Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to recognize and honor MAJ Patrick W. Miller, U.S. Army, for his incredible courage and bravery on April 2, 2014, during the tragic Fort Hood shooting.

Major Miller was born and raised in Allegany, NY and was commissioned in the U.S. Army in 2003 after graduating from St. Bonaventure University. He has been deployed to Iraq for two tours, first as a commander of a platoon of medics and second as an adviser to the Iraqi Army. In August of 2013, he and his wife Ashley were assigned to Fort Hood, TX.

It was there, on the afternoon of April 2nd that a gunman opened fire in a shooting rampage. During that time, the shooter entered Major Miller's building and opened fire, immediately hitting Patrick in the abdomen, just 2 inches below his heart. Despite being critically wounded and at great risk to his own life, he rushed to get his fellow soldiers to safety in a closed office as quickly as possible. Then, while attempting to put pressure on his wound, still thinking of his fellow soldiers, he was able to make a call to 911 to report the shooting. In addition to wounding Major Miller, the shooter ended up killing 3 soldiers and wounding 15 others before taking his own life.

The heroic and distinguished acts by Major Miller, beyond a doubt, saved countless lives.

On behalf of the Nation and my fellow New Yorkers, it is my honor to recognize the exemplary service and overwhelming bravery of Major Miller during such a tragic event. I wish him the best as he continues to serve our great Nation.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague and dear friend from Michigan for the great work she has done as chair and vice chair of the DPCC. We have worked very hard on this ``fair shot'' agenda. We believe it is resonating with the American people.

When our colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose simple measures such as a fair shot at getting out of poverty if a person works 40 hours a week, a fair shot for a woman to get equal pay to a man, and a fair shot to prevent jobs from being sent overseas to get a tax break, they know what we are talking about. Perhaps no issue resonates more than a fair shot for people to be able to afford college and then repay their loans with a reasonable amount of money.

Probably the greatest problem America faces is the decline of middle- class incomes. They have been declining since 2001. If they continue to decline for another decade, whoa is America, whoa is America.

America has been expanded--has grown to the greatest country in the world on the notion of opportunity. In my harbor sits a lady with a torch. That torch symbolizes the American dream to just about every American and most citizens in the world. What is the American dream? What does that torch symbolize? If we ask the average American, they wouldn't put it in fancy words or highfalutin language. They would say: It means if I work hard, I will be doing better 10 years from now than I am doing today, and my kids will be doing better than I.

Nothing keeps that American dream burning more brightly than the ability to afford a college education.

The bottom line is simple. The statistics show that in our new and technological world, those who have a college education, whether it is an A.A. degree or a B.A. degree or higher, do a lot better economically than everybody else. Amazingly enough, they do better in other ways in terms of how good their health is, in terms of their longevity, in terms of their happiness.

So college, which used to be a rare commodity 100 years ago, is now almost a necessity to millions of Americans. Yet it is so expensive. It is expensive in two ways. First, it is hard to get there. We have been working very hard on the American opportunity tax break, which my friend from Michigan mentioned, reducing the rate of student loans for those who are already in college, and many other ideas we have pursued to try to make college affordable for families who have someone in college or will enter college in future years.

There is another huge problem as well. Those who have been to college have huge amounts of debt and they are paying this government far more interest than would be paid on the market. We can refinance almost everything--mortgages, cars, loans on jewelry--but we cannot refinance college loans the government has given us. So people are paying 6, 7, 8 percent; whereas, if they went to a bank on their own, they would pay less.

How dare the Federal Government make money on the backs of young people who are struggling to pay back their debt. Boy, does it hurt those families. It prevents them from starting

businesses, buying homes, going on vacation, and many delay their marriages. So there could be nothing that would make millions and millions of Americans happier economically. There could be nothing that would help people get a fair shot and a decent education, the ability to repay, than this simple bill put together largely by the Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, who has done a great job.

It is hard to figure why our colleagues oppose this. They have some distrust in the Federal Government. In this area we do too. We think the Federal Government is demanding too much money to repay loans. Why don't they join us?

The cost of tuition goes up and up, the cost to repay goes up and up, and the burden on the backs of so many goes up and up.

So all we want is a fair shot for everyone to be able to afford college and to be able to repay. This should have been a bipartisan bill; it is not right now, but maybe there will be a change of heart. I will tell my colleagues this: This will become law, maybe not today but in the next months and next year. It has become an issue in campaigns throughout the country. This is an issue that resonates with voters-- Democratic, Independent, Republican, liberal, conservative, North, South, East, and West, and we will keep fighting until every American has a fair shot at affording college and repaying their loans.

With that, I yield back to the Senator from Michigan, who has been kind enough to put together this hour of debate.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak to regret that the constitutional amendment proposed by Senator Udall lost 54 to 42. Of course, a majority voted for it, but we need two-thirds for a constitutional amendment. I first want to thank Senator Udall for his great leadership on this issue. As chairman of the rules committee and a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have worked with him on this, and I know his passion and dedication to straightening our country out, straightening our system of campaign finance out.

Second, I want to say this: We are going to keep fighting until we get this done. The only way really to cure the Supreme Court's misguided ruling, whether it is in Citizens United or McCutcheon, is with a constitutional amendment. Our day will come. We are not giving up.

When the Supreme Court issued its ruling in McCutcheon several months ago, it was another step on the path towards destruction of our system of campaign finance laws. First in Citizens United and then in McCutcheon, the Supreme Court has been chipping away at the actual foundation of our democracy that everyone is equal in the political arena. It just does not mean equal in terms of votes; it means that if you are a multimillionaire, you should not be allowed to drown out the messages of everybody else.

If Congress does not respond, our system is going to collapse. This year, the amount of independent expenditures from a small number of individuals will exceed the money spent by all the others. It is just amazing. We cannot have it. That is why Democrats will continue to fight for a constitutional amendment that would finally allow us to fight back and regulate the dark

money that is flooding our elections and threatening to take us back to the era of the robber barons. The Federal Government and the States should be allowed to pass laws that prevent unregulated sums of undisclosed money from pervading our elections.

This constitutional amendment would do just that. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not see it that way. They have argued that the amendment would curtail freedom of speech. The Republican leader said in an op-ed earlier this week that Democrats are trying to take an eraser to the First Amendment.

Well, he is dead wrong. All Democrats are trying to erase is the hundreds of millions dollars--undisclosed--that are tainting our elections, whether they are coming from the Koch brothers or George Soros or Tom Steyer. All of them should not be allowed to have such huge influence.

Many other Republicans have portrayed this sensible amendment as an unparalleled attack on the First Amendment, which, they seem to argue, is absolute. I would say, for instance, to the Senator from Texas and my Republican friends that no amendment is absolute.

You cannot yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater. Child pornography is illegal. We have libel laws. These are all sensible limits to the First Amendment.

This amendment is similarly a sensible amendment. It creates balance. Every amendment--and the Founding Fathers, when they created the Bill of Rights, and the States, when they ratified them, realized that ``balance'' is a watchword. We believe in the right to buy arms, but people shouldn't be allowed to buy a tank and ride down the street in it. We believe in all of the amendments, but none should be stretched to ridiculous extremes, which any law can be.

This amendment would go a long way to restoring fairness and credibility to a system of campaign laws that the Supreme Court has ripped to shreds over the past years.

I don't know if these Supreme Court Justices know the harm they are doing to our system in their abstract view that limiting many kinds of campaign finance violates the First Amendment, but I wish they could be on the ground and see the harm they are doing.

Simply put, unregulated dark money is poisoning our elections, and this amendment is the antidote. The American people want us to change the way elections are financed in this country not just for the sake of the system itself but because the current system results in a Congress that fails to do what average folks--the middle class--want it to do. Democrats want to raise the minimum wage, but the Koch brothers spend millions electing candidates who oppose it. Democrats want equal pay for equal work, but shadowy billionaires and corporate interests funnel millions to the campaigns of candidates who would block it.

We have to have fair elections in order to give the middle class a fair shot. And on the amendment the Presiding Officer has so valiantly sponsored, all we want to say is if you are a multimillionaire, you ought to pay taxes at the same rate as everyone else and use the money we gain to help make it easier for everyone to afford college and pay their college debts at a reasonable interest rate after they get out of college. But those who would be the small number who would be hurt by this have a few clarion voices who have billions of dollars who spend the money and prevent candidates who believe in this view--which most Americans believe in--from getting elected.

We have to have fair elections in order to give the middle class a fair shot. We hope our Republican colleagues will drop their objections and work with us to restore some semblance of fairness to our electoral system.

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

First, I thank my good friend from Florida for his heartfelt and his always articulate words. We are now going to debate, finally, the reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program.

Senator Crapo and I have opening statements, but Senator Tester, who has added an extremely important amendment to this legislation, has a markup shortly, so we are going to accede and let him speak about his amendment first, and then we will get on with our opening statements. I thank Senator Tester for his hard work on this issue as well as his ability to compromise to get something done.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Montana and Nebraska for their hard work on not only this legislation but their very important amendment--long overdue. I certainly thank Senators Johnson and Crapo, without whose leadership we couldn't be here to pass this bill. I thank my original cosponsors, Senator Kirk from Illinois who is here, Senator Jack Reed, Senator Heller, Senator Murphy, Senator Johanns, Senator Warner, Senator Blunt, and Senator Menendez, all of whom recognized the importance of having this incredibly important program reauthorized.

As author of the original TRIA legislation, I have watched this evolution closely. I could not be more convinced of the necessity to reauthorize the program for the long haul.

I remember the dark days right after 9/11. I was there. The worst thing was the loss of life--people we had all known. I know people who were lost--a guy I played basketball with in high school, a businessman who helped me on the way up, a firefighter with whom I did blood drives. But there was also the economic worry. People thought southern Manhattan would not come back. People thought businesses would flee New York--that New York's greatest days were behind us. And of course the people of New York, with their resiliency, backed up by everyone in this country--including President Bush, very strongly--did come back. But the uncertainty we faced in the immediate aftermath was that there would be no building in southern Manhattan or Manhattan at all. And we have some history.

One of the things that greatly stood in the way was the private sector did not offer any sufficient coverage to protect against the threat of terrorism. No one knew when there might be another terrorist incident. Insurance companies, knowing how large the losses were, figured it was better not to underwrite insurance than write it for such an astronomical sum that the building would not be even economically feasible.

We have some colleagues who said this should be a private sector endeavor. Well, we have history. The private sector was unable, because of the potential economic losses if, God forbid, there was another terrorist attack, whether it be conventional, nuclear, or chemical, to provide terrorism insurance. When that occurs, banks would not finance buildings, knowing there was no insurance backup, and we would have been in huge trouble. That is why we devised the terrorism insurance bill.

For those who say let the private sector do it, we have an experiment. We have what the scientists would call a controlled experiment. When there was no terrorism insurance after 9/11, the private sector would not offer insurance. We even find to this day, as the existing bill expires, fewer people underwrite terrorism insurance and fewer buildings are financed.

So we can do one of two things: We can sit back and let the market handle this on its own and lose millions--literally millions--of jobs, lose economic stability, safety, prosperity, and growth or we can renew this legislation. We can come up with a smart, responsible, risk- sharing system where the private sector is paying upfront. But if, God forbid, there is another serious incident beyond the capability of the private sector to shoulder, the Federal Government can step in and provide a backstop. That is what we have done.

The TRIA Program is a shining example of the government partnering with the private sector to solve problems that neither can solve on its own.

Let me underline, first, the importance to my city of New York. The redevelopment of downtown Manhattan is booming there. People are flocking to live there and work there. It is the hot area of New York again--not just with financial services but with law and advertising and high-tech. It serves as a reminder of the role the Federal Government can and should play in helping facilitate the stability and growth of cities across the country.

This bill will not lessen the impact of a terrorist attack but will help ensure that our cities throughout the country are less vulnerable to the economic devastation that would follow such a horrific event.

But this bill is hardly just focused on New York City. It not only affects every large city--my good friend from Nebraska spoke--it affects the football stadium and any renovations that might occur there in Lincoln. I have been there for a Nebraska-Oklahoma game. It was an amazing experience. It affects any city that has large gatherings of people and buildings--shopping centers, athletic facilities, colleges. So it affects almost every State. That is one of the reasons we have come together and gotten such broad bipartisan support.

We must make sure that every reauthorization of the program provides the certainty lenders and developers need to make the kind of long-term investment our country and large projects need to stimulate job growth and economic growth, and this bill does just that. That is why it was passed out of the banking committee unanimously.

Again, I thank my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle. As Senator Johanns said--and we say it on each bill where there is some bipartisan support--this one has overwhelming support. Maybe this bill can be a model that at least on many issues we can work together.

Time is of the essence. Insurance policies for 2015 are already being written. Each day that goes by without a TRIA Program causes great uncertainty in the market and holds back the potential for more development, more construction, more jobs, and more economic growth.

I will talk about the amendments later, but I urge my colleagues, both here in the Senate and in the House, to move as quickly as possible because our economy is greatly affected by it. It is one of those that ``runs quiet, runs deep.'' It is a quiet policy but a policy that greatly affects lots of things that go on.

Again, I thank my colleagues, Senator Crapo for his good and hard work, as well as Senator Johnson and my cosponsors.

I yield the floor.

Senator Crapo listed some letters and asked that they be put in the Record for some groups supporting our legislation.

We have a very long list, and I ask unanimous consent that list be added to the Record, the supporters of the legislation.

Now I would like to discuss the amendment process to preview it for my colleagues a little bit.

I would also ask unanimous consent that quorum calls be counted equally against both sides.

As was mentioned, I believe by some of my colleagues, the give-and-take on this bill was ideally how things should work. First, a bipartisan group of Senators got together and crafted the legislation. As Senator Crapo noted, there was some push and pull, what should be the balance between government and the private sector, and we did move a little bit more in giving greater responsibility to the private sector. People should note that at the end of the day the private sector will pay back all the money the government would lay out if, God forbid, there is a terrorist incident, but it would be over a period of time of course.

But we had Democrats and Republicans come together and we came up with a bill. The chairman and ranking member agreed that the bill was a good idea, held hearings, and then we moved forward with the legislation.

Then always comes the even greater morass. We do get some bills passed out of this place with bipartisan support and many of them are significant bills, but then we go to the floor and we wonder what is going to happen now. We have the age-old dispute about how many amendments, what type of amendments, should they be relevant. In this case we asked colleagues on both sides of the aisle who would want amendments.

The amendments that came back were reasonable. Most--not all--were related to terrorism insurance. Those that weren't, such as by Senator Tester and Senator Vitter, were in the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee, so they at least had some relationship. We did not get a flurry of amendments from all over the place on issues that naturally divide the parties.

Then we had to do some negotiating, but we allowed--Senator Crapo and Senator Johnson allowed every amendment, that any author who wanted to offer an amendment could. We worked out some compromises on the Tester amendment. Senator Coburn had objections, and a compromise was worked out there. Some were withdrawn, but at the end of the day anyone who wanted an amendment got it. Both sides showed restraint, and I think that is what brought us to this position.

So the good news for my colleagues, we have a very limited number of amendments, and we intend to dispose of the entire bill before lunch this morning.

Let me briefly go over the amendments.

Senator Coburn will offer an amendment on recoupment timing. The Coburn amendment would give the Treasury Secretary the ability to extend the recoupment period of up to 10 years following an attack. The problem is the way Senator Coburn had drafted his amendment, it would create a significant score. He offered in it the Banking Committee and it failed on a bipartisan vote, the majority of both parties, I believe, voting against it. But he wanted to offer it on the floor, and so he will.

There is a point of order, a pay-go point of order that will be raised against the Coburn amendment, and I will raise that because it does break the budget. It doesn't have a pay-for in exchange for it. So Chairman Johnson and I believe the sponsors of the legislation recommend a ``no'' vote on waiving pay-go against the Coburn amendment.

The Tester amendment, as modified by Senator Coburn, I believe will be voice-voted. Senator Tester and Senator Johanns described that adequately, but it is something long overdue that would create a National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers and make the whole brokerage business work more smoothly. It has very broad support in this body.

Senator Vitter will offer an amendment that would require the President to nominate at least one individual with primary experience working in or supervising community banks on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. I am sure he will come to the floor to explain his amendment. We expect this amendment, which we will all agree to, will be approved by voice vote, and Chairman Johnson has recommended a voice vote to the Members on our side.

Finally, there is a Flake amendment that would create an advisory committee on risk-sharing mechanisms. Again, I think Senator Flake will come down at some point and explain his amendment. There will be a recorded vote on this at least as planned now, and I will be supportive and I know Chairman Johnson again has recommended a ``yes'' vote on the Flake amendment.

With that, I note the absence of a quorum.

Once again I thank the chair and the ranking member of the banking committee, Tim Johnson and Mike Crapo, for their great work.

I say to my colleagues, this is a very good example of much cooperation--bipartisan cooperation, Democrat and Republican--a 22-to-0 unanimous vote out of the committee. It is also cooperation between private industry and the government. Industry, insurance, and others knew they had to shoulder a greater share of the load as we move on after 9/11 but that only government could be the backstop at the end of the day.

Again, this is an economic development issue above anything else. It is not out of whose pocket what money comes. If the greatest problem America faces is good-paying jobs--well, if we were not to renew terrorism insurance, we would lose many good-paying jobs.

This amendment will allow those jobs to continue and grow. People will

not build major edifices, major complexes--whether they be skyscrapers in Chicago or New York, whether they be football stadiums in Idaho or South Carolina or major shopping centers in South Dakota--unless they know there is a backstop, because insurers will not insure if they think terrorism could just totally wipe them out. And that means we wouldn't get financing for these projects.

It is an outstanding piece of legislation. My hope, in conclusion, is that the House would pass our bill. We know there are some concerns in the House, but there is a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans who really favor the approach we have taken. I know there are some in the House who don't believe government should be involved here, but that is, with all due respect, a purist view.

We have cut back on some of the government's obligations. Mike Crapo and many of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle made that happen. But at the same time, without the government backstop, we would do real harm to our economy.

I hope we can get a very large vote in the Senate--bipartisan-- because if we do, it should importune the House to perhaps pass our legislation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I wish to make a couple points on the Coburn amendment, and then I will raise a point of order.

The current bill, S. 2244, is budget neutral, as the past TRIA bills have been. On the other hand, CBO has said Senator Coburn's amendment is not fully paid for, violating the Senate's PAYGO rule.

Basically, the amendment--even though I know the sponsor does not intend it that way--is a killer amendment. CBO has said the amendment would cause S. 2244 to increase the Federal deficit in both the 5-year and 10-year budget windows.

Senator Coburn offered this amendment in committee. It was roundly defeated by a bipartisan vote of 16 to 6 against it.

I appreciate Senator Coburn's effort to provide more flexibility to the timeframe for recoupment by the government in case of a terrorist attack, but in fact the banking committee, led by Senator Johnson, and my office have worked with CBO for a number of months to determine whether there could be more flexibility in the recoupment process. Unfortunately, CBO has yet to identify a way to provide more flexibility in the recoupment period while still ensuring the program remains budget neutral as it is now.

It is also important to note that if recoupment by the government poses any unforeseen challenge after a future attack, nothing would stop the Treasury Secretary from asking the Congress then to provide that flexibility.

The bottom line is that TRIA is too important to allow this amendment and nonreauthorization of the program because it is not budget neutral. We don't want to give anybody an excuse.

I am hopeful Senator Coburn will support TRIA's final passage, even if his amendment isn't agreed to, as he did in committee. But for those of us whose priority is to reauthorize this program, I urge my colleagues to vote to sustain the budget point of order and oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President, I yield back all time.

I ask for a voice vote.

This is a good amendment and will be supported by Chairman Johnson and myself.

I yield back all time.

I yield back all time.

Mr. President, I yield back all time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Examining Accountability and Corporate Culture in Wake of the GM Recalls.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2014, at 2 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Federal Research Portfolio: Capitalizing on Investments in R&D.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Role of Trade and Technology in 21st Century Manufacturing.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2014, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Dangerous Passage: Central America in Crisis and the Exodus of Unaccompanied Minors.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2014, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``More Than 1,000 Preventable Deaths a Day Is Too Many: The Need to Improve Patient Safety.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 17, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I was honored today to join my colleague, Senator Cardin, in submitting a resolution to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Congressional Research Service, CRS. This is a historic milestone for CRS and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter I recently wrote to Dr. James Billington, the Librarian of Congress, and Dr. Mary Mazanec, the Director of the Congressional Research Service, be printed the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014, introduced by my friends and colleagues Senator Murray and Senator Udall. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation.

We are at a critical moment when it comes to women's health care rights. We just witnessed a Supreme Court decision that curtailed important access to health care for employees across the country. The Hobby Lobby case has now opened the door for the vast majority of companies and bosses to start denying their employees contraceptive coverage if the owners have a religious objection. We must slam the door shut. To do that this body must set the record straight about the law the Supreme Court used to make their decision, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

As one of the original authors of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, I was the lead sponsor in the House of Representatives. Senator Kennedy was the lead sponsor in the Senate.

I can say with absolute certainty that the law has been unwisely stretched by the Supreme Court to extend religious protections to corporations Congress never intended to be covered under the bill. I am compelled to do so because several of my colleagues on the other side have come to the floor to defend the Hobby Lobby decision using my words. These were arguments I made in 1993 when we first passed the RFRA and we were dealing with the protection of individual--underlining individual--liberties. The quotation they used dealt broadly with the importance of religious freedom of expression in our country. I said the RFRA would help restore the American tradition of allowing maximum religious freedom. That is as true today as it was then. I believe as strongly in RFRA as it was written then as I do now, but it was misinterpreted and wrongly expanded by the Supreme Court.

When my colleagues used this quotation as a point of argument, they completely missed the point of the debate. The debate is not about the conflict between freedom of religious expression and government- mandated health coverage. That is a false choice. The debate is really whether the Supreme Court appropriately interpreted the RFRA in applying it to profit-making corporations.

As the author of the bill, I can say again with absolute certainty that the Supreme Court got the Hobby Lobby case dead wrong.

When we wrote RFRA back in 1993, we did so to protect that which individuals with strong religious beliefs had always enjoyed--the presumption that they should be able to exercise their religious beliefs without interference from the government. But the Court took that protection and misapplied it to for-profit companies that exist for the purpose of benefiting from the open market.

The Hobby Lobby decision marks a sharp departure both from the intent of RFRA and from prior judicial interpretations of RFRA. The Supreme Court got it wrong. That is why this bill, authored by my colleagues from Washington and Colorado, is of paramount importance--to clarify the law and to restore protections for employees that were stripped away by this wrongheaded Supreme Court decision.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will continue to assert that this is just another assault by Democrats on free exercise of religion or peddle other falsehoods. So I would like to clearly explain what this bill will and won't do.

This bill will ensure that companies cannot deny their workers any health benefits, including birth control, as required to be covered by Federal law.

This bill will make it clear that bosses cannot discriminate against their female workers, ensuring equal treatment under the law for tens of thousands of workers whose coverage hangs in the balance.

This bill is not only about birth control. The Hobby Lobby decision has implications for other health services, and now this bill will ensure that all covered employees have access to all necessary health care--not only contraceptives but also blood transfusions, antidepressants, and vaccines.

The bill does not require churches or nonprofit organizations to provide contraceptive coverage even when they object on religious grounds. The Affordable Care Act exemption process for nonprofit organizations with a religious mission is unchanged by this bill.

This bill will not allow new laws that can target specific religious groups.

The bill only applies to health care.

Most importantly, this bill does not restrict the Constitution's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The bill only clarifies the relative weight the Court should give when two Federal statutes--such as the Affordable Care Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act--come into conflict.

As I continue to say, RFRA was intended to give individuals who profess strong religious beliefs what they had always enjoyed--the strong presumption that they should be able to exercise their religious beliefs without government interference. RFRA was not intended to extend the same protection to for-profit corporations the very purpose of which is to profit from the open market.

The Supreme Court's cavalier decision to grant religious rights to closely held corporations could curtail the health care freedom of women at as many as 90 percent of American businesses. By putting health care decisions in the hands of a woman's boss instead of a woman and her doctor, the decision creates a slippery slope that could affect tens of millions of Americans--our daughters, our wives--in the future.

We need this bill to clarify the law and firmly protect a woman's right to access essential health care.

I thank my colleagues Senator Udall and Senator Murray for offering this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this effort to protect women's health care and religious freedom.

I yield the floor.

First, let me commend my colleague from Montana. Since he has been here he has been one of the strongest and most stalwart voices in defending the rights of Native Americans, and I know they populate his State in large numbers. I know he has made it a passion and he has been extremely effective and I compliment him for that.

Madam President, I rise to dispel a dangerous notion, one I have seen too frequently in newspapers, heard on TV and among people, commentators and others in the wake of the violence in Israel.

The dangerous notion is that there is a moral equivalence between the actions and reactions of Israel and the Palestinian State to the violence and response in the Middle East--or the Palestinian people more so than the State. It must be said there is no moral equivalence between the actions and reactions of Israel and Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to the violence that has occurred there.

Two instances make that very clear. We all witnessed terrible tragedies occurring in that tortured region of the

world. We are now all familiar with both the kidnapping and cold- blooded murder of three Israeli boys and, in what seems to be payback, the killing of a young Palestinian teenager. Both were abhorrent--both were abhorrent--and the losses of the families on both sides cannot be understated, but I think what we ought to focus on--we all know each side has its fanatics. Each side experiences tragedy of the highest order. What I am saying does not apply to all the people on either side, particularly the Palestinian side, but the reaction is what counts.

What was the reaction among too many Palestinians to the murder of these three boys? They were almost exultant. They were treated as heroes. The mother of one of the supposed murderers, people who are suspected of the murder of the Israelis, Abu Aysha, said: ``If he [my son] truly did it--I'll be proud of him till my final day.'' That is what she said: ``I'll be proud. . . . ''

Those who were purported to kill the three Israelis were regarded as heroes, not just among a small segment in the West Bank and in Gaza but among large numbers of people. There were parades. They were honored. That was the reaction.

Let's compare that to Israel's reaction when a group of Israeli fanatics killed the Palestinian teenager. The Israeli people, in large part, were aghast. They said we have to find who did it and bring them to justice. Prime Minister Netanyahu called them terrorists, those who might have killed that Palestinian, equal to the terrorism on the other side of the three who killed the Israelis.

Israel made every effort to find those and have now made arrests. While the leader of the Palestinian Authority condemned the killing of the three Israeli boys, there was no such effort on the Palestinian side to find those who did it, to bring them to justice. There were no calls of universal condemnation.

How can we compare the two sides? How can people say: Oh, the Israelis. Oh, the Palestinians. It is one big fight. They are all the same.

It is not. Again, regretfully, there are fanatics on both sides, and I abhor the Israeli fanatics. They make things bad for the vast majority of Israelis who want to live in peace in a two-state solution, but the vast majority of Israelis condemn the Jewish fanatics. The vast majority of Palestinians seem to praise the Palestinian terrorists. Hamas, one of the two main governing organizations in Gaza and the West Bank, loudly praises the kidnapping and killing of the three Israeli boys.

Is there moral equivalency here? Are both sides sort of acting the same?

By the way, when you read Palestinian textbooks and go to schools and read about what the children are taught--vitriolic hatred, not only of Israel but of the Jewish people--you sometimes understand maybe why not support but condemn and sort of gain some inkling of understanding of why so many are filled with hatred. But who is putting out those textbooks? Not just Hamas--the Palestinian Authority and many Palestinian governing units.

So the reaction of Israel, its government and its society, to the killing of an innocent Palestinian youth and the reaction of the Palestinian authorities and people, in large part, to the killing of three Israeli youths showed there is no moral equivalency because the reaction was totally different.

Then let's take what happened yesterday. It is the same thing. You read all the headlines, Israelis and Palestinians fighting with each other, rockets sent on both sides, air raids sent on both sides, but let's look at what happened. Hamas sent rockets into the heart of Israel to kill innocent civilians--no warnings, not in response to anything Israel did. They just decided to send these rockets. Some commentators say it is because they are weak now that Egypt will no longer let them get all those supplies through the tunnels.

What is Israel's response? Of course they have to eliminate the rockets and rocket launchers, but what other society sends leaflets to the houses that have these rocket launchers, saying: Please vacate.

What other society tries to call people on cell phones to say: Leave. We have to get rid of the rocket launchers. We don't want to kill innocent people.

That is what Israel did. Did Hamas send any warnings to the people of Sderot or Beersheba or Jerusalem or Tel Aviv that they were going to indiscriminately send rockets into civilian areas? No. Did Hamas do this in response to Israel? No. So this idea again in the papers--oh, both sides are fighting, what can we do, they are both sort of equally wrong--is morally abhorrent to me and to many others.

There is, in conclusion, no moral equivalency, no moral equivalency to weigh these two states and, frankly, in large part, with two exceptions, how two societies react: the horrible murders of young people, Israel, sad, condemning the Israelis who did it, and too many Palestinians praising the Palestinians who did it. In response to rockets sent into civilian areas, Israel tries to limit its response to military targets and lets civilians who might be near those targets know they should evacuate.

We all pray for peace in the Middle East. I certainly do. There has been too much death, too much anguish, too much insecurity, but we are not going to achieve peace by equating the two sides and saying they are equivalent, morally or in any other way.

The steps the beleaguered nation of Israel takes to try and protect itself are far different than so many of the aggressive actions of too many on the Palestinian side, with too much support from too many of the Palestinian people.

There is no moral equivalency.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise today to talk about the House's tragic and disconcerting failure to do anything to fix our broken immigration system, even though an entire year has passed since the Senate passed bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform with 68 votes--an impressive bipartisan vote total in this increasingly partisan climate.

The House Republicans' lack of action on immigration is almost completely inexplicable if you compare the most recent Republican Party platform to what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had to say about the Senate immigration reform bill.

When you take the time to look at both of these documents, you realize that no other bill that we could pass during this or any other Congress would accomplish as many of the Republican Party's stated legislative objectives as passing immigration reform.

Just so that everyone understands this, I want to take you through a step-by-step process where we look at the Republican Party platform and compare it to the CBO report.

The first substantive sentence of the Republican Party platform says:

The best jobs program is economic growth. Republicans will

pursue free market policies that are the surest way to boost

employment and create job growth and economic prosperity for

all.

Well, what does the CBO report have to say about what the immigration bill does for economic growth, job growth, and economic prosperity?

Page 3 of the CBO report says that ``the bill would increase real . . . GDP relative to the amount CBO projects under current law by 3.3 percent in 2023 and by 5.4 percent in 2033. . . .''

Think about what that means in a $16 trillion economy. If we pass this bill, we will be adding over $500 billion of annual economic growth to our economy than we otherwise would. This is a staggering number.

Well, what does the immigration bill do for job growth? Page 4 of the CBO report says that the bill will increase the number of jobs in the U.S. economy by about 6 million.

What about economic prosperity? On this front, page 3 of the CBO report says ``the rate of return on capital would be higher under the legislation than under current law. . . .'' That means Americans would have more savings and a more secure safety net.

This means that passing immigration reform would accomplish the Republican Party's top priority far better than any piece of legislation the Republicans currently have before Congress.

What about the second stated priority of the Republican platform? That priority says that ``small businesses are the leaders in the world's advances in technology and innovation, and we pledge to strengthen that role and foster small business entrepreneurship.''

Do you know what the best way to foster small business entrepreneurship is? Immigration reform.

According to a study from the Kauffman Foundation, immigrants were almost twice as likely to start small businesses in 2012 as native-born Americans. Madam President, 27.1 percent of new entrepreneurs in 2012 were immigrants. That is up from 13.7 percent in 1996.

More than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants--90 companies--or by their children--an additional 114 companies--because a lot of these small businesses become big businesses. The immigration bill has an entrepreneurship visa where immigrants who have raised money from legitimate investors will be given a green card to come here, open companies, and hire Americans.

Why will this happen? Because immigrants have always provided the enthusiasm, hard work, and determination to reenergize America. They perform very important jobs at the lower end of the economic spectrum without complaint to make a better life for their families and they provide innovation and new ideas at the higher end of the economy to create the latest big inventions that fuel our growth.

But that is only scratching the surface of what this immigration bill does. The next priority on page 3 of the Republican platform is ``balancing the budget.'' What is the bill that Congress can pass this year that best balances the budget? Immigration reform.

According to CBO, passing immigration reform would ``reduce budget deficits by $197 billion over the 2014-2023 period and by about $700 billion over the 2024-2033 period.'' That is $1 trillion in savings that we can achieve by passing immigration reform.

Finally, with regard to immigration itself, the Republican Party platform says ``our highest priority is to secure the rule of law at both our borders and at ports of entry.''

Under the Senate immigration bill, anyone who wants to try and cross the border illegally will have to figure out a way to get over an 18- foot steel pedestrian fence, get past the border agents standing every 1,000 feet apart from Brownsville to San Diego 24 hours a day, and then evade the sensors, cameras, and drones that will track the crosser until they are caught by a border agent or local police.

That is an amendment proposed by our Republican colleagues but we put into the bill. If you try to overstay your visa, your name will be placed on a list given to immigration enforcement officials to find you, detain you, and deport you. If you try to work here illegally, you will never be able to get a job because you will not have a name, a Social Security number, and a matching picture that will pop up on our new E-Verify system when you apply for a job. Future waves of illegal immigration will be prevented if this bill is passed.

So for all of the railing from the hard right about stopping illegal immigration, no one--no one--can deny there have been huge improvements over current law.

Let's take an inventory of what this bill does: Stimulate the economy. Check. Create jobs. Check. Help small businesses. Check. Reduce the debt. Check. Secure the border. Check. End visa overstays. Check. End illegal employment. Check.

These are all of the things Republicans claim they want to do, all in one bill. So why is it that all of these positive benefits to passing reform and all of the costs we pay for doing nothing, why is it that with that the House of Representatives, and the House Republicans in particular, refuse to do anything to fix our broken immigration system? Why do House Republicans not pass our bill to fix our broken immigration system, not change it, not pass a good law? This question can be answered with one simple word: Fear. One simple word. Fear.

Fear is what often causes people to do what is counter to their self- interest. Fear makes people succumb to their basest instincts instead of rising to their noblest ambitions. Fear paralyzes us during times when we need to be taking action. House Republicans are afraid of immigration. They are not only afraid of voting on an immigration bill, they are even afraid of introducing legislation on immigration.

Let me give you some examples. June 2013, Congressman Joe Heck says he was going to introduce immigration reform that would address our broken system. In December of 2013, Republican Congressman Heck announced he would not be introducing any immigration bill of any kind.

April 2014. Congressman Joe Barton said he was going to introduce major immigration legislation. The bill was never introduced. Eric Cantor, who just this week claimed that his position on immigration never wavered, said last year he was going to introduce legislation to ``deal with the kids who did not break any laws and themselves came into this country in many cases unbeknownst to them.'' This legislation was also never introduced.

Finally, House Republican leadership has repeatedly announced they ``think we finally have the policy right on immigration.'' But again, we have seen no bill even introduced, much less voted on. House Republicans are so afraid of immigration that they have handed the policy and leadership gavel to Steve King, who compares immigrants to dogs and livestock and who claims immigration is a slow-motion holocaust.

Eric Cantor is actually right that his position on immigration reform never wavered. His rhetoric was often proreform, but his legislative and voting record was always antireform. Cantor never introduced or voted for a single immigration bill that would help a single immigrant. But he loved to vaguely reference the need for immigration reform when asked about it. That has been the real Republican Party position on immigration: pretending to be pro-immigration reform rhetorically, but never, never permit a Republican to actually introduce immigration reform legislation and definitely never allow immigration reform legislation to come to a vote. This is because House Republicans may claim to disagree with Steve King's words, but they certainly do not seem to disagree with Steve King's policy objectives. They do not want immigration reform that will rationalize our legal immigration system and create a path to legality for those who are already here. Instead, they support the failed and tragic policies of self-deportation for the people who are already here, and they want to reduce legal immigration to a trickle for the people who wish to come here and contribute to our society.

Two nights ago, when I watched our gritty U.S. soccer team win an amazing game against Ghana, I saw an amazing team effort coached by an energetic German immigrant whose tactics and decisions helped the United States prevail in the final stages of an incredible, compelling game.

Did Republicans watch the same game and ask: Why is an immigrant coaching our team? These last 2 weeks, I watched the San Antonio Spurs play some of the greatest team basketball anyone has ever seen with players from France, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, Italy, Canada, and, of course, the United States. Did Republicans watch those same games and ask: Who cares about the quality of the basketball being played? Why are immigrants allowed in the NBA?

This is the problem the Republicans face. Republicans have a very important choice to make the next few days. If they continue on the same path they are on now, where they feign sympathy for immigration in their rhetoric but do not vote on or even introduce legislation to fix our broken system, it will be impossible for the average voters to distinguish between any Republican and Steve King. Republican words of sympathy will not matter to people whose families are suffering, whose businesses cannot find the workers they need or whose churches are seeing their members deported. They will know that Republicans are to blame for doing nothing on immigration reform. Even worse, Republicans will get the worst of both worlds in this scenario. Their most strident rightwing voters will actually punish them for their Machiavellian efforts to feign sympathy for immigration reform.

So what is the real answer for Republicans? Well, Lindsey Graham showed us the way by being a man of principle. This weekend he said it best. He said:

I don't think Eric got beat because of his stand on

immigration, I think he got beat because of his lack of

defining himself on immigration. Republicans nationally will

accept an earned pathway to citizenship if you secure the

border. For our party to let the 35 percent tell us how to

engage on immigration, we will lose a natural ally in the

Hispanic community.

That is from Senator Graham who just won his election with 59 percent of the vote, while defending back at home in a conservative Republican State, South Carolina, immigration reform.

In conclusion, to Speaker Boehner, Majority Whip McCarthy, and others in the new House leadership, the choice is yours. Join with us, the evangelical community, the Catholic Church, American farmers, American police chiefs, America's business community, and 65 percent of American voters in supporting tough, fair, practical immigration reform legislation or, alternatively, you can ignore the benefits of immigration reform and continue to fail to address our broken immigration system because of your fear, and you can eventually watch your party go into the dustbin of history. Those are your two choices, Republicans.

There is no doubt that at the moment Steve King is winning. Republicans are implementing his policy objective of inaction to perfection because they are so fearful. But hopefully, just like the U.S. team, House Republicans can overcome their fears, appeal to their more noble aspirations, and we can pull victory from the jaws of defeat at the very end here and pass the immigration reform legislation our country so desperately needs.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons.) The clerk will call the roll.

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

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

Madam President, I rise today to discuss a topic of great importance to our country's security, economy, and social fabric, and that is our broken immigration system.

No one can dispute that our system is broken. We do not yet have sufficient resources on our border or in our interior to prevent illegal immigration. And our legal immigration system takes far too long, has far too much bureaucratic redtape, and does not sufficiently serve our economic needs. In the meantime, our broken system has created millions of broken families. Many of these families are separated simply because of immigration status.

All of these problems can be solved by passing immigration reform legislation. Immigration reform will jump-start our economy, reduce our national debt, secure our country, and heal these broken families. The truth is, we have heard excuse after excuse after excuse from House Republicans about why they have not put immigration reform legislation on the floor.

First, it was that the Senate had to act first with broad bipartisan support. Well, that was taken away when the Senate passed bipartisan comprehensive reform legislation with 68 votes--a vote total which is virtually unprecedented for such important legislation.

Then it was that the House could only pass measures under the Hastert rule, which meant that a majority of the Republicans in the House had to support a bill in order to get a vote. This excuse was also taken away when the House showed it could pass other legislation, such as the debt ceiling, Sandy relief, and the Violence Against Women Act, without needing to fulfill the Hastert rule.

Then it was that the House could not pass one bill; it needed to break up the bill into component pieces. They thought this would be a deal killer. We said: Fine, we will work with you on the smaller pieces of immigration reform as long as all of the important pieces are addressed at or around the same time.

Then it was lack of trust of the President. That too was a phony excuse given that the President has deported more individuals than any other President. But even here we said: If that is really your problem, let's pass a bill now and delay implementation until 2017. We will get the President out of this equation so he is not used as an excuse. The House had no answers for that suggestion.

Now we have a new excuse. The excuse is that we supposedly cannot pass immigration reform because Eric Cantor lost his primary election. Well, just like all of the other excuses that have proven to be illusory, the idea that they cannot do immigration reform because Eric Cantor lost his election is another phony excuse for not passing immigration reform put together by those who willingly and unashamedly hand the leadership gavel on immigration to far-right extremists like Steve King.

I want to be very clear about two things today. First, Eric Cantor was never the solution on immigration. He was always the problem. Every time I talked to Republican Members, business leaders, growers, and faith leaders about immigration reform in the last several months, I consistently heard that the House leadership wanted to move forward but they did not have Cantor's support. Cantor was the chokepoint for immigration reform for these past few months. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Cantor's loss makes it easier--not harder--for House leadership to pass immigration reform.

Secondly, the polling is clear. Eric Cantor did not lose his primary because of support for immigration reform. It has been widely reported that 72 percent of registered voters in Cantor's district polled on Tuesday said they either strongly or somewhat support immigration reform that would secure the borders, block employers from hiring those illegally, and allow undocumented residents without criminal backgrounds to gain legal status. And this is the case in one of the most conservative districts in Virginia and the country. The polling is consistent with other recent polling which shows support for immigration reform among a majority of Republicans and a plurality of tea party supporters across the country. Even 70 percent of Republicans in Cantor's district support reform. Again, to be clear, not even the majority of the farthest right segment of the Republican Party supports deportations and the current broken system. But that is what we still have in place today.

So to repeat, Eric Cantor did not lose his primary yesterday because of immigration. He lost it because he had lost touch with the people in his district.

The election shows the Republican Party has two paths it can take on immigration: the Graham path of showing leadership and solving a problem in a mainstream way, which leads to victory, or the Cantor path of trying to play both sides, which is a path to defeat.

The lesson Republicans should take from last night is that embracing and showing leadership on immigration reform is a far better path to victory than running from it, particularly for Republicans who are not tea party members but mainstream conservatives. The example shown by Senator Graham is dispositive. Rather than trying to be all things to all people, he defended immigration reform strongly in his State and was rewarded by the people of South Carolina, the Republicans of South Carolina, which is an extremely Republican and conservative State.

Senator Graham sat with us from day one and crafted an immigration reform bill that he could sell to the mainstream conservatives in South Carolina, and he was rewarded last night by his State for being a man of principle.

One final thing about last night's election. David Brat won by receiving 36,000 votes in a Republican primary in rural Virginia in an election where 65,000 people showed up. The total population of the Cantor district is over 750,000 people, and there are 11 percent more Republicans in the district than Democrats. For some context, in the 2012 election, Eric Cantor received 220,000 votes and his Democratic challenger 160,000 votes. The point here is that it would be a monumentally lame excuse for Republicans to say that our Nation's immigration policy should be dictated by the whims of less than 20 percent of the Republican voters in a rural Virginia Republican district.

So the time for excuses is over. The time for action is now. It has been nearly 1 year since the Senate passed bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform legislation that would secure the border, turbo charge America's economic growth, and provide a chance to heal America's broken families who are being separated by our dysfunctional immigration system.

For far too long, Republican House leaders have yielded the leadership gavel on immigration to the xenophobic leaders of the extreme far right of the party such as Steve King, who has previously described immigration as a ``slow-motion holocaust.''

The question is whether House leadership will side with the Steve Kings and David Brats of the world or if they will side with the opinions of the vast majority of Republican voters and even the vast majority of voters in the Seventh Congressional District in Virginia.

Time is running out. The window is now open for passing immigration reform legislation, and the clock is furiously ticking. We have less than 7 weeks to go to get something passed, and the time is now for Republicans to give us their proposals on fixing the broken system. I say 7 weeks because it is highly unlikely that immigration reform could pass during a Republican Presidential primary season, where the party leaders will have to move to the extreme right to try and capture the Presidential nomination.

Therefore, it is time for the House leadership to declare unequivocally that immigration reform will be placed on the floor for a vote before the August recess. Without this declaration and the pressure to act, we will not be able to get immigration reform drafted and passed during this window.

Make no mistake about it. If the House fails to act during this window--a clear indication that they have no inclination in solving the problem--the President would be more than justified in acting anytime after the summer is over to take whatever changes he feels are necessary to make our immigration system work better for those unfairly burdened by our broken immigration laws.

But administrative relief is not what anyone wants to resort to. Those measures will be far too limited to fix all of the problems that currently plague our broken system. What we need right now is true leadership. Let's work together to get this done. A true leader will say: I will do what is good for my country--and for my party--even if it means that an extreme wing of my party will be unhappy. That is leadership. That is necessary.

We stand ready to work with any of our Republican colleagues who want to achieve solutions in good faith. But for now, I will conclude by saying that immigration reform is both necessary and inevitable. It is necessary because it will secure our country, grow our economy, reduce our deficit, create new jobs, and provide us with the best and the brightest. It is inevitable because the population of voters who believe this is an important issue continues to grow and become more politically active day by day.

So to my Republican friends, the choice is yours: Work with us on immigration reform this year and help the country now or do nothing and watch as immigration reform eventually passes without your support or your input. I hope we can act this year, but we will ultimately act. Let's hope we can finally do what is right before every other option has been tried.

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

Madam President, I too want to join my colleague from Virginia in adding accolades to our Senators from Vermont and Arizona in putting together this proposal. I would like to make a few points here. First, the veterans should come first. These are people whom we sent overseas to risk their lives for us. When they come back injured, nothing should stand in the way of us giving them the best medical care possible.

Senators McCain and Sanders, of different political philosophies--if they each had to write their own bill would write different bills--came together, not for their ideology's sake, not for political advantage, but for the good of these veterans. That is the highest duty we have here.

The second point I would make is this: In a body that has been wracked by partisanship, I was hoping and praying that that partisanship would not stand in the way of us helping our veterans. Because of this good work of Vermont and Arizona's Senators, that has happened. That has happened. We are not home yet. We hope no one will be so selfish that they feel their own amendment or amendments have to be voted on if they are extraneous, because that could blow up the deal. We all know how fragile, even for our veterans, bipartisan agreements are in this body. This is a higher calling.

I talked at length over the last several days with Senator Sanders. I know how heartfelt this is for him. As he said: If he wrote his own bill, he would have done a lot more. But each of us writing a bill and giving a speech about it is not going to help a single veteran. The way this body works is, we have to come together. There is no one on the other side of the aisle, perhaps no one in this Chamber, who better respects what veterans have gone through than Senator McCain after what he went through himself as a prisoner of war. He was just the right person for the chairman of our Veterans Committee, Bernie Sanders, to reach out to. Because they both cared so much about veterans, they came together. It is now up to the rest of us, the other 98, to do the same, to come together, to pass this bill quickly. This does not mean this will be the last thing we will do for veterans. This is an issue we are going to have to revisit, given the sickness we have in parts of the Veterans Administration, given the long waiting lists, given the fact that while most veterans get very good care in our VA, not every veteran does. Our goal is to have every veteran get good care in our

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

Mr. President, I rise to point out it has now been 342 days since the Senate passed bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform that would secure our border, turbocharge America's economic growth and provide a chance to heal America's broken families who are being separated by our dysfunctional immigration system.

Here is what we know: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office told us that had we passed the bill this last year, we could have already seen up to $80 billion of economic growth, $20 billion of deficit reduction, 50,000 new jobs, $50 billion more in the Social Security trust fund, $2 billion of revenue for State and local governments, and 40,000 more brilliant STEM--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--graduates stay in the United States instead of being told to go home.

Instead, we have not been able to achieve any of these important gains. Why is that? It is because the House has refused to do anything--underline anything--to try and fix our broken immigration system. To be clear, the

real problem is not that there is a difference of opinion between a House bill and a Senate bill on immigration that cannot be reconciled. The problem is there is no House bill.

We are happy to meet our colleagues in the House part of the way. We would love to sit down and negotiate, but there is no House bill. So the problem is not that the two sides are irreconcilable, it is that one side has refused to do anything. The problem is that House Republicans have completely abdicated their responsibility to address important issues such as fixing our broken immigration system.

For the last few weeks I have explained the reason the House has done nothing on immigration is because the House Republican leadership has handed the gavel of leadership on immigration to far-right extremists such as Congressman Steve King. He is truly extreme on this issue. Steven King says to do nothing--absolutely nothing--and the House does nothing, absolutely nothing.

Well, not only has this point not been refuted by anyone in the Republican Party, it has actually been even further confirmed in the last few days.

Let's start with Steve King himself. Last week King filed an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill that would require the Department of Justice to ``investigate'' the Department of Homeland Security's use of prosecutorial discretion toward certain immigrants, including beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or the DACA Program, that the Obama administration announced in June of 2012.

When discussing his amendment, Steve King--listen to this-- pejoratively referred to the DACA Program as ``Deferred Action for Criminal Aliens.'' That is what he thinks. He thinks that every immigrant is a criminal. When describing this program, Steve King said:

For everyone who's a valedictorian, there's another 100 out

there who weigh 130 pounds--and they've got calves the size

of cantaloupes because they have been hauling 75 pounds of

marijuana across the border.

Was King criticized for these comments? Was he chastised and told he has no place in a modern Republican Party? Was King's amendment at least ignored in the same way every other immigration bill has been ignored?

Unfortunately, the answer to all of these questions is no. For the second time in a year, the House Republican leadership actually rewarded King and handed him the gavel yet again by giving him another vote on another politically motivated appropriations amendment. The amendment to investigate the DACA Program is what received a vote last week. Just as before, the House passed yet another inflammatory King appropriations amendment along partisan lines. His previous amendment was to defund the DACA Program.

This is a man who just last week compared immigrants to Santa Ana's army. He compared immigrants to a foreign invading army. It is a comparison that implies that an immigrant's goal is to harm the interest of the United States when they desperately want to be here and participate in the freedom--both economic and political--we love and enjoy. Yet again, after he said something like this, the Republican leadership hands him the gavel on immigration. That is why we continue to see nothing out of the House other than inflammatory, rhetorical amendment show votes. The score is clear: Steve King is still undefeated, and he is increasing his margin of victory every day.

Well, it doesn't have to be that way. Steve King doesn't represent the vast number of voters in either the Republican Party or even the tea party. Steve King does not represent Republicans in this House. When we joined together on a moderate bipartisan bill that would do so much good for America, it was supported by traditional Republican groups--the business community, the high-tech community, the agricultural growers, the Catholic Church, the evangelical Protestant church, supported this bipartisan bill. Some on the left thought it was too conservative.

It doesn't have to be this way. Steve King doesn't have to write into law whatever the House does. Poll after poll is clear that even Republican voters--conservative Republican voters--want to fix our broken immigration system in a manner that secures our borders, fixes our legal immigration system, and allows those in the undocumented status to get right with the law after a long path, including paying fines, paying back taxes, learning English, having to work, and going to the back of the line and waiting.

Steve King is much like the Wizard of Oz when it comes to immigration. He is pulling the levers behind the screen to make it seem he has the power, but the Republican Party will learn sooner or later-- as Dorothy did in the ``Wizard of Oz''--that King actually works by fear, and he doesn't have the power and the wizard's power is overstated. He can't really do very much. The only way to get back home and do something real is in ourselves, not in that man behind the screen--the Wizard of Oz, Steve King. Where are the leaders in the Republican Party with the courage to stand up to Steve King and the far right and say: Enough is enough, we will not let our authority be hijacked by extremists whose xenophobia causes them to prefer maintaining a broken immigration system, where hundreds of thousands still cross the border illegally, instead of achieving a fair, tough, and practical long-term solution?

Make no mistake, immigration reform will either pass this year with bipartisan support and a bipartisan imprint or it will pass in a future year with only Democratic support and a Democratic imprint because Democrats control Congress and the White House. Some Democrats argue it is better for us politically if the latter occurs, and many Republicans, in their hearts, know that is true. But we don't want that. We want to fix our country's problems. We want our GDP to grow 3.5 percent as the GPO said it would if we pass this bill. We want to secure our borders once and for all. We want a fair path to citizenship so that people who work and pay taxes can get right with the law.

Time is running out. We have less than 8 weeks to go to get something passed. There is still no serious proposal from Republicans. If the House fails to act during this window, the President would be more than justified in acting anytime after the summer is over to make whatever changes he feels are necessary to make our immigration system work better for those who are unfairly burdened by our broken laws, but that is not the preferable way to go. The preferable way to go is to go the way the Senate did where Democrats and Republicans banded together to create a moderate, thoughtful, comprehensive bill that fixes our broken immigration system once and for all.

In conclusion, I hope the immigration reform bill passes this year because our economy, our broken families, and our country so badly need it. Let's hope the House finally stops talking and finally stops paying obeisance to their Wizard of Oz on immigration, Steve King, and starts acting.

I yield the floor.