Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bring Jobs Home Act.

I am a blue-collar Senator. I grew up in a blue-collar neighborhood in Baltimore during World War II where my father had a small neighborhood grocery store.

We were the neighborhood of mom-and-pop businesses and factories. We made liberty ships. We put out turbo steel to make the tanks. Glenn L. Martin made the seaplanes that helped win the battle of the Pacific. We were in the manufacturing business. But the blue-collar Baltimore of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam just isn't what it used to be.

In the last decade, 2.4 million American jobs were shipped overseas. Where did those jobs go? Those jobs are on a slow boat to China and a fast track to Mexico. And why did they go?

In some cases, they went because of tax breaks that rewarded corporations for moving manufacturing overseas. It is wrong to give companies incentives to send jobs to other countries, especially when millions of Americans are looking for work.

The current Tax Code is putting companies that keep their business here, hire their workers at home, pay their share of taxes, and provide health care to their employees, at a disadvantage.

We should be rewarding these companies with ``good guy'' tax breaks for hiring and building their businesses right here in the United States.

I have been on a jobs tour of Maryland. I visited bakeries, microbreweries, and factories of small machine tool companies. I visited Main Street, small streets, and rural communities.

I talked with business owners and their employees. These are ``good guy'' businesses. They work hard and play by the rules. They have jobs right here in the United States. They want to expand. They want to hire. They need a government on their side and at their side.

That is why I am a proud cosponsor of the Bring Jobs Home Act. This bill ends the loophole that gives companies a tax break for sending jobs overseas.

The Bring Jobs Home Act tells companies: If you want to export jobs out of America, you can't file a deduction

for doing it. And it ensures the Tax Code can't be used to boost corporate rewards at the expense of American workers.

Economic patriotism means bringing our jobs back home, bringing our money back home, and standing up for America. So let's pass the Bring Jobs Home Act and take an important step toward economic patriotism.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes prior to the cloture vote on the Harris nomination.

Mr. President, I therefore call for the regular order. I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be included in the Record, to yield back whatever time we have, and that we move expeditiously to the vote.

Mr. President, I am so proud to be here today in support of the nomination of Pamela Harris--a brilliant litigator, professor, and public servant--to serve on the Fourth Circuit.

Senator Cardin and I recommended Ms. Harris to President Obama with

the utmost confidence in her abilities, talent, and competence for the job. The ABA agreed--they gave her their highest rating of unanimously well-qualified.

I thank Senator Reid for being so prompt in scheduling this vote. I also thank Senator Leahy for his expeditious movement of her nomination through the Judiciary Committee.

I have had the opportunity to recommend several judicial nominees for our district and appellate courts. I take my ``advise and consent'' responsibilities very seriously. When I consider nominees for the Federal bench, I have four criteria: absolute integrity; judicial competence and temperament; a commitment to core constitutional principles; and a history of civic engagement in Maryland. I expect our recommendations to not only meet these criteria but to exceed them, as Ms. Harris surely does. She has dedicated her career to the rule of law, achieving equal justice under the law and the perfection of appellate advocacy. She is truly an outstanding nominee.

Ms. Harris's career spans academia, private practice, and government. But there has always been a common thread of public service. We are proud to say that she is ``home-grown''--although born in Connecticut, she has called Maryland home since she was a child, eventually graduating from Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, MD. She went on to Yale where she received her bachelor's degree summa cum laude as well as her law degree. After completing a clerkship on the D.C. Circuit, Ms. Harris went on to clerk for Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court. She has served at the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel and at the Office of Legal Policy under two different administrations. She also spent 10 years appearing regularly before the Supreme Court while counsel and then partner at O'Melveny & Myers, taking on some of the most complex issues of our time.

Ms. Harris also has a distinguished career in academia as a Professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, co-director of the Harvard Appellate Practice Clinic, and later, at Georgetown, where she is today. At Georgetown she serves as executive director of the Supreme Court Institute, preparing litigants--first come, first served--and regardless of their position--for arguments before the Court. But Ms. Harris remained connected to Maryland, whether it was a pro bono appellate clinic at O'Melveny to work with Maryland's public defender or an amicus brief in major litigation involving Montgomery County Public Schools.

Ms. Harris has a commitment to the legal profession that is unmatched. It shows in the students that she has taught, the litigants that she has prepared, the briefs that she has written, and the pro bono service that she has rendered. She has risen to the highest levels of her education and career. Yet she has seen people in her life confront adversity and she knows the impact that the law has on people's daily lives. I believe it is this which contributes to her very humble nature. She believes that the Court is a place for justice and not a stepping stone. Ms. Harris continues to give back to the community, serving on the board of trustees at her children's school, and also to legal scholarship, as a member of the board of directors for the American Constitution Society and the Constitutional Accountability Center.

So I am so honored to be here today to support her nomination. I ask that you all join me in doing the same. It is critical that we have judges with commitment to public service, civic engagement, and the rule of law. And we have that in none other than Pamela Harris.

I object.

Madam President, I wish to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Geraldine Ferraro's nomination as the Democratic candidate for Vice President of the United States.

On the night of July 19, 1984, Gerry gave her acceptance speech as the first woman to be nominated for U.S. Vice President by a majority party. I was there, experiencing the thrill, excitement, and turbo energy as 10,000 people

jammed the Mosconi Center. Male delegates gave their tickets to female alternate delegates and their daughters. Gerry's walk on stage was electrifying. We gave her a 10-minute resounding ovation and wouldn't sit down. That night, a barrier was broken. That night, they took down the ``men only'' sign on the White House. For Gerry and all American women there was no turning back--only going forward.

Some people only knew Gerry as a political phenomenon, but I first knew her in Congress. She was a born fighter--for New York and every little guy and gal. She was an advocate for women, fighting for our status and giving us a new stature. Long after the campaign was over, she continued to be a source of inspiration and empowerment.

When Gerry was chosen for the Vice Presidential nomination, she showed modern American women what we had become and what we could be. Women felt that if Gerry could go for the White House, we could go for anything. For some of us women, that meant going to Congress to make a difference. Today, I know Gerry would be so proud of all we have accomplished. Back when we met in the House, we were the early birds. We weren't afraid to ruffle some feathers, but we were in the minority. In 1979, there were 16 women in the House: 11 Democrats and 5 Republicans, and 2 women of color. Today, there are 79 women in the House: 60 Democrats, 19 Republicans, and 30 women of color. As the Dean of the Senate Women, I am proud we are 20 women strong in the Senate: 16 Democrats and 4 Republicans. Together, we are changing the tide and changing the tone.

We have had some amazing victories along the way. We increased breast cancer research funding at NIH by 750 percent to $657 million in fiscal year 13. We increased childcare funding by 75 percent--$2.2 billion in fiscal year 14. We made sure good science included women by founding the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health. The research from that office has changed medical practices, reduced breast cancer by 15 percent, and saved lives a million at a time. This year, we celebrated the fifth anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which kept the courthouse doors open for women to sue for discrimination. Last October, women on both sides of the aisle created the climate for compromise that was crucial to ending the disastrous government shutdown.

We have had some amazing victories, but we still have more to do. The Senate women are fighting for women across America. We know women need a raise to raise their families. That is why we are fighting for equal pay for equal work and to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. We are fighting for a better minimum wage because we know that a full-time job shouldn't mean full-time poverty. We are fighting for education that helps our kids every step of the way. We want to give working families peace of mind and give children quality care for a brighter future. Passing my bipartisan child care and development block grant bill will bring affordable, accessible childcare to working families.

Women need a social safety net they can count on, at every age and in every stage. That is why we are fighting so hard for seniors by saving Medicare from becoming a coupon and a promise. We are ensuring Social Security remains guaranteed, lifetime and inflation proof. We are also fighting for health care that is affordable and accessible, by passing the Affordable Care Act to end gender discrimination in health care. I was so proud when we passed my Mikulski preventive health amendment, so simply being a woman is no longer a preexisting condition. We are taking a stand against the Supreme Court decision that denies women contraception and family planning, while valuing employer rights over employee rights. And we are fighting to ensure the safety and education of women and girls around the world--whether they are in Nigeria, Central America, or Afghanistan.

When Gerry took the stage at the 1984 Democratic Convention, she forever altered the course of history. For the rest of her life, she remained dedicated to empowering thousands of women in the United States and around the world. Today, we honor her lasting legacy and her impact on generations of women with a dream--and a desire to make a difference.

Mr. President, I rise as the chair of the Appropriations Committee that will be proposing the emergency supplemental bill. This bill will be introduced tonight, and I want to briefly describe it.

First of all, what does the emergency supplemental bill do? It deals with three crises; one, it will fight wildfires with additional resources as to what is going on in our own country; second, it will help Israel be able to continue to man its Iron Dome antiballistic missile system, as has been under siege by Hamas rockets; and, third, it will help be a downpayment on resolving the crisis of the children arriving at the border.

To be specific, it will fight wildfires to the tune of $615 million. Right now there are 127 wildfires burning in our Western States, covering four or more States.

Second, it will strengthen Israel's Iron Dome and add $225 million to replenish the antimissile defense system, saving lives by shooting down Hamas rockets, helping our essential ally Israel.

Third, it will deal with the crisis of our children arriving at the border, and that will be $2.7 billion--$1 billion less than what the President asked for. It will care for the children. It will provide food, shelter, and other needs. It will resolve children's asylum status, and it will have enforcement money to break up organized crime cartels, the traffickers, and the smugglers.

The total for all three of those will be $3.57 billion.

I agree with President Obama. This is an emergency supplemental. These funds are designated as emergency spending because they meet the criteria set in the Budget Control Act of 2011 that the needs must be urgent, temporary, unforeseen, and prevent loss of life. That is exactly what we are facing.

What does it mean to designate the funds as emergency spending? It means no offsets. So we do not take existing funds where we are either defending the Nation or helping America's families to pay for the spending in this bill.

The needs are urgent.

Firefighting needs are needed now. The Forest Service will run out of money in August. Fires are burning Oregon, Washington, and other States. We need to be able to provide the support to fight those fires and help our neighbors in our Western States.

Iron Dome. The funding is needed now to replenish a key part of the missile defense system, replace Iron Dome artillery. Israel has already used a great deal of its assets dealing with the more than 2,000 Hamas rockets aimed at Israel. Israel has the right to self-defense. We are helping them have what they need to intercept 90 percent of the rockets.

Funds to deal with unaccompanied children crossing our border are needed now. If we do not do this, the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement will run out of money in August, and the Department of Homeland Security Border Patrol will run out in early September. It does not mean that our Border Patrol agents or ICE agents will stop working, but it will mean the Department of Homeland Security will have to take money from other Homeland Security needs to keep these agencies doing their jobs.

Also, Health and Human Services will run out of money to house children in August. It means that children will stay longer at the border. They will be in inappropriate holding cells. It also means Border Patrol agents will be taking care of them, rather than child welfare social workers. If you want to use Border Patrol agents to take care of children, that is one thing. I think they should be defending our border and we should have social workers taking care of the children.

Our approach is sensible. It meets human needs. While we acknowledge a tight budget situation, we fund only that which is needed in calendar year 2014. This is very important. It funds only what is needed in calendar year 2014. It defers $1 billion of the President's request until 2015, subject to Congressional action that the need be validated. We hope by 2015 the surge will have diminished because of the prevention and intervention issues we are dealing with. But make no mistake, the funds we say we need we really do need.

This bill defers funds until next year, because I am deeply concerned if we do not follow the Senate number, the House will make draconian cuts that impact the care of the children, and also being penny wise and pound foolish, they are going to stop our ability to go after the smugglers and the coyotes. So we do not want to go after the children, we want to go after those people who are exploiting the children and trying to recruit them into despicable activities.

We also do not want radical riders that will weaken our refugee and human trafficking laws or accelerate deportation of children without due process under existing law. We do not want a backdoor version of bad immigration reform.

This bill is only a money bill. It does not include immigration legislation. How that will be addressed on the Senate floor will be decided by the leadership on both sides. The challenges to this request are many. We have made changes to the President's request. We have included more money for immigration judges and more money for additional legal representation for children so we can determine their legal status and determine whether they have the right to seek asylum status.

We also have robust enforcement against gangs and organized crime. Seven organized crime syndicates are operating in these three Central American countries now. We are talking about more guns at the border. We need more law enforcement and the help of the United States going after the real bums and scums, which is these drug dealers who recruit these children, murder children before other children's eyes.

You know what. We also know that when we work in a crisis and we do urgent supplemental efforts, we sometimes waste money. We can only look at some of the other agencies where we have done this. This bill includes strong oversight from the inspectors general to make sure the taxpayers' money is well spent, to protect our border, protect the children, and go after smugglers, coyotes, and human traffickers.

The best way to make sure the surge of children is slowed is not by rewriting refugee and human trafficking laws, it is by making it harder on these crooks and criminals.

I am going to conclude by saying this: We already have 60,000 children at the border. This crisis is not at our border, however. The crisis is in their home countries: Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala.

These children are truly fleeing violence. I have been down to the border. I have talked to these children, listened to children who faced sexual assault, the recruitment into human trafficking, gang intimidation, persecution, threats of grisly physical actions directed against them.

What is happening in these countries? When you listen to the cries of the children, I can tell you, in these countries there is a war on children. We cannot turn our backs on these children who are seeking refuge. We need to pass this supplemental and we need to deal with the violence that is coming out of Central America; that if we do not deal with it there, it is not that the children will come to our borders, it is that the violence and the gangs will come to our borders.

I hope when the leader introduces the bill later on this evening we can proceed and debate this with due diligence. I look forward to chairing the committee as we go through this process.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the 40th anniversary of Turkey's invasion of the island of Cyprus. Today, Cyprus remains a divided island, with a third of the territory still occupied by Turkish forces.

I am proud to stand with the people of Cyprus and call for an immediate end to the Turkish occupation of their country. On numerous occasions, United Nations resolutions have called for the respect of the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Cyprus and for an immediate end to the Turkish occupation. The Republic of Cyprus continues to demonstrate full commitment to a peaceful process that will reunify the island in accordance with these resolutions.

Over the past year, the Republic of Cyprus has taken significant steps to lay the groundwork for peaceful negotiations, including proposals that would bring the two sides together to build confidence, strengthen ties, and integrate the Turkish-Cypriot community. It is clear that the government and people of Cyprus stand ready to make the hard decisions needed to achieve peace.

Continued unrest that threatens the security and stability of the region further underscores the importance of supporting the Republic of Cyprus. A peaceful agreement that reunifies Cyprus would signal that just and fair resolutions can be achieved to end decades long confrontations. We must continue to stand with them to fight for a fair and responsible agreement--one that safeguards basic freedoms and human rights for all Cypriots. During his visit in May of this year, Vice President Biden reiterated the need for Cyprus to be reunited.

The Republic of Cyprus is a strong and trusted friend of the United States. I am proud of the strategic partnership we have developed over the years. The Government of Cyprus currently hosts the joint mission responsible for carrying out the removal and destruction of Syria's chemical weapons as well as providing maritime cooperation to facilitate the process. The role of Cyprus demonstrates the island's important strategic location and critical international engagement efforts.

I am encouraged by renewed efforts to reach a comprehensive and fair solution to reunify Cyprus. I urge the government of Turkey to cooperate with negotiations and I applaud the people of Cyprus for their steadfast commitment to securing a peaceful and prosperous future.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the life of Matthew Joseph Thaddeus Stepanek, best known as Mattie, who passed away 10 years ago at the age of 13 from complications due to his rare form of muscular dystrophy. Though his death was a tragedy, his life was a triumph. He was a gifted author and noted peacemaker. He took a personal challenge and turned it into a tool of inspiration for all of us. Mattie once said, ``I want my message to live beyond me,'' and it does. His message of peace and hope has reached millions around the world.

When Mattie was born in 1990 in Upper Marlboro, MD, doctors did not expect him to live longer than 24 hours. Mattie suffered from the same rare form of muscular dystrophy as his mother, his two brothers, and sister. His siblings all died before the age of 4. Though the disease eventually rendered him unable to walk and breathe on his own, Mattie was a survivor. He began writing poetry at the age of 3. He wrote poems about hope and peace. His philosophy was, ``Remember to play after every storm,'' and he did.

Mattie believed that wishes can come true. He had three. The first was to talk peace with Jimmy Carter. They spoke several times through email correspondence. His second was to have his poems published in a book. He wrote the most successful volumes of poetry in the last 30 years and became a seven-time New York Times bestselling author. His last was to see his poetry read on Oprah. He appeared on Oprah's show several times and became her good friend.

In September 2001, Mattie faced a setback. He was so sick that his doctors warned a laugh could cause his damaged windpipe to collapse. But that did not stop Mattie from a spectacular recovery. His doctors could not explain his comeback from this brush with death, but Mattie knew what it was. It was hope, prayer, and just one in a series of miracles in a miraculous life.

After the chaos and confusion of September 11 and the anthrax attacks on the Capitol, I was very grief stricken. I saw a little boy on TV reading poetry, offering hope and healing. Mattie comforted me and lifted my spirits. I contacted him through his hospital and visited with him and his mother in his home. In 2002, I presented Mattie with the Children's Hope Medal of Honor. This medal is given to young heroes who have shown valiant effort and courage in facing life's daily challenges. No one was more deserving of that medal than Mattie Stepanek.

Today we must also remember Mattie's mother Jeni Stepanek. Like Mattie, she suffers physical challenges, but her heart, mind, and spirit remain strong. Without Jeni, Mattie would never have been able to share his beautiful, inspiring words with us. Mattie got his knack for public speaking from his mom. She writes and talks about children with disabilities. He also got his love of life from her. Jeni continues to inspire us all with her life, with Mattie's words, and most importantly, a message of peace and hope.

In his poem entitled ``The Daily Gift,'' Mattie wrote:

You know what?

Tomorrow is a new day.

And today is a new day.

Actually, every day is a new day.

Thank you, God,

For all of these special and new days.

This is how Mattie Stepanek lived his life--with appreciation, inspiration, and energy. That is why I wish to say: Thank you, God, for blessing us with the gift of Mattie Stepanek and his heart of songs.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Senator Sanders is speaking. Senator Risch, I believe, is going to speak. The time now is on unaccompanied children; am I correct?

OK.

I haven't yielded the floor. I reserved my right to object. I am just clarifying. So Senator Sanders wishes to speak, and as I understand it, I have time--this is not in any way to interfere with the Senator from Idaho, but at 4:30 I am supposed to have the time under the time controlled by the Democrats; is that right?

How much time is--all I am trying to do is know when I am going to be able to speak.

If I could turn to the Senator from Idaho, how long does he intend to speak?

I withdraw my objection. I think we deserve to hear Senator Sanders, and I will wait patiently for my turn.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an urgent crisis at our border in which over 250 children a week are coming from Central America, fleeing horrific gang violence--horrific gang violence--to seek refuge and asylum in the United States of America.

This is being called a crisis at the border. Well, it is a border crisis, but the crisis actually begins in Central America, where brutal, violent gangs, based on organized crime, are either trying to recruit the boys into organized crime, drug smuggling, human trafficking, or to recruit the girls into human trafficking in other just dangerous and repugnant circumstances.

But when you go to the border the way I have, you will see that the situation is dire. It is dire because, as these children come to the border, crossing the Rio Grande--probably within really almost a 50- mile stretch of the Grande; it is not over the 1,900 miles of the Grande--they come and, actually, they do not try to sneak in, they come right up to where the border control is and they have pieces of paper with their name on it. They are then taken into custody by border control. They are placed into holding cells that are designed for adult males. They were designed to hold drug smugglers, narcotraffickers, and now they hold as many as 20 or 30 or 40 children, while under the law they are to be placed in the hands of the Health and Human Services Agency while their legal and asylum status is being verified.

Well, I am telling you, the entire infrastructure for dealing with these children--from the way the border control is trying to take care of them, the overrunning of the capacity of these holding cells, to the backlog on processing their legal and asylum determination, to really trying to place them in facilities under the care of Health and Human Services--the situation is dire.

The President of the United States has asked for emergency funding to deal with it. I hope we consider this emergency funding. The amount of money the President is seeking is $3.7 billion. This is to care for the humanitarian needs of the children, the enforcement at the border, the identifying of their legal status under a law passed under the administration of President Bush to deal with the trafficking of children, both boys and girls, and also for robust deterrence in the home countries where these children are coming from. But the deterrence comes from breaking down and prosecuting organized crime syndicates of the smugglers and the traffickers.

We are also asking for money to conduct a massive educational campaign advising Central American families against the dangers and false hopes of this journey. The journey is, indeed, dangerous. They come on foot. They come by car. They ride the tops of a train that is referred to as The Beast. There was one little girl who I spoke to with Secretary Johnson. She had stayed awake for 2 days on the rooftop of a train, terrified that she would fall off and be mutilated, just to be able to make it into the United States of America. And why did she make such a perilous, dangerous journey? It was because they were trying to recruit her into these violent and vile ways.

We need to make sure Central America, with our help, goes after the seven organized crime units that we know are sparking this, that are trying to recruit these kids; giving them false promises too, that if they come to this country, they will be able to get a free pass somehow for getting into this country. We need to be able to stop this and be able to deal with it in the most effective way.

The President's program actually does outline the money to be able to do that. When the children do come, as I said, while they are awaiting their legal status to be determined, they are placed in the hands of HHS. Now, HHS does not run group homes. HHS does not run foster care. HHS funds it, and they need to be able to turn to local communities to be able to have these children be able to stay.

I saw fantastic work being done while the children were being placed at Lackland Air Force Base and the social services were being run by-- under contract of a faith-based organization--the Baptist church. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer knows a lot about human services. I myself am a social worker, and I will tell you that faith- based organization is really running a good program for these kids.

But we are running out of money. We need money for food and shelter for the children. We need money for the border agents. We need money for transportation to shelters and also transportation, when we can, returning these children home. We need money for immigration judges and legal services for the children to determine their asylum status, and, as I said, we need the muscular deterrence in the home country breaking up the organized gangs that then create the violence that then sets these children on this journey.

The best way to make sure the surge of children is stopped is not by harsher immigration laws. It is by making it hard on the drug dealers and the human traffickers, the smugglers, the coyotes. Because they are the ones who are the reason they are coming.

Looking at the data--looking at data--we see that these children are coming not only where there is high poverty, but that children are coming where there is a high level of crime, particularly homicide, murder, and other recruitment of children. These children are almost being recruited by child soldiers in their own country to engage in violent criminal activity.

So we need to be able to look at this emergency supplemental and be able to meet the human needs while the children are here, make sure we fund the judges, the immigration judges and the legal services, to determine their asylum status, and be able to take care of them.

Already, 60,000 unaccompanied children have come into our country during this last year. In the 2 weeks I toured the border, I saw young children as young as 5 with one instruction: Cross the border, turn yourself in, and try to get as safe as you can. Border agents find these children often dehydrated, malnourished, and usually a victim of some type of trauma. Also, they have heard false promises from the smugglers about what it will be when they come here.

These smugglers--as part of these dangerous gangs and cartels--see women and children as a commodity to be bought, sold, transported, as if they were cargo. Children leave these homes based on lies. They think they are coming to an area where they will never have to go home or that they will be safe. I hope we then pass this appropriations. I hope in passing the appropriations we will be able to protect the safety of the children, we determine their legal and asylum status, and we have this muscular deterrent strategy in the home country.

There are those who want to have a new immigration policy or want to repeal the George Bush law. I would caution that because, remember, our problem is not the children; our problem is what causes the children to come. We have to go after what causes the children to come; and that is the drug dealers, the smugglers, the coyotes, those who are engaging in such violent crime.

The host countries, along with Mexico, need to help deal with this, and we need to marshal our law enforcement resources to be able to help them do this. Now they say: Let's bring in the National Guard at the border. What is our National Guard going to do? When these little kids cross the Rio Grande, they are going to go right up to that soldier, put their arms around his or her leg, and say: I need to be safe. Can you help me? What is the National Guard going to do? It is not a border enforcement problem; it is a criminal gang problem in Central America.

So we need to be able to be sure we are targeting the right areas in order to solve this problem. The children are not the threats. They are coming here because they are threatened themselves. We need to meet these urgent humanitarian needs, and we need to focus on our hemisphere to break up the gangs and crime.

Later on today we are going to have a briefing for every single Senator so they can ask the questions about this situation. Who are the children? Why are they coming? What are their legal rights under the law? But how can we effectively deal with this children's march, where the children are in danger in their host country and on the long journey to this one?

We are also asking that this $3.7 billion be designated as an emergency.

There are those who will want to take from other domestic programs. I would caution that. In fact, I would object to the very idea. The President has said this is an emergency because under the Budget Control Act of 2011 it meets the criteria that it is sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary, deals with the loss of life, property, or our national security interests. I think it meets that test. I do not want to take offsets from existing programs to do this. It is unexpected. It is significant. We can deal with it, but let's not do it at the expense of other programs designed to help the American family and the American middle class.

I know there are others who want to speak on this issue. I will have more to

say later, but for now let's examine the urgent supplemental and let's really solve the problem at the border and what causes it to be a problem for us.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to take this opportunity to speak in support of the Murray legislation to protect women's health from corporate interference. Because of an obligation to speak at a memorial service tomorrow, I will not be able to speak tomorrow morning. I feel so strongly about this issue that I would like to say a few words today.

This legislation ensures that the personal opinion of an employer doesn't trump the medical opinion of a doctor. I sure wish this legislation were not necessary, but, unfortunately, because of the recent Supreme Court decision now known as the Hobby Lobby decision, it is necessary.

Let's talk about how we got here. As the Presiding Officer knows, we worked on health care reform. We were so concerned that over 40 million people didn't have access to health care. We were concerned that just being a woman was treated as a preexisting condition. We were charged double for our insurance, and we often had to pay significant copayments for those procedures related to early detection and screening, for those procedures that would affect us such as mammogram care. So on a bipartisan basis we ended that discrimination so women couldn't be charged more than men of the same age or comparable health status.

We also wanted to be sure we could do preventive health care benefits. That was an amendment I offered on the Senate floor. We had a spirited debate, even with Senator Murkowski. Senator Murkowski and I agreed on the same goals, but we had different methods. Ours won; mine won. I wanted to be sure politicians didn't decide what was preventive health care. I wanted to be sure politicians didn't decide what should be covered or not, and I didn't want to bring politics into it. So we turned to one of the most distinguished organizations in our government that makes recommendations to our government on health care policy. It is known as the Institute of Medicine. It is a nonpartisan group funded by this Congress made up of scientific experts to advise us on medical and health care. We wanted them to tell us what should be the preventive services that were included.

So when we hear the criticism: ``Some government agency decided this; some bureaucrat decided this''--these are scientists, these are physicians, these are skilled researchers, and they determined that women should have access to eight preventive health care benefits for free. First of all, screening for gestational diabetes--that is, when a woman gets diabetes while she is pregnant or because she is pregnant-- high risk to the mother, high risk to the child. That means high risk HPV DNA testing, annual counseling and screening for HIV, comprehensive lactation support, and counseling, screening for domestic violence, an annual well-woman preventive care visit, and a full range of FDA- approved contraceptive methods. That is what it was. It was the Institute of Medicine--the Institute of Medicine--not Barbara Mikulski, not the Democrats, not President Obama--that said the FDA-approved contraceptive methods should be available.

That brings us to the Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby, a for-profit company, employing thousands of people of different faiths and religions.

Hobby Lobby's owners did not want to cover certain forms of contraception for their female employees. They said it was against their religious beliefs, and the Supreme Court agreed with that-- actually, the five men on the Supreme Court said they did not have to. The women on the Supreme Court offered a dissenting opinion.

This ruling of the Court says the personal opinion of your employer is more important than the medical opinion of your doctor. As the Presiding Officer from Wisconsin knows--she, has put a lot of work into understanding health care and the delivery system--contraceptive methods are not always used to prevent pregnancy. Some are to deal with fibroids and other medical conditions. This ruling, unfortunately, says that a for-profit company can deny female employees coverage of important preventive health care based on religious objections of the company's health care ownership or leadership team.

I always felt health care decisions should be made by the patient and their doctor, by a woman and her doctor, not by an employer or an insurance company. So it concerns me greatly that the Supreme Court Justices decided against that. It concerns me greatly that the Supreme Court Justices decided the employers should have the power to determine what medical care is available to their female employees. This is pretty scary, actually. I support what Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg said. What exemption does this extend? Does this go to blood transfusions for some groups, antidepressants for some other groups, vaccinations for other groups? The Supreme Court said: Oh, no, it is only for this. Well, one Supreme Court decision leads to another Supreme Court decision.

So Senator Murray, who is an architect of a bill of which I am a cosponsor, has led the way. Her bill does two things. It prohibits employers from denying coverage of specific health care items or services if the coverage of that item or service is required by Federal law. It keeps in place, however, protections for religious organizations. So houses of worship can be exempted from this mandate of contraceptive coverage, religious nonprofits can certify that they do not want to offer contraceptive care, and insurers work separately with employees.

The Supreme Court decision is an attempt to deny women's access to birth control disguised as an effort to protect religious freedom. I am a strong supporter of religious freedom. I stood on this floor and voted with its architect, Senator Ted Kennedy--a happy memory--that we would always have this religious protection of religious organizations, their nonprofit affiliates.

So I hope we do support the Murray bill, that it follows the processes within the Senate, and it comes to our attention. I believe this will go a long way to clarifying this very important distinction between the religious freedom, particularly of religious organizations--houses of worship and the nonprofits affiliated with them--but it does not embody in a private business the rights of an individual.

Madam President, I thank you for your attention and that of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to speak about the missing girls from Nigeria who on the 73rd day are still held in captivity. But before I do, as a Senator I would like to express my sorrow to hear about the passing of one of the great Senators, Howard Baker of Tennessee.

Many Senators will come to the floor to extol what a great Senator he was, what a great leader he was. I also want to take a moment to express my sympathy to his widow, another Senator, Senator Nancy Kassebaum. When I came to the Senate, there was only one other woman, and that was Senator Nancy Kassebaum, then representing the great State of Kansas. She was a great friend to me. We served on the HELP Committee. We worked together over many years. Then Senator Kassebaum retired.

She thought she was going back to Kansas, but she found herself in the arms of Howard Baker. We watched a love story unfold that was so endearing to many of us. Senator Ted Kennedy and I were invited to the wedding of Howard Baker and Nancy Kassebaum. After the vows there was a beautiful reception and they played the music. Howard and Nancy twirled and whirled around the floor. Then they turned to the crowd. Ted Kennedy and I rushed out. I grabbed Howard, he grabbed Nancy, and we did the bipartisan boogie through the night.

Those were the days that one remembers. That is the kind of spirit the Senate had. That is the kind of spirit that Senator Howard Baker had--that you could argue, you could debate, and so on, but deep down the Senate should be the saucer that cools irrational passions of the time. He was a great leader. He created this atmosphere of being able to come together and solve problems. So whether it was on the Senate floor or whether it was on the dance floor, he really spoke about the need for bipartisanship. Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker is exactly the same way.

So remembering with such fondness, we want to express our condolences about him and certainly to her as just one woman to another.

I also come to the floor today to talk about another sadness, the sadness about the fact that the Nigerian school girls who were abducted by Boko Haram continue to be held in captivity. I come to the floor to say that just because it is not in the headline does not mean that these girls are not still in danger for what has happened to them.

We need to continue to speak up and speak out. That is not to minimize Iraq. That is not to minimize Iran. This is not to minimize all of the other problems facing the world. But we all had Web sites and hashtags and so on saying: Bring our girls back home. I am here today saying to Boko Haram: We have not forgotten. We are proud that our President sent 80 troops to Chad to assist in the effort to locate these kidnapped girls.

We understand that there continues to be the search effort. We do not want it to be a recovery effort. We need it to be a rescue effort. These girls were kidnapped. It is despicable. It is unacceptable. They are threatening to sell these girls into trafficking. Now after holding them for 73 days, I have no idea what they have had to endure.

It goes on. They are continuing to kidnap children. They are kidnapping girls, some as young as 3 and 4. That was the other day. They are also kidnapping little boys. What kind of organization is this? Now, in response to the violence there, I know we, the women of the Senate, signed a letter to President Obama asking for international sanctions against Boko Haram, and that they be added to the U.N. Al Qaeda sanctions list. The United Nations actually acted. They actually acted promptly. So now they are on the terrorist list. We need to take all of the appropriate actions that support the sanctions that go with it.

I am hopeful we can find these girls. But we cannot stop our advocacy for them, for close to 100 girls, and now for the new children that have been kidnapped--boys as well as girls.

We need to be able to take all necessary international steps that are legal to be able to rescue them and bring them home. Now this terrible, terrible situation has also generated the conversation about the education of children around the world, particularly girls. For some reason, there are those around the world who do not want to see girls get a basic education. Malala, who wrote her book about it, took a bullet wound in her brain because she wanted to go to school, because she wanted to learn to read. As she said: One child, one book at a time, we can change the world.

We have put money in the Federal checkbook in foreign ops to really help with the education of the children around the world. Right now there are 62 million girls throughout the world who are not in school. They are not in school for two reasons. They are not in school because of the lack of capacity, like books and teachers, and they are not in school because of the bigotry against them.

We need to do something. I know that we are moving towards a vote. I say to Boko Haram: Let these girls go. Let's bring them back home. I say for those who are searching for them: Do not lose heart. We have got to deal with that. But we also have to come to grips with the fact that we cannot let millions of girls around the world not have access to education. Education is as important as water. We need water to live. You need education to make a life for yourself.

We look forward to working with our colleagues across the aisle. We hope to move the foreign ops bill that has money in the Federal checkbook to do this. When we return from the break I will have more to say. I hope it will be: Thank God we found them and we brought them back to their mothers and fathers.

Millions of these girls who fight for their right to attend school are risking their lives. Facing harassment, threats, and even violence to get an education and have the opportunity to thrive and succeed.

Additionally girls who are in school often do not have access to adequate supplies needed to do their work, lack basic bathroom facilities, and that provide them security and safety.

They lack trained teachers and adequate learning environments.

This is unacceptable. We must make a real effort to address this far- reaching global crisis.

This kidnapping of the Nigerian school girls also illustrates the horrifying reality of human trafficking.

Over 20 million people throughout the world are victims of human trafficking.

This is something that we cannot accept.

The U.S. Government is committed to addressing this problem.

I am happy that the State Department has announced that USAID will be launching a new program called ``Let Girls Learn''.

``Let Girls Learn'' provides $231.6 million for new programs to support primary and secondary education and safe learning:

In Nigeria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Jordan, and Guatemala.

Making sure that girls receive an education needs to be a priority for all of us.

When girls are educated their families and communities are better off.

Girls who receive basic education are three times less likely to contract HIV.

Education helps women increase their income, allowing them to better support their families and contribute to their nation's economy and overall success.

The United States must continue to be a leader in the fight to make sure girls across the world are able to receive an education in a safe environment.

I also call on all nations to make this a priority and to put their words of support into action, and for governments around the world to make every effort to ensure that children can receive an education in a safe environment.

Education is a basic human right that should not be deprived regardless of where you live or where you come from.

Making sure that all boys and girls have access to basic education is something I have always fought for and something I will continue to fight for.

Madam President, I am proud to rise today in support of the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act. I want to thank Chairman

Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, Senator Murray, and Senator Isakson for putting together a strong reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. I am happy that we were able to come together in a bipartisan, bicameral way to reauthorize this bill.

As our Nation continues to look at how to best create, sustain, and support high-paying jobs, we must look at how best to educate our workforce and how best to provide needed resources to fill jobs in high demand. WIA does just that. It helps people learn new skills and increases their chances of succeeding. This bill before us today is a major step toward improving WIA and helping our Nation remain competitive globally.

This bill allows local workforce boards to tailor services based on regional employment and workforce needs. This means that workers will get access to education and training for the skills needed to fill jobs, including professional development. It helps ensure that Federal workforce and training programs are working together by bringing together multiple programs and providers into a unified State plan to break down barriers and improve efficiency and effectiveness. This bill also ensures that all WIA programs are held to one set of common performance measures. This will help integrate case management and reporting systems while strengthening evaluations. Finally, this bill ensures that youth with disabilities will be provided the services and support they need to be successful in competitive, integrated employment.

I am particularly proud that this bill takes an in-depth look at nontraditional occupations. These are jobs where a gender makes up less than 25 percent of the workforce for that occupation. Women currently represent half of our Nation's workforce, but two-thirds of women are concentrated in 21 of 500 occupational jobs. Except for nursing and teaching, most of these jobs are among the lowest paid, including work in retail, service, and clerical jobs. Less than 16 percent of women who go through federally funded workforce programs receive any training. Most only get a ``needs'' assessment and receive help in finding a job. The economic recovery is leaving women behind. Of the 1.3 million jobs gained in the United States, nearly 90 percent went to men. Men have since regained 19 percent of jobs lost while women have only regained 6 percent. The incomes of women in the workforce are too often not adequate for a decent standard of living to support a family. This bill would require one-stop career centers to provide info to individuals, including women, on opportunities in fields that are nontraditional. It requires reporting related to job-placement services for participants, including the number and percentage of participants who enter a nontraditional occupation. It also requires all programs to make an effort to develop programs that increase employment opportunities for those that are interested in nontraditional work.

The Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act supports our workforce in providing education and training for millions of America's workers. It ensures that local workforce boards have the flexibility needed to meet their regional needs. It encourages better coordination between Federal workforce and training programs and State and local efforts to attain economic development. It requires all programs to be accountable, and it provides more opportunities for youth with disabilities. This bill is a downpayment on our middle class and our Nation's future. It is my hope this bill be passed in a swift, expeditious, and uncluttered way and continue to work with Members on both sides of the aisle and across the dome to improve our workforce system.

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

Mr. President, I would like to claim those 9 minutes.

Mr. President, before we move to the adoption of the motion to proceed on CJS appropriations, if in fact we do so, I wish to speak as the chairperson of the Appropriations Committee and the chair of the subcommittee on CJS.

I am really sad about what has happened here. I am really sad we couldn't find a way to proceed to bring up these three outstanding bills.

I note that what we wanted to bring to the floor was the Commerce- Justice-Science bill, the Agriculture bill, and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development.

There are significant policy differences even on each one of those bills, whether it is truck requirements, whether it is school nutrition, whether it is environmental--important discussions and decisions on the environmental protection.

On my own CJS bill, we are going to really lose a lot. You know, I had money in this bill--working with Senator Shelby--for bulletproof vests for cops to protect those who protect us and more money for domestic violence to be able to protect those in their own homes. I have also added more money to work with those people who have been rape victims, doubly assaulted by the system where they are not only raped by a perpetrator, but the very system didn't process the forensic evidence that would have validated the guilty party or even ascertained that there was a serial rapist.

Agriculture fed the hungry in this country and fed the hungry around the world. And of course transportation and housing both created jobs, solved problems in physical infrastructure, and also at the same time met compelling human needs in our housing. Particularly, I note the items such as housing for the elderly and the economic development.

I am not going to take my full 9 minutes, but I would hope that at the end of today we figure out how we could have another day.

I know on both sides of the aisle in the Appropriations Committee itself, those subcommittee chairmen really worked hard to produce bills. As of today, we have moved six bills out of our full committee and are pending on the floor. But now we have to truly arrive at a set of rules for the road on how we can proceed to bring these bills to the floor. I really hope we can do so.

There has been so much good will on both sides of the aisle and also on both sides of the aisle a really incredible effort to be able to meet the needs of our country, to have a more frugal government and a really, truly civil process.

So this day will come to an end. But I really hope that the Appropriations Committee coming to the floor doesn't die today.

I yield the floor.

Will the gentlelady yield for a question?

Because I was listening to what she said. Senator Reid proposed a 60-vote threshold on amendments to our appropriations bill. It was rejected. OK. The Senator said now she wouldn't object----

On all amendments? Could the Senator clarify?

In other words, the Senator does want a 60-vote threshold or is it----

So the Senator would want----

Sure.

Mr. President, we bring to the floor our fiscal year 2015 spending bill, but before the Republican leader leaves, as the Senator from Maryland, I too would like to join with great respect in condolences for Master Sergeant Torian's family. For all of us who are Senators who have constituent families where people have died, we have to be in this together.

These are times when we are not the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. We are not red or blue. We have to be red, white, and blue. From this side of the aisle to that side of the aisle, Godspeed to his family, and I thank the Senator for bringing this wonderful young man to the attention of the Senate. Those remarks were quite poignant and moving.

We have to stand by those families--the widow, the children who will need an education, and let's do it shoulder to shoulder.

Mr. President, today we bring to the floor on a bipartisan basis the annual appropriation bills of the Commerce- Justice-Science bill, the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and also the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration. I wish to thank all of the members of the Appropriations Committee for their tremendous work on these bills. First, I wish to say a special word about my vice chairman Richard Shelby, who has done the hard work and the due diligence of helping move the entire process but also moving, in particular, our bill that funds the Commerce Department, Justice Department, and the science programs, such as our space program.

In terms of transportation, we have the able leadership of Senator Murray, with her vice chairman Senator Collins; and on agriculture, chairman Mark Pryor and, again, his vice chairman Roy Blunt.

This process is about moving America forward. This legislation we are putting before the Senate today puts America's middle-class families first, creating opportunity by creating jobs today.

With investments in physical infrastructure in the transportation and housing bill, we are building roads and bridges, repairing them, and updating transit lines and rail lines, so we literally and figuratively can keep America on the move. At the same time we are also meeting America's compelling human needs with our investment in home ownership as well as in housing and in urban and economic development.

We also create jobs tomorrow with investments in research and discovery. What we do in these important science agencies is drive innovation, leading to new products and new jobs. And guess what. Science saves lives.

When we look at Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations, we see that we fund the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--a lot of words with a lot of alphabet, synonyms and acronyms and so on.

At the end of the day, we fund the weather service. What does the weather service do? They predict weather. They predict immediate weather, such as is it going to rain this afternoon, and they predict weather emergencies, whether we are going to have a tornado.

Our hearts go out, again, on the other side of the aisle, to the people of Kansas, where they were hit by a double tornado--an unprecedented weather event. They are calling it the twin sisters, referring to what happened in Nebraska. They were the ugly sisters, but they were made less ugly because of the way the weather service could help alert the people in that community. That is what we fund.

We protect the American people by making sure we fight crime and terrorism by funding Federal law enforcement; by making sure our medicines and medical devices are safe by funding the Food and Drug Administration; and we meet compelling human needs, whether we are talking about affordable housing or affordable food.

While we do it, we are also reforming the agencies. Sure, people talk about appropriators as spenders, but we have a sense in this committee on both sides of the aisle--and I must say that Senator Shelby has helped lead this--that we need to be a more frugal government. We need to get value for our dollar, demonstrating that we need to be able to save money or use money. We are going to spend very wisely.

It has been 3 years since we were able to bring an appropriations bill to the floor. I am not going to go into all the reasons why. ``Why'' doesn't get the job done. What we need to do is return to regular order. So what does that mean? Today we have these three bills pending. It means we want to enact all of our appropriations bills by October 1. We want to keep government operating not on autopilot, not on shutdown, nor on lavish spending. We have to reduce our Federal deficit, but we also have to reduce other deficits, particularly in the area of deficits related to innovation as well as the fact that our crime rates are on the rise in many cities and we need to reduce them. The American people today want to make sure we have a government they can count on. But they need to count on the fact that not only are we open and doing business but that when we are, we are smarter about it.

Vice Chairman Shelby and I have been working on a bipartisan basis. We have been working on a bicameral basis. That means hands across the aisle, hands across the dome to restore regular order and civility in this process.

I look forward to moving this bill. I would say to my colleagues who are listening, many of my colleagues saw a few months ago the way Senator Lamar Alexander, Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Richard Burr, and I moved a bipartisan bill on the child care and development block grant. That had not been reauthorized since 1996, but we showed we could do it. We cleared 18 amendments. We actually had votes on amendments. We had an open process where amendments could be offered, discussed, debated, and at the end of the day voted on because we had a process that worked. As Senators

who worked together, we were able to pass that bill.

Senator Shelby and I are providing leadership today to be able to do that. So we ask our colleagues to support us in coming to an agreement on the motion to proceed so that we can move ahead on this bill. We are making progress. There are several bills we have already moved out of the committee, and we will be moving more. But right now, today, we want to move these three bills and do it in a way that we are proud of what we do, we are proud of our process, we are proud of our conduct, and we are proud that we did it in the right way, with debate, discussion, and the votes that are required.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the vice chairman for his remarks. I think he makes excellent points. We had a tough top line to meet. The CBO score--these budgets speak words that people are trying to follow. The Congressional Budget Office actually says how much things will cost, and when they took a look at what our FHA program and certain mortgage rates would cost, they found out we overestimated revenue by $4 billion. That is a lot of money even by Washington standards. So we had to adjust accordingly, and it has not been easy.

I will tell my colleagues that we are now coming down to talk about where we really are now--what are the agencies we want to fund, why we want to fund them at the amount we do, and what problems they actually solve for the American people. The American people have a right to ask at the end of the day not ``did you spend money'' but ``what did you spend it on and what did we get for it? Are we a stronger country? Do we have a better economy? Do our children have a brighter future? Are we meeting compelling human needs?'' I think in these three bills the answer is yes.

When we look at Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations, we want to tell our colleagues what we have done. It really funds several different agencies, and it comes to a total of $51.2 billion. It is consistent with the CJS allocation, and it is $398 million less--I want to say this clearly. What we are doing in the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, we are spending less money than we did last year, but we think we are getting more value for the dollar. We are $398 million below what we spent last year, but at the same time we have kept our communities safe, we have promoted jobs, and we have promoted innovation.

We used our spending to guide Federal decisions from Federal law enforcement to space exploration. The CJS bill provides $28 billion for the Justice Department. This is $260 million more than 2014. We did this because we believe the Justice Department is an agency that people in local communities feel they need to be able to count on. It keeps America safe from crime and terrorism. It protects communities at the local level. It protects families against domestic violence and sexual predators. And the job of the Justice Department is to administer justice fairly.

This bill funds key law enforcement and prosecution agencies. What do we mean by that? Federal law enforcement is made up of the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the U.S. attorneys who actually prosecute the bad guys or the bad gals for everything from mortgage fraud, to cyber terrorism, to drug dealing and drug cartels, so they can keep us safe from all of this, protecting us against gangs, drug dealers. Why is it important? Federal law enforcement goes after gang activity, fraudsters trying to be more predatory.

What is the result in this funding? We have done a lot. In my own home State of Maryland, over the last year our Federal law enforcement has arrested 280 violent fugitives. Federal law enforcement brought down child pornographers and traffickers, bank robbers, and took a big whack at the heroin trafficking rings. I am really proud of them. I am proud of what they do in Maryland, and I am proud of what they do around the world.

Look at how our FBI, working with our special operations, brought to heel and brought into our custody one of the men who killed our Embassy personnel in Benghazi. Let's do a big hurrah for the FBI and special ops, but let's do our hurrah not only with words but putting the money in the Federal checkbook so they get to be able to continue to do the job of keeping America safe.

There are many other aspects of this bill that are important. This is why we look out for our State and local departments.

We have also put in an important investment in the Violence Against Women Act. We are spending $430 million to give grants to prevent and prosecute domestic violence and also to be able to deal and help with rape victims.

This bill puts money in the Federal checkbook to put more police officers on the beat. But I like the fact that we are actually protecting them with more bulletproof vests and being able to do other work.

This bill also addresses the backlog of sexual assaults, making sure we test no matter where they are. We have seen time and time again that evidence is gathered and that somehow or another it is in some box in some lab or some police department. Rape victims cannot be dually assaulted--one by the predator who attacked them and then by a lackluster prosecutorial system. If you gather the evidence, test it and use it to make sure we have the right predator. Prosecute the predator. See if they are a serial predator. Let's not doubly assault the victim by not only what happened to them on the street but also what happens to them in the criminal justice system.

So we are doing a lot. I feel very strongly about this, but I also feel very strongly about the need to create jobs. This bill provides $8.6 billion for the Department of Commerce, which helps them protect our patents, promotes trade and economic development. It helps our coastal economies with sustainable fisheries and healthy oceans. It exports American goods and services and supports more than 11 million jobs.

This bill does a lot by putting our Commercial Service officers-- those who actually work in embassies--to work, with business to be able to help them. And we make sure they are not only in Europe but they are in Asia and Africa, where the new opportunities are.

Our dynamic Secretary of Commerce has focused on bringing foreign investments to the United States, and we have seen what they have meant to Maryland and what they have meant in Alabama and what they have meant in America.

We also, through the Commerce Department, help with our weather bureau. I am going to say more about it, but what I want to talk about right now is the National Science Foundation--one of our other main agencies--because it does the basic research in science, technology, and engineering.

Then there is NASA. I am going to say more about NASA later. I know we have others waiting to speak. For NASA, actually, we have done more than what the President wanted to do because we wanted to have a balanced space program. We have particularly emphasized human space flight, a reliable transportation system, and space science.

We have here where we are creating jobs, we are protecting people in their communities, and we are laying the groundwork for jobs of the future. There are many other issues I will talk about as the bill unfolds.

Senator Shelby and I have worked very closely with Senator Coburn. Everybody knows Senator Coburn prides himself on being a watchdog on Federal spending. And you know what. He has been. I love some of his ideas; some give me a little pause. But we actually met. We actually met to see what we could do to be able to reform our government so we could get more value for the dollar. I am going to have a separate speech just on that so the American people know, when they say ``Watch what you spend, Barb,'' I really am doing it. So is Senator Shelby. So are the members of our committee.

I yield the floor.

I yield to the majority leader.

Madam President, I know Senator Collins and Senator Murray are leaving to go to the DOD to meet with Secretary Hagel, and we both look forward to their return this afternoon, but I want to acknowledge the great role they played in putting together the appropriations and transportation funding for the entire United States of America, as well as the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

We are going to talk more about transportation because it literally keeps America rolling, whether it is the kinds of problems we solved with the issues around safety, congestion--they are absolutely crucial. But also what they talked about in their bill is housing and urban development and how--it is also the famous HUD bill--it does not only do urban development.

I know the Presiding Officer is from the State of North Dakota, whose terrain and challenges are very different than my State, a coastal State. But the Presiding Officer would be interested to know--because she has been hit by some bad weather--that when Hurricane Sandy hit, my State was hit by two things: a hurricane--a hurricane on my Eastern Shore, in which a whole town was underwater and literally people had to be rescued by Zodiacs, by boats, and so on.

Then out in western Maryland, our mountain counties, people were hit by a blizzard. It was so bad that regular snowplows, local government, and the private sector weren't working. The Governor had to bring in the National Guard--and God bless our State troopers and first responders. They were bringing out senior citizens on snowmobiles and things strapped to their chests to get them to safety because the free zone was there.

I tell that poignant story because while we looked to FEMA to rescue, it was really the Community Development Block Grant money that helped local communities come back. FEMA was there for readiness, so we were ready to respond. It was ready to respond. But the big job of rehabilitation always comes through CDBG. I am going to talk about it because it is a lot of letters--one more agency with a lot of letters-- but it is also a big impact. What we need to be able to focus on is this is Federal spending with local decisionmaking. It is money that comes to local communities to eliminate blight and to create jobs. Blight can come from a natural disaster or communities that are aging with that kind of impact.

We hope we have support for the bill, but, gee, they did a good job and they did it with diligence, civility, collegiality and common sense, as is characteristic.

I would point out we have tried to use common sense too. Working with Senator Shelby, as I have said, I am going to emphasize the word ``frugality.'' How do we make sure we get value for the taxpayers' dollar.

It is something in which I strongly believe. My colleague has been a Federal watchdog. He, like I, believes in the funding of these agencies. These watchdog agencies are absolutely crucial.

The Appropriations Committee, under my chairmanship but with the strong concurrence of the vice chairman, believes in the inspectors general.

Congress can hold an investigation and we can pound our chests and put glasses on our noses and ask tough questions, but we need the kind of truly drilling down to know what agencies are doing and are they making sure we avoid boondoggles, waste, stupidity, and at the same time terrible cost overruns.

Thanks to working on a bipartisan basis, we have insisted that inspectors general be at every hearing. This has been a new innovation of the leadership of Senator Shelby and me. We want the inspectors general to be part of our official record so we know the top 10 issues they brought to our attention to stand sentry, and we put money in the Federal checkbook to fund them.

We funded the Commerce Department IG at $30.6 million, $600 million above 2014 for Justice to make sure grant programs were well administered for NASA, to avoid techno-boondoggles, and for the NSF, so they too keep an eye on it.

We are going to talk more about the problems they identified and the problems we solved, but I note on the floor

Senator Pryor from Arkansas, who has chaired the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, an important subcommittee that is part of our overall bill today.

I yield the floor for Senator Pryor.

Madam President, I note that the distinguished Senator from Arizona is on the floor, and we want to be sure he has an opportunity to speak.

I do have a housekeeping matter to take care of and just a few words--about three sentences--about ag, but I want the Senator from Arizona to be heard.

Madam President, I wish to comment on the Agriculture bill, but I will keep that for later on in the day. I will be on the floor along with Senator Shelby trying to move this bill in a way that we could complete the motion to proceed and that we could move to amendments.

Right now, I wish to compliment both the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Missouri, Senators Pryor and Blunt, for the excellent way they have moved the agriculture FDA bill. They have worked on a bipartisan basis. They have met compelling human needs--in other words, feed America first; see how we can feed others in need around the world; look out for everyone from the family farm to also food safety because now so much of our food is also imported. At the same time, they have supported the Food and Drug Administration. That is an agency located in Maryland that is responsible for oversight of the food supply but also our pharmaceuticals, biotech, and medical devices.

My colleagues have spoken eloquently about exports, particularly with food. I will speak later today about the exports of pharmaceuticals, biotech, and medical devices because there are countries around the world that want to look out for their own people, but they don't have an FDA. So when we have products--life science products--that save lives or improve lives and they have been stamped by the FDA as safe and effective, then countries know they can buy them with confidence. This means those areas of endeavor are not only good for jobs in this country, great for improving the lives of people in our country, but they are also a major source of the new American export economy.

I think they did a great job, and I will say more about it. But right now, unless Senator Shelby has something to say, we can go to our Senate colleague from Arizona.

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

Mr. President, we have been on the motion to proceed to our three appropriations bills since 10 a.m. this morning. It has almost been 4 hours, and it is true, under the cloture, there is 30 hours of debate. We could let this go on until 11 p.m. tonight--we could. Actually, Members have had an interesting day speaking about issues related to Iraq and to immigration, but we would like to focus on the bills beforehand: agriculture, FDA--how do we feed people in our own country, save the family farm, and be able to export food.

We would like to bring up a bill that funds FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, that looks out for food safety, but also the safety and efficacy of life-science products such as medical devices, biotech products, and pharmaceuticals, which I know are important to the State of the Presiding Officer.

We want to be able to bring up Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development. The highway trust fund is going to run out.

In my own home State we need the transportation money. We need it for the formula funding that will be important to roads, but we also need the money in there that looks out for small airports, such as the Hagerstown airport, the Frederick airport, which the President's plane needs to get to Camp David.

Right up the road is the Hagerstown airport, for which there is a growing manufacturing hub, of which there is small manufacturing employing 300 to 400 people. Some make trucks, some make the heavy-duty equipment to be sold, that are also export products. One company actually puts in the avionics to the airplanes guarding our border.

If we put all that together, it is close to 900 to 1,200 jobs. Hello, this is what we are talking about--public investment that creates private sector jobs and does public safety.

So we are saying to those who are considering how we could move ahead, we encourage them now. I suggest we follow the model when we were on the floor 3 years ago. That was the last time we had these appropriations on the floor. We had an amendment process.

The managers of the bill, such as my vice chairman Senator Shelby and I, worked with Members on a defined list, some we could actually take. There were some excellent ideas where Members wanted to improve on what we had done.

For those who have concern about spending, they can actually come and offer cuts or they can offer replacements. This is the place where if you want government to work your way, it is your day and you do it through the amendment process.

Most Americans don't understand that in order to debate a bill on the Senate floor, you have to first file a motion to proceed. That is asking permission to come to the floor to take up the bill. So we had to have a cloture vote on it. OK, it passed 95 to 3. I think it is the will of the Senate to get it going, and let's get these amendments--get it on with the amendments.

Are there anxieties on both sides about the nature of those amendments? Sure. But that is what amendments are. Some we can take, some we need to debate.

We are the greatest deliberative body in the world. We have to start deliberating.

I say to my friends who are pondering how to proceed, the best way to proceed is look at the agreement we had in 2011 that allowed for amendments, a regular order, a methodical process for considering those amendments, and then we would be able to get on them, be able to debate them. My suggestion would be that we would alternate sides, a Democratic amendment, a Republican amendment--hey, maybe even a bipartisan amendment.

I hope we do not spin our wheels and spin the clock for 8\1/2\ more hours, because the American people know that after all is said and done, more gets said than gets done.

I am suggesting--really--let's follow the regular order. The process I am recommending is not new. There are no surprises, there are no stunts. It is a process we have followed in the past. I am suggesting, along with Senator Shelby, the exact model we used 3 years ago, the last time appropriations were on the floor.

There are those who say in this country we have a spending problem. If you think we have a spending problem, this is the time to come to the floor and debate. If you think we have a spending problem and we are spending too much on the Justice Department--if you think it is too much money on bulletproof vests for cops or shelters for battered women, come on. If you think there is too much money in the space program, you don't like this rocket ship or that satellite, this is the place to come. Offer amendments. We are ready to debate.

I speak for my two other subcommittee chairs, Senator Murray on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies, and Senator Pryor on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. We are already in consultation with the other side of the aisle. Senator Collins on transportation and Senator Blunt on agriculture are also ready to debate.

I would hope we could move forward, have a method for moving forward that promotes regular order. If we do that, I think Members who haven't experienced too much--because of our gridlock and deadlock and the lock on amendments that we actually--I think they are going to like it because they like democracy. If you like the Constitution, if you like democracy, this is the place where we can put it into place today.

Before I yield the floor, I note that the leadership from the Republican side is in conference with Senator Shelby. I hope that is good news.

Then for those on both sides of the aisle watching the process on the floor, if you have amendments, start to gear up and get ready to bring them over. Senator Shelby and I are here. We are ready to receive them. We are ready to get ready to do them, we are ready to talk about them, and set the stage for hearing them.

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

Mr. President, before the Senator from Texas leaves-- and I know we have other matters to discuss--first I want to make a comment and then I have a question.

I want to thank the Senator from Texas for that very compelling presentation. I might not agree with every sentence, but I think the Senator painted a picture of what is happening at the border. We do have a humanitarian crisis.

As chair of the Appropriations Committee, I was made aware of this last year by Secretary Sebelius when they asked for more money to help. I said, yes, more money to help, but we needed to plan. What were we going to do with this? So now these numbers have surged, and what it has become is these children effectively function as refugees.

This portrait the Senator has portrayed--the horrific sense of The Beast, and human beings, women and children, and boys, as well, being sold as if they were commodities? Commodities. It gives you goosebumps. The Senator has painted a very compassionate and compelling picture.

My question, though, is we have to deal with the immediate crisis now. But as the Senator talks about the enforcement on the border, what would the Senator recommend we do?

In other words, the pictures I have seen--and I hope I will go down and see this for myself--is the children come up to the border control guy, some as young as 4 and 5 years old and some go up to the early teens. Some teens carry their younger siblings. Is the Senator saying we should turn them away? These are not provocative questions. We have to work across the aisle to deal with this issue constructively, humanely, and effectively.

I thank the senior Senator from Texas, a former attorney general, as I recall. The Senator knows the law, he knows the border, and he knows what is going on.

This Senator looks at this too as not only the chair of the Appropriations Committee but as a social worker. The care of the children even in our own country gives me pause.

They were originally looking at a closed Social Security building to house these children, with no bathrooms except down the hall, putting them in little office cubicles. So we have a very serious problem.

I want the Senator from Texas to know I agree with the holding that we need to have the strong and clear message in Central America, first of all, that these rumors are false.

Today is not the day to do this. I thank the Senator for his compelling comments. I would like to work with the Senator from Texas and also continue to work with the administration to focus on this. But the message does have to go to Central America. I think we are fair game in Central America. From what I have heard, there are all these radio ads and so on that are truly exploiting this. There is violence, there is ghoulish, grim violence against children in Central America. Desperate mothers and grandmothers are trying to look for a way out. They are being exploited. I am going to work with the Senator in any way I can to stem the flow, deal with the humanitarian crisis, and get a long-range solution. I appreciate this conversation going forward.

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 June 18, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Aggressive E-Cigarette Marketing and Potential Consequences for Youth''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 18, 2014, at 10:30 a.m., in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 18, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 18, 2014, at 2:15 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``U.S. Policy in Afghanistan and the Regional Implications of the 2014 Transition.''

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 June 18, 2014, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Intelligence Community: Keeping Watch Over Its Contractor Workforce.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 18, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 18, 2014, at 3 p.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Growing Small Business Exports, Growing U.S. Jobs.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on June 18, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 18, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Climate Change: The Need to Act Now.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 18, 2014, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``High Frequency Trading's Impact on the Economy.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 18, 2014, at 2:15 p.m., in room SD-562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reduction in Face-to-Face Services at the Social Security Administration.