Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the National Prostate Cancer Council Act with my colleague, Senator Sessions. This bipartisan legislation addresses the urgent need for a national strategy for the accelerated creation, advancement, and testing of diagnostic tools to be used in the fight against prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in the United States, and the second-leading cause of cancer-related death in men. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2014, 233,000 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed and almost 30,000 men will die from the disease.

Early detection of prostate cancer saves lives. Unfortunately, current screening techniques result in numerous false-negatives, leaving men at risk to wrongly believe they are cancer-free, and false- positive alarms, which often lead to painful, costly, and unnecessary procedures. In addition, the prostate is one of the few organs in the human body where biopsies are performed blindly, which can miss cancer even when multiple samples are taken.

The National Prostate Cancer Council Act mirrors the commitment the Federal government has made to fight Alzheimer's disease under the National Alzheimer's Project Act, which was signed into law in 2011. Similarly, this bill will bring together federal agencies, medical and scientific experts, advocacy organizations, and patient survivors to create a clear national plan for achieving the ultimate goal developing reliable tests that can detect prostate cancer and diagnose its severity.

The National Prostate Cancer Council will evaluate our current efforts across all Federal agencies, and it will coordinate those efforts to be more effective. Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services will receive a report from the Council each year detailing the progress made toward fulfilling the national plan.

A national strategy and commitment can be the key to diagnosing prostate cancer earlier and more accurately. It will help us identify the best use of our resources and focus on the most pressing needs, ultimately saving lives and reducing unnecessary procedures. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort, and to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the National Prostate Cancer Council Act with my colleague, Senator Sessions. This bipartisan legislation addresses the urgent need for a national strategy for the accelerated creation, advancement, and testing of diagnostic tools to be used in the fight against prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in the United States, and the second-leading cause of cancer-related death in men. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2014, 233,000 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed and almost 30,000 men will die from the disease.

Early detection of prostate cancer saves lives. Unfortunately, current screening techniques result in numerous false-negatives, leaving men at risk to wrongly believe they are cancer-free, and false- positive alarms, which often lead to painful, costly, and unnecessary procedures. In addition, the prostate is one of the few organs in the human body where biopsies are performed blindly, which can miss cancer even when multiple samples are taken.

The National Prostate Cancer Council Act mirrors the commitment the Federal government has made to fight Alzheimer's disease under the National Alzheimer's Project Act, which was signed into law in 2011. Similarly, this bill will bring together federal agencies, medical and scientific experts, advocacy organizations, and patient survivors to create a clear national plan for achieving the ultimate goal developing reliable tests that can detect prostate cancer and diagnose its severity.

The National Prostate Cancer Council will evaluate our current efforts across all Federal agencies, and it will coordinate those efforts to be more effective. Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services will receive a report from the Council each year detailing the progress made toward fulfilling the national plan.

A national strategy and commitment can be the key to diagnosing prostate cancer earlier and more accurately. It will help us identify the best use of our resources and focus on the most pressing needs, ultimately saving lives and reducing unnecessary procedures. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort, and to cosponsor this legislation.

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

Mr. President, what is the current business?

Mr. President, in just a few minutes we are going to have a procedural vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act. If we truly believe women and men are equal and should be paid equally, this ought to be an overwhelming vote.

The Senate women held a press conference after the last vote. The Republicans gave the first procedural vote so we were able to get to this point, but now we have to have 60 votes in order to move forward with an actual vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act.

We all know what this vote is about. It is very simple. It is about women in America having the same opportunity for success as their male counterparts. No one should be paid less just for being a woman.

This issue was brought to us front and center by Lilly Ledbetter, who was a manager at a Goodyear tire plant in the South and who discovered just by happenstance that although there were five managers doing the same job--she and four men--she was getting considerably less money.

To make a long story short, the courts were stacked against her. At the end of the day, Lilly Ledbetter was told by the Supreme Court that she was too late--she didn't know about this; it took her a long time to know about it--therefore she had no case. We fixed that problem, and we said: No more. We are not going to put a statute of limitations because someone may never find out about this unfair situation for many years and they shouldn't be disqualified from justice.

But now we have more problems. We have testimony of people being harassed simply because they want to know whether they are getting paid fairly. I am so grateful to our colleague Senator Mikulski from Maryland for introducing the Paycheck Fairness Act which will help close the wage gap.

We may say: Is there truly a wage gap? Yes, there is. Women get paid 77 cents for every dollar made by a man for the same work. That is not every woman. But when we average it all, that is what she gets. In terms of a yearly pay, it is $11,000. I think we ought to look at this $11,000 less a year. What could we buy for $11,000? One year of groceries, in many places a year of rent, in many places a year of daycare or a used car or community college.

What does this mean? It means that because the woman is not getting paid fairly, her family suffers, whether in the quality of housing or their food or the quality of daycare, the quality of their car, and certainly the ability of that woman to get an education and move up the scale.

Looking at it from a yearly standpoint I think is important, but I asked my staff: Let's look at it over a lifetime and what is the loss to this woman and her family in a lifetime. Almost one-half million dollars--$443,000--in a woman's lifetime if she gets 77 cents instead of a full dollar. What could she do with that? She could pay off one or two mortgages for that, send three kids to the University of California or buy 8,000 tanks of gas. What we don't say here is you need more security, and economic security today, which is so critical. Thanks to science, we are living longer and we know it gets more expensive to live.

If I were to tell one of my Republican friends on the other side that somebody came up to a woman, knocked her on the head and took half a million dollars from her and stole it, they would be horrified and they would remedy it. They would bring in the law. Well, I am asking them to simply vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act. Just vote for it. Make sure women in this country earn what they deserve to earn.

The wage gap not only hurts our families, it hurts our economy. If you add it all up, it is $200 billion a year in income that would be spent at the grocery, that would be spent at the gas station, that would be spent on vacation, that would be spent on local restaurants or in better housing.

In the history of our Nation we have had a lot of fights before over the issue of discrimination. We know you cannot discriminate on pay because of race, disability, or age. What we are saying is you shouldn't be able to discriminate based on your gender. It is wrong. I would say if it were reversed, I would be standing here fighting for the men. It is not right. People have to be paid based on the work they do, and if the work they do is similar to the work of a man, as in the case of Lilly Ledbetter, they should be paid the same.

What the Mikulski legislation does is it prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who shares information with their coworkers. Right now if you are around the cooler of your corporation and somebody says: Oh, my God, I cannot afford to get a babysitter for my child, I need a raise, and somebody says: Well, what do you make? And they say: I make X. Believe me, you can be fired for asking those questions. It is wrong. We have seen it happen. We want to make sure if there is a disparity in pay that it is warranted. Sure, if a woman is doing less than a man in a different job, of course that is not the same. We are saying if you do the same work, you have got to get paid the same.

We have hundreds of personal stories from all over this great Nation from people who have faced pay discrimination. I have many of these stories from California. One of them is a woman from my State who had an identical advanced degree as her husband, and she landed the exact job as her husband, but they were at different worksites. Her husband was offered $5,000 more in starting salary for the same job with the exact same resume--same job, the woman gets paid $5,000 less.

Then there is a health care worker in Long Island. She discovered she had been earning $10 an hour less than her colleagues with the exact experience. When she brought this up to her superiors, which you would expect her to do--you have got to fight for yourself. Don't we tell people that? Stand up, have respect, but ask the right questions. So she brought it up to her superiors. She was reprimanded. She was reprimanded and told not to discuss any type of wage gap.

Then there is a female employee from a major corporation in Florida. She was told when she was hired that if she disclosed her salary to other workers, that was grounds for dismissal. So you have somebody who is well trained. She is great. Then you are talking to your friends in the workplace, you mention your salary. She was told in advance that this is grounds for dismissal.

This bill is a major step in the right direction. I call on my Republican friends--we don't need many of you--five, is that right-- six, if everyone is here. We need a handful. Stand with women, stand with families, stand for children, stand for equality, stand for justice, stand for what is right. Don't play games with this. Don't take the side of a boss who is exerting all kinds of pressure on a woman to tamp down her salary. I think clearly if we do this together tonight--and I always remain hopeful--if we do this together tonight, what we are going to see is an America that is fair, an America that is just when it comes to our women.

I am really glad one of our colleagues is here to discuss this from her perspective. You know, my kids would say to me, ``Mom, this is a no-brainer.''

This is not complicated, equal pay for equal work. We stand for that as Democrats, and we are going to keep on fighting for it. Tonight is that moment in time when we will see whether our Republican friends stand with us to give a fair shot to the women in this country--a fair shot--or they will block us as they have done before. I

hope maybe they will see the light tonight. I don't think anything I have said will influence them, but I hope it might, because I do think it is in their interests as well as the interests of the women in this Nation to stand united with the Democrats on this: equal pay for equal work, fairness and justice to the women in this Nation. They deserve it.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Do I have a minute to speak in favor of this nominee?

Mr. President, I wish to speak about the two nominees who are coming back to back. I thank Senator Vitter for allowing us to move these forward. I thank the majority leader for bringing them up.

We are down on the membership of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We need to fill these positions. One of the nominees is Jeffery Baran. I will be very quick.

Mr. Baran has had more than 10 years of experience, including his current role as staff director of energy and commerce on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where he actually oversaw the NRC and he staffed 13 hearings overseeing the NRC.

The other nominee is Mr. Stephen Burns, who has served in many roles, most recently as general counsel for the NRC from 2009 to 2012. He has a wide range of experience in policy and enforcement issues.

As long as I have been around, I have not seen two more qualified nominees. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and then, when we vote tomorrow, yes on the nominations themselves.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

I yield back all time.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes, followed by Senator Merkley, who will speak for 8 minutes, followed by Senator Vitter, who will speak for 10 minutes.

Madam President, I watched every word of the President's address to the Nation last night, and I have this to say to him: Thank you for your clarity. Thank you for taking the time you needed to put the pieces together so that we don't march into another Iraq war.

When I hear my colleagues--cheerleaders for the war in Iraq who told us

it would be over in 6 months--come down here and try to lecture this President on how to deal with ISIL, I get the chills. When I watch Dick Cheney come up here to talk to House Republicans and lecture them about how they had it right--had it right? They couldn't have had it more wrong. Because we know that the tragedy of 9/11--and as we revere the heroes and mourn the loss of those on that horrific day--was an attack by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It wasn't Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

Our then-President Bush turned around--he could have had the whole world in his hand--but instead marches into Iraq. Thank the Lord I voted no on that. I voted yes to going after bin Laden and no to going into Iraq.

All those sunny predictions--of the war being only 6 months, and they will have democracy, and we will get the oil and the money, and the rest--turned out to be the worst foreign policy disaster. These same people who backed that war now come down here and tell the President: Look me in the eye and tell me you want to do exactly what I want to do.

Well, Mr. President, since they addressed you, I want to address you. First, I thank you for taking your time in putting together a winning strategy to defeat ISIL. We have to. We cannot sit by and watch a group with tens of thousands of members who are vicious and trained--some foreign, some I believe from this country--go around and behead people who won't convert. They want territory. They want to make their own state. We have to stop them with the world, with combat boots that are combat boots of those in the region, such as we are seeing in Iraq, and we will see in Syria if we give the President the funds he wants to train the moderate Syrians.

Here is the deal from me: We are going to go after ISIL, we are going to do it with a coalition of the world, we are not going to have a drumbeat of going back into the Iraq war. This is a counterterrorism mission, and I voted for that when I voted to go after Osama bin Laden. I believe the President has this authority.

I also have no problem with voting to put my feelings right there and I would be happy to take that vote. But beware of the people here who were the cheerleaders of the Iraq war who want to get this President to now say he is going to put combat boots on the ground. That is the wrong recipe. We already learned that. There are 4,000 dead Americans and tens of thousands wounded.

Let's do this the right way and the way the President laid it out-- with a coalition. Let's not make any of the same mistakes.

So, Mr. President, please keep on track--and Secretary Kerry--and keep building that coalition. We already have nine nations and NATO and the Arab League, and we are going to get the U.N. That is the way to go.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor to Senator Merkley.

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

Mr. President, we all know that our ally Israel is in a fight for survival because a terrorist group, so named by the United States and Europe, is at war with Israel right now. We remember how it all started, with the kidnapping of three Israeli boys and the torture and the deaths, and Hamas praised that. Tragically, there was a revenge killing, and the Israeli Government arrested the Israelis responsible for that and they are going to face justice, while Hamas praises-- praises--what happened.

Today I spoke to the Ambassador, and this is what I heard him say-- and I haven't fact-checked this, but as I understand it there was a cease-fire in place, all sides agreed everything was clear. Israel was going to be allowed to clear out the tunnels which are being used to open to Hamas the country of Israel, where they go under the ground and they have one objective--to kill Israelis, to torture them, to kidnap them. No country--no country--could ever live with that, no country-- not our country.

Imagine if we had 100 rockets a day coming from Mexico or Canada or from the sea, either side. We would never ever sit back for that. We would never sit back if under our great cities we had terrorists building tunnels so they could sneak in suicide bombers to kill our people.

Here we had a cease-fire, and I know the Secretary of State worked hard. Yet and still what happened, even though it was known that Israel was permitted to continue clearing out these tunnels, a suicide bomber blew himself up, killed Israeli soldiers and someone else grabbed and kidnapped--we think--we think--an Israeli soldier. We don't know all the facts on it. This must be condemned.

We have a bill, Senator Blunt and I, and it has 81 cosponsors on it. It is the Israeli American strategic partnership act, and it will send a strong signal today that we stand with Israel. We want peace. We want justice. We want a good life for the Israelis and the Palestinian people. But you cannot do it when you have a terrorist organization running, in essence, the Gaza Strip.

In this bill Senator Blunt and I have worked on, there is a visa waiver section, and I want to go over that because I fear we may have objections to this. I am hoping not, I still hope we won't, but in this visa waiver section it does three things: First, it expresses the sense of the Senate that Israel should be designated as a program country under the Visa Waiver Program.

Second, it urges United States engagement with Israel to help it meet the requirements of the waiver program; i.e., when Israelis come over

they pay attention to the time on their visas and they go back to their country when the time is up.

Third, it authorizes but doesn't require the administration to waive a nonimmigrant visa waiver requirement only if Israel meets all the other program requirements.

Here is what is important. There are 38 countries in the Visa Waiver Program. These countries represent some of America's closest allies. In fact, 20 of the current Visa Waiver Program countries are NATO allies. So I want to say clearly to my friend Senator Sessions and anyone within the sound of my voice that the provision I hope he will not object to today, the provision gives Israel, the strongest ally of the United States in the Middle East, a chance to join the program. As a member of the Visa Waiver Program, Israeli citizens, many of whom have families in America, would be allowed to visit the United States for up to 90 days without first obtaining a visa. This deepens the ties between our nations.

I want to read some of the countries that have these privileges: Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Estonia, the Czech Republic. I was proud to support them, but I am also proud to say that Israel deserves to be on that list. Why shouldn't they have the same opportunity?

When we first wrote our visa waiver provision, there were objections that we didn't have enough flexibility. We changed it and now we have 81 sponsors on this legislation. I would ask, how many pieces of legislation have 81 cosponsors? You couldn't even get it for a Mother's Day resolution. I mean this is strong. And of all the times for us to object to this United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act, it should not be today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 492, S. 2673; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I won't be long, but I am so disappointed. I know my friend wants to be helpful, but I have to say that the visa waiver section--I am not being stubborn about this--all it does is it says that Israel should have the same privileges as Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and the Czech Republic.

Of all the days to say no to this bill, with what is going on over there. It hurts my heart. It breaks my heart, because this bill authorizes $200 million in the value of U.S. weapons sales in Israel to a total of $1.8 billion. It is a stockpile that is intended to be used by U.S. forces, but in event of emergency, Israel can tap that. And, my God, this is an emergency. It is so critical. In fact, just last week the United States provided Israel with ammunition from the stockpile after Israel requested help to replace its depleted supplies.

We shouldn't be waiting another hour to pass this, and here we are as the clock ticks down and we go off on our break and as my friend knows, this bill doesn't cost one slim dime--not one slim dime--not one penny. It is such a signal to Israel that we stand with her.

It also has an energy section where we help Israel develop her natural gas supplies to become energy independent. It is so sad for me today.

Last night Senator Corker had an objection. He cleared it. He and I had a real go-to on it. I know we had a bit of a misunderstanding. He backed off. I am so appreciative. Then Senator Coburn had a problem, and he backed off and he said, ``No, I kind of like this section.'' Then Senator Lee had a problem and Senator Coburn talked to Senator Lee and Senator Lee was fine.

We have 81 people on this bill, and 1 Senator this afternoon is holding it hostage because he doesn't like the program. Well, we can all work together on the program, but why single out Israel because you don't like the program? Let this go.

We can have a colloquy. We can work together, Senator Sessions. We can make sure there is no abuse here. We changed this so we would be sure there is no abuse.

I am very saddened at this, and all I can say is that Senator Blunt and I are coming back with this bill over and over and over again, and one way or the other we will get it done.

I say to my friends in Israel: Take heart. Eighty-one of our Senators are with you on this bill, and only a handful haven't even gone on, and only one--only one--objected. So take heart, because we are with you and we will get this done.

Mr. President, that is the end of my remarks, and I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, if it would be more convenient for you to come to the desk, I am happy to sit in the Chair.

Since the Presiding Officer can't answer my question, I will note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing William ``Bill'' Huffman, the director of Government Relations for Farmers' Rice Cooperative, who is retiring after a distinguished career that has spanned more than five decades.

Bill Huffman's roots to rice date back to his childhood. He was raised on his family's rice farm in Gridley, located in the heart of California's rice country the Sacramento Valley. Bill later attended Humboldt State University and graduated with a degree in radio/ television before going to work for a Sacramento radio station as a farm broadcaster.

Following his career in broadcasting, Bill worked in the government, agricultural, and financial sectors and then joined Farmers' Rice Cooperative, California's largest rice marketing firm, representing more than 700 rice growers.

During his 30-year career with Farmers' Rice, Bill promoted one of the Golden State's most important crops with pride and skill, advocating for important public policy issues on behalf of California's rice industry. Each week, growers could depend upon his summary of important local, State, and Federal news impacting the rice industry in ``Bill Huffman's News of the Week'' blog. In addition to tirelessly representing Northern California's rice growers, Bill also helped lead disaster relief efforts to donate rice overseas following the tragic 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia. In recognition of all of his outstanding accomplishments, Bill was awarded the California Rice Industry Award by the California Cooperative Rice Research Foundation in 2009.

I had the pleasure getting to know Bill well during his time with Farmers' Rice Cooperative. We worked together to promote California's high-quality rice, protect important conservation programs, and encourage sustainable rice farming. Bill has been a strong voice for our rice growers, and I wish my friend the best as he enjoys a well- deserved retirement with his wife Sheila, their four children, and three grandchildren.

Thank you.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of John Vasconcellos, a giant in California politics and government who died on May 24 at the age of 82. John made the personal political and took politics personally. He was a compassionate and caring human being who brought all of his humanity to the job of governance.

John Bernard Vasconcellos, Jr., was born in San Jose, CA in 1932. After graduating with high honors from Bellarmine College Preparatory and Santa Clara University, John spent 2 years in the Army before returning to Santa Clara for law school, where he again graduated at the top of his class.

John became interested in politics while serving on Governor Pat Brown's reelection campaign staff during Brown's epic 1962 race against Richard Nixon.

In 1966, John was elected to the California State Assembly, beginning a record 38 years of uninterrupted service in the Legislature.

In the assembly, John was known for his visionary idealism, brilliant intellect, and tough pragmatism. His mastery of budget issues led to his chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, where he championed State investment in education. His deep interest in psychology led to the establishment of the California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility.

When term limits forced John to leave the assembly in 1996, he was elected to the State senate. As chair of the senate committees on education and aging, he championed new investments in K-12, higher education and long-term care while winning bipartisan praise for his careful fiscal stewardship.

In 2004, term limits ended John's legislative career, but he did not retire. Joining with a group of friends and supporters, he established the Vasconcellos Legacy Project, VLP, an organization ``dedicated to the proposition that positive political change is possible, especially because we human beings are innately inclined toward the good.'' Through research and advocacy, the VLP has sought to overcome political polarization and cynicism to create a new ``Politics of Trust.''

Throughout his long and distinguished life in politics, John Vasconcellos demanded expected the best from himself, his colleagues, and our democracy. He was one of a kind, and he will be truly missed. I extend my deepest condolences to his loving extended family and many friends and admirers.

Mr. President, Israel faces 100 rocket attacks a day from a terrorist organization called Hamas. Israel is trying to cope with getting rid of tunnels that have been built by this terrorist organization, with one purpose: to send terrorists through those tunnels so they can kidnap, torture, and kill Israeli citizens.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 492, S. 2673; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, if you sense some emotion and anger in my voice, I have it. I am shocked and deeply saddened that my friend would come here and object, when for days and days and days he told me--he told me--he would not do this. My friend told me he would not object.

This bill has the support of 81 Senators. To come here and object that his committee, which I am so proud to be--as a matter of fact, I am a senior person on that committee. My chairman is one of the great chairmen of the U.S. Senate. We bent over backward. I wanted to offer this on Monday with Senator Blunt. He was disappointed. I said: I am talking to Senator Corker. We are trying to work together. Eighty one Senators support this, and 1 Senator comes and says: Oh, it is a little bit--we need to go to the committee. There is a war going on. Hamas has put on its channel proudly showing terrorists going through tunnels.

This bill is absolutely critical. It is an updated version of the bipartisan legislation we introduced last March. We worked for 16 months. We had issues with the visa waiver. We tried to take it through the committee in May. They tried to attach amendments on Iran. We need to work hard with the administration on the Iran issue. It is critical. But there is a war going on. This bill is critical, and I am so grateful to Senator Blunt and all of my cosponsors.

In passing this bill today, the Senate would send a clear and unequivocal message. Let's be clear. We are leaving town. I do not want to leave town, but we are leaving town, and we are not going to have a chance, with all due respect to my friend, to take a look at this for a long time. This is the time, on the way out the door, to send an unequivocal message to our ally.

Hamas continues to escalate through those tunnels. We all mourn every civilian life lost--every life lost on either side. Think about it. If in our country we had rockets coming over here from Canada or from Mexico or from the sea into our Nation, what would we do? What would we do?

Concrete that was meant to build up Gaza--and I stood at that line when Israel gave up Gaza, gave it up. I was proud they did it, and I thought: What a chance for the Palestinians. I feel for them because Hamas has taken over and they use that concrete that was meant to rebuild for tunnels. I watched the video. I saw the terrorists go through, proudly bearing their weapons, sneaking up on a post and killing five Israelis. They tried to kidnap their bodies but they were unable to do it.

So if not now, when is the time to pass this legislation? To say it is bipartisan is an understatement. Almost the entire Senate is on it. We all know there are a lot of important issues. My goodness. I am going to be standing here and talking about a lot of them.

This is an emergency. That is why this United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act is so critical, including our assistance for the Iron Dome missile defense system.

What is important in our bill is we increase by $200 million the value of U.S. weapons we hold, we stockpile in Israel to a total of $1.8 billion. At the rate these rockets are coming over, at the rate these tunnels need to be destroyed, we need to act. We need to act. We need to send a clear message to our friend Israel, and it sends a message to Hamas.

I have to say, yes, we have a visa waiver program in here. Guess what it does. It treats Israel the same way we treat other countries. I will read the names of those countries: Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Estonia,

and the Czech Republic. Why shouldn't Israel have that same opportunity? We worked on this provision. I know my friend has problems, but we fixed those provisions. We have given maximum flexibility on those provisions.

So I am sad--that is an understatement--I am distressed, I am shocked and stunned that this afternoon, before we go out the door, with 81 Senators on a bill--a bill we actually passed a couple years ago, a similar bill, and the House passed a similar bill--that I have a friend, who is my friend--he is my friend--treating this Senator and the chairman in a way that I think is so unfair and to me betrays all the days that we talked about this, the weeks we talked about this, the way we have fixed this legislation.

Most of all, I think it is a dark moment--a dark moment--when we would walk away from this opportunity to take a stand against terrorism.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I think my colleague knows absolutely the reason why. All this is just disingenuous. My friend knows--we discussed it--that if we load down this bill with extraneous amendments on other subjects it would never pass. We know that. I have been around here a long time. I know how a bill becomes a law, and thank God I learned it.

One thing I know. When you start loading down a very important piece of legislation that is emergency legislation with unrelated amendments, it is not going to be able to be done on the way out the door, and my friend knows it. We have----

Excuse me. I have the time.

My friend can get emotional about process. Be my guest. I am not emotional about process. I am emotional about results. How would the Senator feel if he had a terrorist group digging tunnels under his cities? That is an issue separate and apart from our agreement we have to have a good agreement on Iran. But you know when you start amending these bills like that, they are not going to go through on unanimous consent.

So I am disheartened, disappointed, saddened, and I think everybody knows what has happened here.

Mr. President, before Senator Corker leaves the floor, I want to make sure I understand because maybe there is a window of opportunity to revisit this. I want to make sure I heard what he said.

It was my clear understanding--and the Senator said he does not know why I thought this--that my friend would not object to this if it came to the floor. I had staff conversations. I know the Senator is saying after it came out of committee, but there were other conversations I am privy to staff to staff. So let me say that.

Is it my friend's interest to go and talk to Senator Barrasso in particular--a friend of mine--and see whether he was just going to use these amendments as talking points? If, in fact, he was not going to do that, call for a vote, and he stands down, would my friend allow us to get this done tonight just given the moment in time in which we find ourselves at this late hour?

I wish to engage with my friend in a bit of a colloquy here.

I listened to the Senator from Texas, Senator Cornyn--who is working to try to solve these problems--lament the fact that Democrats in the House would not go along with the Republican version of this emergency appropriation. So I went back and I asked my staff to detail--and my friend did that.

I want to make sure that he agrees with what I think basically was in there: First of all, a change in the 2008 law that President George W. Bush signed, written by Senator Feinstein and others--quite bipartisan--to treat these children with human dignity and ascertain that in fact they had a real problem. If they didn't have a real problem, send them back home; and if they did have a real problem, make sure they were safe here. So that was in there. Then, as my friend said, the National Guard piece was in there.

Now, what is really interesting is these children are coming over, and they are saying to the Border Patrol: Take me.

So I don't mind having the National Guard at the border if we really have to defend, et cetera. I have come after that in the past.

But it just seems to me--and my friend made the point--it is one thing to put Border Patrol on and it is another thing to send down the military to face off with these children.

The other thing is, of course, they strip down the money dramatically so that these kids may well have to remain in some of the worst conditions in these customs facilities.

Now, the question I really want to talk to my friend about is this. I researched this today and asked to find

out, every year, how many foreign nationals become legal residents under current law even without changing our law. We know the immigration bill didn't pass over there. It is 1 million a year. Every year, we take 1 million foreign nationals, and they become legal residents in America.

Doesn't my friend believe that since we take 1 million people a year in legally, we can deal with 56,000 children, that we can do that, that we have the capacity to do that? We know, if it follows trends, that most of them will be placed with relatives or caring friends, a few may not be, and some will be sent back.

But doesn't my friend believe, in this great Nation of immigrants--I am a first-generation American on my mother's side. My mother was born in Europe and her whole family escaped before the Holocaust. I don't think there is anyone in this Chamber, unless they are Native American, who can say truly at one time their relatives weren't immigrants.

My friend is so eloquent on the point. We handle 1 million foreign nationals becoming permanent legal residents every year. Don't we think America has the capacity to handle 56,000 children?

I thank the Senator.

Senators, I will be brief. It is so unfortunate that the House walked away from the work we did, the bipartisan work we did together--79 votes. My goodness. We can't get that these days for Mother's Day. So it was fantastic what we did: the work of Senator Wyden and Senator Hatch, the work of Senator Carper and Senator Corker, the work of Senator Vitter in our committee that I as chair. It is very sad because what we wanted to do was to take care of this problem this year, in this Congress, on our watch, not kick the can down the road. That is what they chose to do in the House. It is most unfortunate, and their pay-fors were just a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Having said all of that, we all know--and colleagues have asked me how am I going to vote--that we can't walk away from the highway trust fund. We can't let it stagger and fall. Millions of jobs and thousands of businesses depend on it.

So I will be voting aye, and I will be working with Senator Wyden and the rest of my friends and colleagues to make sure we get a multiyear bill as soon as possible.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the President's emergency supplemental request of $615 million to fight wildfires throughout the United States.

We have witnessed increasingly large and devastating wildfires over the last few decades.

Nationwide, the costs of fighting wildfires has increased from $200 million in 1986 to $1.7 billion in 2013. In

that same time, the amount of acres burned has increased from 2.7 million acres in 1986 to 4.3 million acres in 2013.

In many parts of the U.S., fire seasons are now 60 to 80 days longer compared to three decades ago and in some places like Southern California, the fire season never ends.

This is leading to seasonal firefighters being hired several months earlier than normal and federal agencies spending more to make sure our firefighters are prepared and have the necessary resources available for the entire year.

So far this year, California has experienced a 35 percent increase in fire activity and a 16 percent increase in acres burned over an average year. These alarming statistics translate to more than 4,000 wildfires in my State already that have burned more than 52,000 acres since the beginning of the year.

Right now, brave firefighters in California are battling five different large fires. The largest is the Sand Fire, which has burned over 4,000 acres east of Sacramento. This fire has already destroyed 19 homes.

Although it has already been an unprecedented fire season in California, we are not at all out of danger yet as the significant wildland fire potential remains above normal for most of the State through October of this year. It is also above normal in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and parts of Arizona.

Adding to the difficulty of battling these enormous fires is the constrained fire suppression budget we are currently operating under.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Interior announced that wildfire-fighting costs this summer are projected to run about $400 million over budget.

In fact, since 2002, the United States has overspent its wildfire suppression budget every year except one--and in three of those years, went over the suppression budget by nearly $1 billion. This chronic underfunding of our firefighting accounts cannot continue.

When we fail to budget for fire suppression, the Forest Service and the Department of Interior are forced to transfer money from fire prevention accounts to make up the difference. That makes no sense!

We are taking money from the very programs that help reduce the threat of wildfires--such as hazardous fuel removal programs.

In my State, plans to remove dry brush and dead trees in the Tahoe National Forest and the Plumas National Forest have been delayed because wildfire prevention funding is not available.

The President's supplemental request not only adds funding for fire suppression during this fiscal year, it solves the problem in the future by creating a Wildfire Suppression Cap Adjustment so that extraordinary fire costs are treated in the same way as destructive hurricanes, tornadoes, or earthquakes are funded.

This means that money to fight the largest fires would not be subject to discretionary budget caps much like FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund.

As our fire seasons become longer, hotter, and endanger more communities, we must act now to change how wildfire suppression is funded so that we can reduce fire risk and increase the resiliency of the Nation's public lands, forests, and the surrounding communities.

I urge my colleagues to support this emergency supplemental funding and address the growing crisis of wildfires.

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