose to withdraw. They choose this moment to stand up and try to liberate Warsaw before the Soviet forces could take control of the city.

The Polish Home Army consisted of 40,000 brave soldiers, including 4,000 women. They lacked weapons and supplies but proved to be a challenging force against the German Army. In response, Heinrich Himmler ordered all of the people of Warsaw killed and the city razed to the ground to stand as an example to the people of Europe.

The Polish Resistance fought bravely to liberate and protect their capital and their nation. But the Nazis were determined to crush the resistance. After 63 days of fighting, the German Army overcame the courageous Polish resistance. As a result, 85 percent of the city of Warsaw had been destroyed by the end of World War II.

The actions of the Polish people during the Warsaw Uprising serve as an inspiration to all people fighting for their right to freedom and dignity. To this day, their legacy stands as a testament to the Polish character. It is for these reasons that I am honored to mark the 70th anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising, which serves as a symbol of heroism and the strength of the human spirit.

Madam President, I rise to speak on the pending business before the Senate.

The Senate just achieved cloture on the motion to proceed to the emergency supplemental funding bill. Let me explain to the people who are watching this either in the gallery or on C-SPAN.

The Senate has creaky rules, and these creaky rules are to make sure we can cool the passions that may be raging in the Nation at any given time so we can duly give consideration, that

debate can be diligent and we won't be gripped by the fire of the moment or the passion of the motion. I appreciate that. However, now these rules require us to take a lot of time to get to the meat of the matter.

We are now debating a motion to proceed to legislation related to supplementing existing funding to meet new emerging crises. The Senate votes on a motion to proceed not to the bill itself but on whether we should even go to the bill. So what we are debating now is whether we should proceed to the emergency supplemental funding bill. I want to say yes. Yes, vote on the motion to proceed. Let's get on with it. Let's have a real debate on real issues. Thirty hours has been set aside to debate whether we should proceed. I am here to say let's proceed, let's yield back our time, and let's get on the bill. We have a lot of things we need to get done in the next 48 hours. I want to see this emergency supplemental funding bill debated and voted on.

We have three elements in this bill that meet compelling needs--need for our neighbors in our country; need for our treasured ally, the State of Israel; as well as need for a crisis at the border where children literally are marching across Central America in search of refugee status. We need to deal with all three of these issues.

This emergency funding bill is about neighbor helping neighbor.

First of all, it is about our own country. Wildfires are raging in the West. Over the last year 39 States have faced wildfires. Right this very minute eight Western States are coping with unbelievable wildfires, some of the largest fires in their history. What happens? Vast amounts of territory are going up in smoke. We are losing towns, businesses, homes. Our firefighters are worn out, as well as our first responders, and they need help. This legislation will provide $615 million to the States facing this horrific Armageddon-like emergency.

In addition, this legislation includes $225 million to replenish the rockets that are being used by Israel, deploying technology called the Iron Dome. The Iron Dome is a missile defense system that is destroying the rockets being sent into Israel by Hamas. The technology is working, but they are using up the rockets and they need to be replenished.

Then there is the humanitarian crisis at our border. We have $2.7 billion to meet the needs of children seeking refuge, in order to be able to deal with placing them while we determine their legal status but also being able to fight the crime of the narcotraffickers and the human traffickers who are creating this surge of children.

This is a total emergency funding level of $3.57 billion. Why do we call it an emergency? Well, because under the law we can't just say this is an emergency. In order to get emergency funding, we have to meet the criteria of the Budget Control Act of 2011. The need has to be urgent. It has to be temporary. It has to be unforeseen. It is either to prevent the loss of life or in the interests of our national security. All three of these areas of funding meet this need.

Under emergency funding, there are no offsets. That means we don't take from another important program being funded by the U.S. Government to meet that need. So in order to meet the needs of Iron Dome, we don't take from other national defense money. It will replenish that. When we help with wildfires, we don't take from other important areas, such as agriculture or interior or from other bills. This will help to not only meet the need but also not place an additional burden on other communities.

Now I wish to speak about the urgency. This firefighting help is really needed now. We listened to the Senators from Western States. We see the photographs literally showing parts of our country going up in smoke. The Forest Service--the agency that actually is in charge of dealing with this--will run out of money in August. As I said, last year these wildfires burned in 39 States.

Then we look at Iron Dome. Hamas--this violent terrorist organization that actually rejects Israel's right to even exist--from its tunnels is showering Israel with rockets. Iron Dome, Arrow Head, and David's Sling are missile defense systems designed to help them. The up-close missile defense system is Iron Dome. This bill will make sure we replace the interceptor rockets that are being used to protect them against this showering of rockets. The Israeli Embassy spoke to my staff yesterday. There have been over 2,000 Hamas rockets fired in the last week. Israel needs to replenish these rockets.

Then there is the issue of the surge of unaccompanied children presenting themselves at our border, asking for refugee status. In order to really be able to meet this crisis--and they are coming in by the thousands; 59,000 kids have come this year. We know the immigration and customs service, if we don't meet this emergency funding, will run out of money in August. Border Patrol will run out of money in early September. That doesn't mean the Border Patrol agents or the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents will stop working; it means the Department of Homeland Security--22 agencies--will take money out of existing funds to fund this. So it means they could take money out of Federal emergency management just as we are going into hurricane season, just as we are in high tornado season. We could be taking money out of FEMA to put it in Border Patrol unless we do this emergency funding. We have to do it.

Health and Human Services runs out of money in August. They are the ones in charge when the children present themselves while their legal status is being determined. The children must be taken care of in a humane way, the American way. We don't treat children in an abusive manner. It means we will feed them, we will clothe them, we will shelter them, we will meet any emergency health needs they have, and we need to do that while we determine their legal status.

My bill--the supplemental I am presenting--helps accelerate the determination of their legal status. My legislation and this supplemental spending actually provide more immigration judges and legal representation for the children. That is so we can quickly determine if they have a right to asylum while we are also taking care of them. We need to be able to do that.

I hope others will get the briefings that I had and visit the border the way I did to find this out. The reason we have a crisis at the border is because we have a crisis in Central America. This legislation provides the money to do this. People say root causes such as poverty have been going on for years. This doesn't only deal with poverty. We want to work with the governments of Central America to really go after the narcotraffickers, the human traffickers, and the coyotes engaged in smuggling.

Why do we want to do that? If we ask these children where are the home towns they are from, they will give us the names of little cities and little towns, and when we look at their poverty rate, we find the poverty rate in these communities has been consistent for a number of years. That is a sad circumstance. But when we look at the crime rate, the murder rate, the recruitment into violent gangs, the recruitment into human trafficking, with the threat of death or torture--that is where these kids are coming from.

We have to go after the criminals in Central America and not treat these children as though they are criminals. We cannot treat children in this country as though they are the criminals. We need to go after the real criminals in Central America using our assets and working with the assets in Central America. They have programs and they have plans. Honduras is a great example of what they are trying to do. They need our help. If we don't want the crisis at our border, we need to deal with the crisis in Central America.

That also deals with our insatiable, unending, vociferous appetite for drugs. The drugs have created the narcoterrorists. Once people start selling drugs, they are willing to sell women and children like commodities, and if they are willing to sell women and children like commodities, then that is where the vial, repugnant practice of human trafficking and human smuggling and even a new form of slavery--sexual slavery--begins.

These children are on the march. And when we talk to these children, we learn they are terrific children. They are brave and gutsy. When we talk to the boys, we learn they don't want to be part of the gangs. They want to get

out. They want to get out, so they start this long march from their home country to Mexico to make it on the Rio Grande on rafts and by swimming and so on so they can make it to our border. When we talk to the girls, we learn the girls want to go to school and get an education. They don't want to be recruited into these vial circumstances. These are earnest, hard-working children who want to have safety, who want to have a future, and we want to be able to see, by interviewing them, if they qualify for refugee status. If they don't, they will have to go back home, but if they do, they get to stay here. So they deserve the protection under law. We need to pass this legislation.

This bill is a funding bill. It does not include immigration legislation. We say those kinds of things can either be brought up in another way or another method, but this is a clean funding bill. When I say ``clean,'' it means it has no legislative language on it related to immigration. So I hope we can pass this legislation.

Now, I have listened to my own constituents, and many of them are saying to me: Hey, Barb, we are not against these kids. In fact, recent polling says 69 percent of the American people say if they are refugees, we should take care of them and they have a right to determine their legal status. But many of my constituents say: Hey, Barb, what about us? What does this mean? You are going to spend more money? What about my schools? When do we get help? My kids need help. They need schools; they need health care. You talk to families now. They are getting ready to go back to school. Many parents cannot wait for sales-tax-free day in Maryland, where you can get your backpack and your school supplies and your little clothes and shoes. My God, the cost of kids' shoes now is a small fortune, and they will outgrow them by the time they get to Thanksgiving. Parents are looking for bargains, for deals, to be able to do this. They are not hostile, but they wonder about them.

I want to say to them, I hear you. I was touched by a very poignant story over the weekend about how we have a food bank at Steelworkers Hall in Baltimore. Bethlehem Steel closed. It will never, ever, ever come back. The steelworkers of America, who contributed to the United Way, were always the first in line if a blood bank was necessary. Now many of those who lost their job are using the very food bank that they once donated to.

That story was so moving because we have lost our manufacturing. We have just lost a bill earlier today on bringing jobs back home-- something I know the Presiding Officer is for, I sure am for, and so on. So I know American families are hurting. Yes, they are. But I want to bring out that the cost of this bill is the same amount of money as we are going to spend on training the Afghan National Security Forces. Did you know that? So we are going to spend $4 billion--that is ``billion'' as in ``Barb,'' not ``million'' as in ``Mikulski''--$4 billion to train the Afghan National Security Forces. I am not going to debate the merits of that. But we can spend money all over like that and we cannot spend money at our border and also for threats to our border because of narco terrorism that breeds other vile, repugnant, heinous behavior? I think we have to get real here.

The reason I want a supplemental--that is urgent and meets that criteria--is that we do not have to take the money from other important programs that do help America's families in education, in health, in job retraining in order to bring our jobs back home.

So I really do hope we pass this bill. Not spending money will not save money. It means we will just take out of existing programs and the American people will pay for it doubly. They will pay for it through inaction, which will ultimately cost more. They will pay for it because they will lose programs they thought they were going to have access to or there will be limited availability.

We have a chance here now to help our neighbors in our Western States. I know Wisconsin has been hit by it terribly, and we are so sorry for the loss of property and the danger to that community. It will help a treasured ally, Israel, which we must. Also, we will help our own country. The way to protect our border is two ways: fight it in Central America and also show what we stand for. If children are applying for refugee status, they should have their day in court and under the law proceed.

So, Madam President, we are now on this motion to proceed. Let's get on with it. Let's yield back our time. Let's get to the bill. Let's get the job done. I hope at the end of the day the vote will be ``yes.''

I yield the floor.

I rise to speak on the urgent supplemental bill, and I rise as the chair of the full Committee on Appropriations that is actually trying to move the urgent supplemental.

``Supplemental'' is an important word. It means it is in addition to fiscal year 2014 funding. There are elements where we make requests for an urgent supplemental because of unexpected emergencies, either within our own country or affecting a treasured ally--such as the State of Israel--or the crisis at our border because of what is going on in Central America. Remember, it is the crisis in Central America that is creating the humanitarian surge at our border.

Although I rise now to speak about one element. I have spoken about the fires in our Western States and later today I will speak about the children and actually try to paint a picture for people about what is going on in Honduras, El Salvador, and other countries that are also affected, but now I am going to speak about Israel.

Israel is under attack, and it is under attack by a terrorist group that denies its very right to exist. It is under attack by an organization called Hamas that is sending thousands of rockets to Israeli cities and towns targeting innocent civilians. Its very survivability is being defended by missile defense technology. The most crucial for short-range missiles is a technology called Iron Dome. This missile defense technology has saved hundreds of lives.

I can speak to this--when I say personally, not because I am in Israel and see the horrific attacks, but because I have a classmate from college, a very dear friend, and we have stayed in contact over a number of years. She is a psychiatric nurse. When she married, they made aliyah and moved to Israel, where she has taught at Hebrew University and her husband is a distinguished psychiatrist. They live in a town called Ashkelon.

She sent me the most poignant of emails. I will not read it to my colleagues, but she did tell me what is going on. Every day there are these rockets going on. They spend their lives going to shelters. They can only move around in a small patch because they have to be, under safety rules, within 2 or 3 minutes from a shelter. She said in her email to me that it is literally Iron Dome that is saving their lives.

Iron Dome is a technology that needs to be replenished. It needs to be replenished, and the State of Israel has discussed this with our government. Secretary Chuck Hagel wrote to our committee asking that this be in the supplemental essentially because of this war or terrorist attack against Israel.

The committee has responded by placing $225 million in there, but in order to replenish it. There are many who say: I don't know if I am going to vote for this. What is Iron Dome, and is this an attack technology?

Let me say what Iron Dome is.

Iron Dome is a high-tech defensive system. It is not an offensive system. It is used as a missile defense system. How does it work? Approximately 10-feet-long missiles intercept rockets. Their rockets aren't designed to shoot out; they are designed to shoot rockets at rockets that are being fired on Israel from a range of between 2.5 and 43 miles. Each interceptor missile--remember, they intercept another rocket--costs about $50,000. Stunning, isn't it? Israel has invested over $1 billion of its own money in Iron Dome. Our government has worked with them on Iron Dome so they can maintain their qualitative edge. But just think. In order to protect themselves, every rocket going off costs $50,000.

As of July 30, over 2,730 rocket launches have been directed at Israel itself. Iron Dome has sent over 515 interceptions; 9 batteries have been deployed; more than 4,100 targets were attacked since the beginning of the operation.

But remember, over 2,700 rockets have been directed at Israel. Iron Dome has deployed 515 at the cost of $50,000 apiece. Now what they are saying is, help us replenish our interceptor rockets because we are using them up. Essentially, it is bullets--not directed at people--it is rockets in the air.

Israel has a 90-percent success rate in intercepting these rockets coming from the Gaza. What they are asking for is help from us, the ability to replenish these rockets. I hope we do this in order for them to continue to be able to defend themselves. It is absolutely crucial that Israel has the opportunity to defend itself while others are working on cease-fires or political solutions. Those are excellent diplomatic and humanitarian goals, but right now we have to make sure that Israel can defend itself.

This is important because Israel is a treasured ally. It is important that we enable them to guard themselves against a terrorist organization.

We all know that the long-range solution is that the Hamas infrastructure must be eliminated. That is absolutely so. These so- called--well, they are not so-called. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I have had many briefings on this. I can't go into detail, but there are tunnels that go right through Gaza and into the edge or, actually, in some instances into Israel itself. During this conflict Israel has discovered 31 tunnels. This is extremely disturbing. And they are big. When we think of a tunnel--this isn't like a little pipe for water. This is a tunnel where as many as two people could cross side-by-side going through and, in some instances, actually weapons being able to be put through. These tunnels are a very threat to Israel's existence.

In addition to the tunnels, the rockets that are pummeling Israel continue to be fired every single day.

We believe, for our allies, in the right to self-defense. We have signed memorandums of agreement to enable them, with their missile defense system, to maintain their qualitative edge.

Now, when they are in the very struggle for their safety and perhaps their future, we need to be able to pass this important legislation.

We also know that when we pass this legislation, Iron Dome should stand alone. Many people who support the Iron Dome legislation, such as myself, want to also support those people who are also under threat.

That takes me to the children, because right now the children in Central America are under threat. And what are they under threat of? Well, I will talk more about that around 5:00. But what are they under threat of? They are under threat because of the narco drug dealers who have created the most vicious and violent gangs that have now almost taken over some of these Central American countries. They want to recruit the young men to be part of the gang, part of the drug trade, part of the couriers, part of what is involved in doing a drug trade. Then, when they refuse, they either threaten them with death or the most grisly and ghoulish of torture.

There are reported incidents, not in our classified briefings but in public media, of children being tortured to death because they refused to join a gang. They are literally fighting for their lives. These children coming to our border are fighting for their lives, and the way they fight for their life is to flee. They are fleeing the violence.

I know people are dismissive of some of this and they say: Oh, there you go. You are a soft-hearted social worker, you are a liberal, you love children. The answer is: Yes. Yes to all that. Yes, you betcha, I claim it; I own it; that is who I am.

But I don't do this because of some ``gushy-poo'' feeling here. I am doing this because of the actual documented violence in these countries, and I believe we need to respond to the needs of the children. Let them tell their case not only to a social worker--which is a good step, in my mind--but also to an immigration judge, and using the laws of our country, the legal criteria for asylum and refugee status, let's listen to the stories of the children. And if those children qualify for asylum and refugee status, then they should remain in this country. If they don't, there are other avenues for them to return home. But for gosh sakes, could we stop punishing the children for the crimes of the drug dealers and the human traffickers? Don't punish the children.

There are those who want to further militarize our border by calling out the National Guard. Well, what are they going to do when the children present themselves with little strips of paper saying what their name and their hometown is, and where their aunt is living in Langley Park, MD? That is not the job of the National Guard.

And if we want to use guns at the border, yes--don't use them about the children, use them about the drug dealers. And by the way, it is our insatiable, vociferous desire and appetite for drugs that has fueled this whole economy in these countries.

I am going to say more about this, but I do want to say that what is in this supplemental is the tools for people to defend themselves. For our friends in the Western States, this is money to protect themselves; and for firefighters--and gosh knows our local communities need that help; it is for a great nation such as Israel, our treasured ally, to continue to have the interceptor rockets to be able to defend itself; and it is also here that we take a look at the border, we honor our law in terms of determining refugee status for those fleeing from violence in their home country; and then we go after what is creating the violence which is right there in Central America against the narcotraffickers, because remember--and the Presiding Officer is very knowledgeable in this--if someone is willing to trade in drugs, they are also willing to view everything like a commodity. So they view drugs as a commodity and they view women and children, girls and boys, as a commodity, and they are then moved into human trafficking in the most vile, repugnant sexual trafficking.

We need to get some of our darker appetites under control, and we need to be able to fight. If we want to fight with guns, join with Central America and fight against the narcotraffickers.

I hope that clarifies the intellectual underpinnings of this bill, the compelling financial necessity, and humanitarian issues that are facing people in our own country, at our own border, and with a treasured ally.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I think we have just heard something really interesting and I think--excuse me. The way the Senator from New Mexico concluded--was the Senator from California scheduled to speak next?

I thought I was at 4:52. I didn't mean to jump the line. I really do want to hear from the Senator from California, the chair of the intelligence committee, as well as the chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security of the Judiciary Committee. She is a Senator with a lot of experience, and I look forward to her remarks.

Mr. President, to the Senator from California, I thank her for her excellent statement. She brings such experience and expertise. It is very much appreciated. Has the Senator looked at my supplemental recommendations where we have actually added money for judges and then support to pro bono lawyers willing to represent children?

That is right.

Mr. President, I would like to continue the discussion on the urgent supplemental. But before I do, I want to say that the senior Senator from Arizona is on the floor, and I want to say something heartwarming to my colleague. I say to the Senator from Arizona, you are a graduate of the Naval Academy, class of 1958. We both have a very dear friend who has passed away, ADM Chuck Larson.

Admiral Larson served with distinction in the Navy. He did many tours of duty in the defense of our country but also did two tours of duty at the U.S. Naval Academy, where I came to know him, and then subsequent to that there was the wonderful role that he played in education and transformational leadership.

I know he was a good friend of the Senator from Arizona too. So I would like to express my condolences to you and to the--of course, then it was guys only at the Naval Academy--class of 1958. I was the class of 1958 at Mount Saint Agnes College. We probably saw each other at a tea dance or two. I was the chunky one over there, not in the corner, though. But I just wanted to express my condolences. What a great class that seems to be. I hope we can work together on something that would truly recognize Chuck Larson and the great transformational leader he was.

I thank the Senator very much. I love our U.S. Naval Academy. But when you have great leaders, we want to in some way be able to memorialize them in a way that they inspired this ongoing, this next generation, and the generations to come about really what a great leader is and what value-driven leadership is all about.

So I look forward to working with the Senator from the Naval Academy and the State of Arizona.

Mr. President, I would also like to continue the discussion on the urgent supplemental and the crisis--many people call it the crisis--at our border. Well, we have a surge of children at our border because of the crisis in Central America. The crisis is in Central America, creating a surge of children desperately coming across our borders to seek political asylum.

I would hope that when we look at this urgent supplemental, we understand what we are trying to do. Yes, provide humane care for the children, real support for judges and other legal assistance to determine their legal and asylum status and, at the same time, to do the prevention in Central America, by going after what the surge is all about. The surge is about the escalating narco criminal-driven violence in these countries.

People will say: Well, what does that mean? It means that when you look at where the children are coming from, they are not coming from every country in Central America. They are coming from three countries in Central America. They are coming from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, but they are not coming from Nicaragua and they are not coming from Panama and they are not coming from Costa Rica. Why is that? The reason is because the violence rate is not as high. Yes, in these countries, particularly in Nicaragua, the poverty rate is the same as the other three. So why are they coming? They are coming because of the violence, and this is what we need to be able to deal with.

Last week, along with many Senators, I met with the Ambassadors from the three countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. At the invitation of Senator Menendez, the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, I met with the President of Honduras, the President of Guatemala, and the President of El Salvador to talk about these issues, to say: What is it that we need to do to deal with these issues?

This is what they talked about. They talked about the violence coming from the drug cartels and organized crime--organized crime--drug cartels fueled by America's insatiable demand for drugs. They have worsened in these three countries.

Then there is the recruitment. The narco criminals have gone after the children to recruit them, either for their profit or for their pleasure. I have to talk about this in a way that civilized people should not have to hear that this is going on against children in our own hemisphere. This is our own hemisphere. When I talk about the recruitment of children for profit or for pleasure, that is exactly what they are talking about--to recruit the children to be part of gangs, violent gangs, gangs to engage in narco trafficking, to engage in extortion, to engage in murder, to engage in intimidation. This is the particular targeting of boys--the particular targeting of boys to recruit them for the gangs. And if the boys do not want to join the gang and they resist, they hide, they try to run away,

they are often grabbed, many sometimes are kidnapped, threatened with torture or their mother or their grandmother or their sister is threatened with either death or violent sexual attack. All sexual attack is violent, but they talk about it in ways that I will not discuss on the Senate floor.

Then there is the recruitment for profit--yes, to make sure that maybe they are couriers for the drug trade, but also to recruit, nab or force young children to be involved in human trafficking and sexual slavery.

But we have to deal with this. We have to stop the violence with a tough battle. We have to go after the cartels, and we have to also really begin to deal seriously with our addiction to cocaine and to heroin.

When you talk to the President of Honduras about the drugs in his own country bound for the United States, he talks about how they smuggle drugs, and they smuggle children along the same trade routes. It is good trade to traffic in drugs and it is also good trade to traffic in women and children. You see, to the drug dealers, to the narco traffickers, to the seven organized crime units--and, yes, we know who they are and where they are; we just need to marshal the resources of our country and the hemisphere to go after them. We know who they are, where they are, what they do, and how they do it. They look at women and children, boys, as well as girls, as commodities to be sold across countries and across borders. My God. And we want to blame the children?

We hear: Let's send them back. Send them back to what? This is why these children are on the go. This is why these children are on the march. And the children do not care how they get here, as long as they escape the violence.

This is why we have included money of over $112 million to the Department of Homeland Security for enforcement--no, not National Guard at our border, but really moving assets to Central America to deal with law enforcement, to strengthen the courts, and to be able to deal with the issues of narco trafficking and organized crime in their own country.

We also know that while we are doing this type of intervention down there to go after the smugglers, coyotes, and human traffickers, we also need to deal with the fact that when these children are here, they have the right to seek legal asylum. Now, as Senator Feinstein pointed out, there are only 240 immigration judges in the country. The fact is there is a backlog of over 100,000 cases. These kids move to the front of the line, but even if they move to the front of the line, it could be as much as 2 or 3 years before their cases are heard. This is not right. It is not right for them and it is not right for our country.

So I have more money in this bill for more immigration judges to resolve the asylum cases, additional legal representation for the children, including bilingual representation, and the kind of backup and support where pro bono lawyers are coming to the aid to be able to do this.

I hope we pass this supplemental so we can do this.

Second, I made the trip to the border. I will talk about this on another day. I know my time is exceeded, but what I wanted to emphasize today is why these children are coming, the legal services we need to present here, and I look forward to talking more about this. I know my time is up, and I do want to be courteous to my colleague from the other side of the aisle.

So let's pass this bill. Let's do the interdiction in Central America. And let's enforce our laws here and provide the legal representation the law requires.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Cramming on Wireless Phone Bills: A Review of Consumer Protection Practices and Gaps.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2014.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2014, at 2 p.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The African Growth and Opportunity Act at 14: The Road Ahead.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2014, at 10:15 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Paid Family Leave: The Benefits for Businesses and Working Families.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``When Catastrophe Strikes: Responses to Natural Disasters in Indian Country.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``VAWA Next Steps: Protecting Women from Gun Violence.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on July 30, 2014, at 2:15 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Pricing Policies and Competition in the Contact Lens Industry: Is What You See What You Get?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 2014, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Flood Insurance Claims Process in Communities After Sandy: Lessons Learned and Potential Improvements.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2014, in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building, at 2:15 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Admitted or Not? The Impact of Medicare Observation Status on Seniors.''

What is the parliamentary situation?

May I proceed or does the other party wish to--how much time is remaining on our side?

With the concurrence of the minority party, I wish to proceed. I know they haven't yielded back their time. If that is agreeable, and hearing no objection, I will proceed.

Mr. President, I rise today as the chair of the Appropriations Committee to talk about several challenges facing our country.

First, I wish to respond to the comments made by many of the Senators this morning on the compelling need to pass supplemental appropriations to help Israel replenish the rockets it has used in its Iron Dome missile defense system. I am an unabashed, unrelenting supporter of that effort.

For many years, as a U.S. Senator on the Appropriations Committee, on the Defense Subcommittee, as well as as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I know how important the Israeli missile defense system is, including Iron Dome, David's Sling, and others that are absolutely crucial. I worked hands-on with Senator Inouye--the late great Senator, a Congressional Medal of Honor winner--to make sure we funded the missile defense system for Israel and to work on a bipartisan basis with Senator Stevens and Senator Cochran. We worked together, and thank God it worked. We also implemented an agreement signed by President Bush with the Government of Israel that we would always help Israel maintain its qualitative edge. We have done it, and I am proud of it.

Now more than ever an antimissile defense system that has worked needs to continue operation. We know the technology works, but they need to make sure they have the tools to make the technology work-- these additional rockets.

We know Israel is under attack. It has always been under attack since its very founding. This is not an existential threat; this is not an abstract threat; it is a daily threat. We know Israel is trying to defend itself against the grim, unrelenting attacks by Hamas--a self- avowed terrorist organization that has sworn in its documents not to allow Israel to continue. They absolutely oppose an independent Israeli State.

This month we are commemorating the Warsaw uprising. The Presiding Officer is a member of a group we affectionately call the Polish Caucus--those of us who have a relationship with the Polish Government, one of our greatest supporters in the NATO alliance. We recall that 70 years ago people were willing to fight back against the Nazis, rising out of the sewers of the Warsaw ghetto to be able to fight them off with sticks and stones and out-of-date weapons, working to liberate Poland from Nazis oppression.

Miles away, in places such as Dachau, Auschwitz, and others, there were the death camps. We are 1 year away from commemorating the liberation of the death camps. We know that as those people marched out of those death camps, they made their way into Palestine, which became the State of Israel.

We were the first Nation to recognize the necessary and rightful place for Israel to exist as an independent government and forever and a day the homeland for the Jewish people so they would be safe from terrorism and what occurred.

I am for this whole Iron Dome supplemental, and we need to do it, but it cannot be the only thing we put in this supplemental. We have neighbors right now hurting in our own country--our

Western States with wildfires raging over hundreds of thousands of acres, land being depleted, local resources for first responders being exhausted, local funds being worn down. We have to--we have to--be able to respond to the Western border.

Then there is the crisis at our border, and the crisis is at our border because of the crisis in Central America.

So when we move on the supplemental, let's look out for the great State of Israel, let's look out for our neighbors who are facing wildfires, and let's look out for what is going on at our border.

But, Mr. President, I came to the floor, first of all, to compliment Senator Sanders for the outstanding job he did working on a bipartisan basis to pass the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014. What a great job they did, out of a scandal--a terrible scandal-- affecting our Nation's veterans, where they had to stand in line simply to see a doctor in the very country they fought to defend.

Now they have found they have had to defend themselves against VA bureaucracy and in some places duplicitous action.

Well, the Sanders bill goes a long way, again, working on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the dome. Gosh, when we do this, this is why I wanted to be a Senator. I know this is why many others wanted to be a Senator: coming here, working on concrete problems, shoulder to shoulder, on a bipartisan basis, hands across the aisle, hands across the dome. And they did it. When this bill is passed, we will reduce the long wait times for veterans, we will increase doctors and nurses and specialty providers. It will allow veterans to see local providers if they have been on a wait list for an extended period of time or have to drive 40 miles to be able to get to a VA clinic.

Boy, do I know that when I look at some of the rural areas.

We are going to pay for it with $10 billion in mandatory emergency funds. Mandatory emergency funds, that is the way to do it.

The Sanders bill will go a long way in increasing personnel and also in expanding a number of clinics--27 new clinics. So I think it is great.

But as important as that bill is--and it is an important step--it cannot be the only step we take this week. I am so excited that shoulder to shoulder, again, if we work together, we can do a trifecta for our veterans. We can pass the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act--new opportunities for health care, where veterans do not have to stand in line. Also, we are going to vote today on Robert McDonald to give the VA a new Secretary, a new CEO, new leadership, hopefully new energy, new vitality, and new ways of doing business, bringing the practical know-how of the private sector to meeting our mission. But as important as those two are, I also come as the chair of the Appropriations Committee to say, why don't we take a third step that really will do the job? Let's pass the VA MILCON appropriations bill so we can actually put next year's funding in the Federal checkbook rather than just putting VA on autopilot? We can actually make a big difference with the new accountability, expansion of care bill, but that will take days, weeks, months to put in operation. Right this minute we could pass the VA MILCON bill as well as giving new leadership.

I come here because I really do want to move the VA MILCON bill.

The Appropriations Committee works through its subcommittees. And, wow, I have two great leaders on the VA MILCON Subcommittee, the chairman and ranking member, two outstanding Senators: Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. They have worked so assiduously on coming up with a bill for funding our veterans for fiscal year 2015. It is an outstanding bill. But right now we are out there in the wilderness. We have moved it through the subcommittee. We have moved it through the full committee. It passed unanimously. We are out in the ethers waiting to come to the floor. Johnson and Kirk, Mikulski and Shelby, we are like people with our noses pressed against the glass. We see it within our grasp but we cannot get through. All we want to do is help to complete the job we are trying to undertake today.

As much as the bill will be that Senator Sanders worked on, without the VA MILCON appropriations bill, the veterans will lack key tools to expand care, important support personnel that allows the doctors and nurses to do their job, important technology to run contemporary institutions. By the way, the bill we are going to be working on, the Sanders bill, is focused on health care, but we on the Appropriations Committee dealt not only with aspects of that but also the terrible backlog on veterans disability.

Mr. President, veterans disability--not only do you have to stand in line to get health care, but you are standing days, weeks, months to get your disability claim. You have lost an arm or a leg or you cannot breathe or you have PTSD and we cannot get your disability processed. This is unacceptable. What we do in the VA bill is come up with the funds to really modernize the VA.

First of all, just in terms of health care, to complement the Sanders bill, we have money in there to develop state-of-the-art technology so the doctors can provide medical health care, to make sure we have the modern equipment and the modern IT systems.

Right now, we need to be able to have DOD talking to the VA because veterans come from DOD. But we have an interoperable system. We work to fix this. We also deal with this backlog. You have no idea, Mr. President. My State of Maryland and my office in Baltimore have not had a good track record. I vowed to my veterans that I would try to break that backlog. And you know what. Working together we have been able to do this.

In the fiscal year 2015 bill, we fund an appeals process, we train additional claims processors, we require the management at the Veterans Benefit Administration to deal with the backlog, working with the new Administrator. We have not only great ideas, but we actually put the money in the Federal checkbook. Johnson-Kirk did it. Do you know how they did it? Yes, talking to the VA, reviewing tons of GAO and inspector general reports, and guess what else they did. They talked to the veterans. They talked to these wonderful volunteer service organizations.

So I am going to propose something later on today or later on this week. I do not want to be the chair of a committee who has her face pressed up against the glass looking longingly at the Senate floor with a bill I know will help the Veterans' Administration with the heavy lifting to deal with the health care and disability backlog. Because I believe in no surprises and no stunts, later on today or later on this week, I will ask unanimous consent to bring up the VA MILCON on third reading to be able to compliment what we are doing here today. I want to be able to do that and I hope no Senator will object to it.

Now, just again, in the spirit of full disclosure--because I truly have pledged to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle I would never be a surprise chair and I would never be one to pull gimmicks or stunts--I am going to ask that consent. I want people to know about it so they can discuss it, chew on it, talk at their respective luncheons.

When I ask unanimous consent, I am going to ask that it be brought up on third reading. Why am I doing that? Because under the rules of the Senate, if you bring up a bill on third reading, there are no amendments. So the question would be: Senator Mikulski, are you trying to stiff-arm again? No. I am trying to get the job done. I am not trying to stiff-arm the opportunity to offer amendments. But we have 72 hours left before we take this really long break--really long, long, long, very long--did I say ``long''--break. I do not think, when you need health care for veterans, when you need to modernize technology, when you need to crack the backlog--while we are kind of basking in the Sun somewhere--I do not want them in line.

So either this afternoon or sometime tomorrow, I will ask unanimous consent. I will turn to my 99 colleagues, and in the spirit of really meeting compelling needs of our veterans, I will ask that bill come up so that as we move through the other two aspects that we are going to do to help veterans, we can do the VA MILCON bill.

So I wanted to come to the floor today to talk about how we support a

treasured ally, how we look out for our neighbors in the West fighting our wildfires, and how we deal with the crisis in Central America, where children are being victimized and brutalized every day so they are making the long march across that terrain and territory to come to the United States of America.

So I hope in the short time the Senate is going to be in session this week and this month and even this year we could use this week to meet the needs that are confronting us, but, most of all, I would hope we do not just do part of the job for our veterans; we do this trifecta that I am recommending: passing the Veterans Accountability Act, the health care act; give us a new CEO; and have a chance to pass the VA MILCON bill.

I yield the floor.

If I could respond to the Senator from Illinois, yes, I am staying in Maryland because I had hoped we would even be working on conference reports and so on. But while the Senator is in Illinois and I am in Maryland, most of all, we do not want our veterans standing in line for their health care or their disability benefits. So shoulder to shoulder, forward together.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Carper, Corker and Boxer amendment to the highway trust fund extension Bill before us today. This amendment will provide certainty and a guaranteed funding stream that our State departments of transportation and the construction industry desperately need. It provides a short-term extension through December 19, 2014, which will allow Congress to complete its work on a multi-year bill this year. The underlying bill only prolongs uncertainty by extending the solvency of the trust fund to May of 2015.

In the last transportation authorization bill, I fought for a Federal formula that gives the State of Maryland approximately $780 million annually from the highway trust fund: $580 million for highway funding and $200 million for transit funding. The Maryland Department of Transportation's, MDOT, average weekly expenditure of these Federal funds is $10 to $12 million. Right now during construction season, MDOT is submitting reimbursements to the U.S. Department of Transportation for $20 million a week.

Without this extension, the Federal highway trust fund will go bankrupt in a matter of weeks. What does this mean for my home State of Maryland? I am advised that MDOT will not meet its commitments. The Department would be unable to begin new projects. It would be forced to focus on safety and system preservation instead of putting shovels into the ground. Existing projects will slow down or stop. The State of Maryland would have to find bond or State revenues to pay existing contracts. Most importantly, over 9,000 construction jobs will be in jeopardy.

This is why MDOT, other State departments of transportation, and the construction industry support a multi-year bill. Enacting a long-term bill this year will provide certainty with a guaranteed funding stream, allow MDOT to plan for the future, and provide stability to the construction industry. Projects take time and thoughtful planning averaging approximately 10 years to complete through construction.

In addition, a multi-year bill will strengthen our transportation networks improving safety and reducing congestion. It also will create 3 million jobs and support our economy.

I urge all my colleagues to vote for the Carper, Corker and Boxer amendment. I also ask unanimous consent that the op-ed Senator Cardin and I wrote in the Baltimore Sun be printed in the Record.

Madam President, we have just listened to a very lively debate on the highway trust fund, which is certainly a great issue confronting our Nation because our infrastructure is crumbling.

But we also know another great infrastructure has really been crumbling, and that is our VA infrastructure, including the ability to deliver health care to our veterans as promised, as well as to meet their claims when they file for their benefits, particularly those poignant, compelling claims around disability benefits.

I come to the floor today to see if we can't do a trifecta this week by passing the serious reform bill advocated by Senators Sanders and McCain----

These are excellent Senators whose voices are heard and heard and heard, as is mine.

In addition to the Sanders-McCain bill that comes as a result of the conference, really what that bill does is focus primarily on the health care issues facing us. What concerns me is also the fact that we need to eliminate the VA disability claims backlog for which there is also a compelling need.

Now, what I am advocating is that we do a trifecta this week; that is, we pass the conference report that has been advocated by Senator Sanders and Senator McCain that will deal with the important reforms, including adding new personnel. We have given the VA a new chief executive officer to bring about the reforms with the know-how of business. I also wish to bring to the floor the VA-MILCON appropriations bill.

This is a fantastic bill that moves from the subcommittee, led by my very able subcommittee chairman, Senator Tim Johnson, with the help of the ranking member, Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. They have done such incredible diligence on how we can use the taxpayers' dollars wisely to really provide the services we promised the veterans--yes, health care, but also that veterans shouldn't stand in line for health care and veterans also shouldn't stand in line and wait in line and then hope the line gets smaller for disability benefits.

What the VA-MILCON bill does this year, under the very able leadership of Senator Johnson, with the cooperation of Senator Kirk, is to implement these very important reforms, and the committee responded. I wish the Presiding Officer could have been in the full committee that day. We passed it on a bipartisan basis of 30 to 0.

Now I want to be able to bring this bill to the floor so this week we could do all three of these and make sure that the Sanders-McCain conference report bill is not on a weak foundation. We need to modernize our VA infrastructure.

There is over $10 billion of backlog in crumbling physical infrastructure at the VA. Its technology is dated. We want them to have great technology. Most of all, we finally want to crack this veterans backlog.

So I am going to propound shortly a unanimous consent request. I talked about it earlier. But before I make this request--I have spoken about this bill--I would like to yield to my colleague and my very able subcommittee chairman, Senator Tim Johnson, who has spent more than a decade working on these issues, and now, on a bipartisan basis, we have such a splendid bill--so wise, so prudent, so effective--that I wish we could do it.

I yield the floor for Senator Johnson and then I will reclaim the floor for my unanimous consent request.

Madam President, I am really eager to bring at least one appropriations bill to the floor. There are only 72 hours left before we break for August.

I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 400, H.R. 4486, the Military Construction-VA appropriations bill; that the Committee- reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that there be no other amendments, points of order or motions in order to the bill other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that there be up to 1 hour for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on the passage of the bill, as amended; that if the bill, as amended, is passed, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and authorize the Chair to appoint conferees.

The answer is no, I will not modify my request. But my response should not be interpreted as a pugnacious rejection.

I appreciate the civil and courteous way the Senator from Alabama has responded. But in a nutshell, what the Senator from Alabama is requesting is that we not pick up the supplemental, we bring up the VA- MILCON instead. I would like to bring up both bills, which is why I am asking that there be no amendments on VA-MILCON. They are practically identical between the House and the Senate. There were no amendments except a few perfecting ones in the Senate. We could get this done in an hour. So, therefore, I will not modify my request.

Madam President, first of all, I thank all of those advocating the highway bill for their courtesy in letting us bring this to the floor. Senator Johnson and I are deeply appreciative.

I think we have just had a very good discussion. We have stated what we would like to do to move VA-MILCON in the most time-efficient way possible--with the least controversial bill. I am not going to have anything more to say about this tonight, but now that we have kind of put a lot of ideas out there, we have heard what the expression is of the vice chairman of Appropriations, I would hope that over the next 36 hours perhaps we could find a way forward to do the trifecta I am hoping for to serve America's veterans: pass the conference report that helps improve veterans health care--we have done one part of that now by approving Mr. McDonald--and all we would have to do before Thursday night is to finish VA-MILCON.

So I intend to reach out across the aisle, and I appreciate the effort and courtesy and the cooperation of the highway Senators, who are moving this bill forward.

I yield the floor.