Floor Statements

Madam President, reserving the right to object, let me say at the outset that I have the highest respect for my colleague from Arizona. We are friends. We came to Congress at the same time, as has mentioned on the floor, and spent month after month together on the comprehensive immigration bill. I believe there were 130 amendments that were considered to that bill. I thought that was an orderly, thoughtful process. I hope we can return to it.

I object.

Madam President, this is what we are facing: The President has come to us facing a crisis at the border. He has asked us for the resources for the Border Patrol that has to process these children coming in and for Health and Human Services so that once these children--some of whom are toddlers and infants--are in our country, they can be treated humanely. He has asked us for the resources for that purpose.

He has also asked us initially for some resources to get to the heart of the problem, which Senator Cornyn of Texas has acknowledged. The heart of the problem is not in the United States; the problem is in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. There is clearly a crisis situation there.

What Senator Mikulski, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has done is reduced the President's budget request by $1 billion, if I am not mistaken, and said: We will respond to this emergency request with these resources and realize that more is going to be done.

On the other side of the aisle, the senior Senator from Texas has come in and talked about changing immigration law. He was kind enough to acknowledge that we made an effort to change the immigration law right here on the floor of the Senate over a year ago with 68 votes. Fourteen Republicans joined the Democrats in a comprehensive immigration bill. The Senator from Texas acknowledged he did not vote for it. Had he voted for it, he would have voted for the most dramatic increase in border security in American history. But he voted against it. That is his choice. I respect his judgment. But to come to us today and say: Now we have to vote again on border security--we had a chance. The Senate passed it. What happened to the comprehensive immigration reform bill? It made it over to the House of Representatives and disappeared into vapor. It was never called for consideration.

So it is not as if we have ignored the problems of immigration. We addressed them forthrightly in a bipartisan fashion, in a comprehensive fashion, and the House of Representatives refused to even call the bill.

Let's go to this particular issue. The heart of the problem is clearly in three Central American countries that are so lawless that people are desperately sending their children to the United States of America. We have to deal with that issue. We are. The President has dealt with it. The Vice President has visited those countries. Last week the Presidents of all three countries came here. So to say the President is doing nothing about the cause of the crisis is not accurate. The President is addressing it directly to discourage any more children from making this dangerous, deadly journey, No. 1.

No. 2, I hope we all agree: No mercy for these smugglers. No mercy for those coyotes who are exploiting these families and sadly abusing many of these children.

No. 3--and the President has made this point--we have an obligation. When a child is entrusted to you, people stand in judgment of how you treat that child. We have many children now entrusted to us on a temporary basis. The President has asked for money so that they can be treated humanely on a temporary basis. Not an unreasonable request.

Time and again America has responded to crises around the world-- families and children who are victims of war, earthquakes, tsunamis. For virtually every natural disaster, we have been there. America has a reputation for being there. Now that children are at our border, will we do anything less?

What we are doing with the bill before us, the supplemental bill, is providing enough money for humanitarian care and still working on the root causes of the problem. I think that is responsible.

I hope we do not leave here this week having failed to come up with this money. I hope we provide the resources to this administration. I hope my colleagues on a bipartisan basis will do two things: Vote for this emergency appropriation and, secondly, let's join in a thoughtful discussion about how to pass a comprehensive immigration bill which includes this aspect--asylees and refugees.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the Senator from Alabama now joins the Senator from Texas, coming to the floor of the Senate complaining about the state of immigration laws in America. They have in common the fact that they both voted against comprehensive immigration reform.

When we had a chance in committee--which the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Texas serve on--and on the floor to offer amendments and change the bill accordingly, both of them at the end of the day voted against comprehensive immigration reform. Now, over a year later, they come and complain about the state of law when it comes to immigration in America. They can't have it both ways.

They could have participated with us in changing the law in a positive fashion. They chose not to. They wanted to wait until a year later and complain about President Obama not meeting his obligation.

When it comes to comprehensive immigration reform, the Senate met its obligation, and those who voted for it did as well. It was the House of Representatives that failed to call the bill.

Now the Senator from Alabama says, well, the reason these children are coming to our border is because President Obama signed an Executive order which said that if you were a child brought to the United States by August 15, 2007, you could qualify to be benefited by this order and not deported, under DACA on a temporary basis.

Now, that has nothing to do with any child that comes after that date. They are not covered by that order. They are not protected by that order. To blame President Obama for the children coming to the border is to ignore the obvious. The law that brings these children to the border was a law signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. That is the law that governs the treatment of these children. Everything has to be blamed on President Obama from that side of the aisle. In this case, the law was signed by President George W. Bush.

I happen to believe that this DACA Executive order by the President was thoughtful and humane. Here is what it said: If you were brought to the United States before the age of 16, as a child, you lived in the United States and finished high school, with no criminal record of any magnitude, you would be allowed to stay in the United States on a temporary basis and not deported.

I have met these children. There are many of them who are growing into magnificent contributors to America--doctors, engineers, teachers. They beg to join our military. They are not what they are characterized to be. These are young people who believe this is their homeland, this is their country, and all they are asking for is a chance.

President Obama gave them that chance, and the Republicans time and again--Senator Sessions now, later Senator Cruz--can't wait to deport all these children who have gone through high school, gone through college, and only aspire to be contributors to the future of America. That is the Republican party position for some: Deport these children; we don't want them in our country any longer. That is their position. That is not the position of a majority of Americans. They deserve a chance to prove themselves and earn their way to legal status. And to blame them for this border crisis is unfair.

I announce that the Senator from the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Hagan), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Hagan), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, this week, the Senate confirmed Bob McDonald as the new Secretary of the VA and today we passed a compromise veterans bill that will help repair the overwhelmed Veterans Health Administration. These are two steps in the right direction to help the men and women who serve in our military receive the care they need when they come home.

Bob McDonald is an excellent choice to head the VA. I met with McDonald soon after he was nominated for this position and there is no doubt he is eager to take on the task of seeing that the VA honors its promise to the men and women of our armed services. McDonald ran Proctor and Gamble for several years and knows what it means to put the customer first. At the VA, veterans are the customers and we have to provide them with the best service possible. McDonald is a veteran, a West Point grad, and best of all, he is from Arlington Heights, IL. I am confident he is the right person for this difficult job.

After an internal audit, the VA confirmed whistleblower assertions that many VA employees manipulated waitlists to make wait times look better than they really were. The agency found that in some cases, staff intimidated schedulers into falsifying data. This is unacceptable.

I visited the Hines VA Hospital near Chicago last Friday where I met with Joan Ricard, director of the facility, and Rob Nabors, President Obama's Deputy Chief of Staff, who is overseeing the investigation into problems at the VA. We discussed some problems identified by whistleblowers at Hines pertaining to waitlists and other issues.

I am pleased that the Senate adopted the Veterans bill conference report. The House passed the bill 420-to-5 yesterday. VA Committee Chairman Sanders worked very hard both with Members across the aisle and in the House to put this bill together. It will begin to fix some of the problems identified by the various investigations into misconduct at VA medical facilities.

This bill will allow the Secretary to fire senior staff who are not doing their job or who lied about secret waitlists. It will create 27 new VA health facilities to expand capacity, including a new research lab at Hines in Chicago. That research lab is 100-years-old and in dire need of repair. The new lease will help make it usable again.

This legislation will make it easier for veterans to get the care they need outside the VA system if necessary. Now, any enrolled veteran who lives more than 40-miles from the nearest VA facility or who would have to wait too long for an appointment will be able to go to a private doctor. We need to get those waitlists down, and this is one way to make sure veterans are seen.

The IG investigation has cited a shortage of doctors, nurses, and other staff as being partly to blame for the waitlist problem. There simply is not enough staff to see all the veterans who need treatment. The bill also provides $5 billion to hire new staff.

These are improvements we can all agree on.

Some have expressed concern about the cost of this bill but caring for veterans is part of the cost of going to war. We spent $1.7 trillion in the Iraq War alone. We can spend $12 billion to honor the promise we made to our servicemembers.

When we talk about war, we are not just talking about the thousands of people who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're talking about 200,000 men and women who came home with major injuries, both those we can see and some we cannot. We are talking about people with post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury, people missing limbs and those who lost hearing or eyesight. Veterans who are entitled to healthcare services should get the best healthcare they can, and they should get it in a timely manner.

There is no question that we need to fix this health care system. Where misconduct has been identified, those responsible should face the consequences, criminal or otherwise. The Sanders-Miller compromise is a good step in that direction. Secret waitlists and failures to provide care do not reflect the promise we made to the men and women who serve this country. Wars create veterans and veterans need medical care. Caring for servicemembers is part of the cost of going to war.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Hagan), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Hagan), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, today, I want to talk about the worst kept secret in the Senate. Nancy Olkewicz is really great at her job. I have depended on her many times as have many others in this Chamber. She has had many roles in the Senate, and she has been spectacular with all of them. She has served under chairmen like the late Senator Robert C. Byrd, Senator Harry Reid, and me. Over the years, she has been given many challenging assignments, and she has never failed to deliver. It is with great pride and some sadness that Nancy has announced her plans to leave the Senate Sergeant at Arms and retire from the Senate this summer. We celebrate her 36 years with us. She will be very much missed.

Many people in Washington see their professions as just jobs. For Nancy, her work has meant much more than that. The agencies she helped fund and the people she has worked with are her second family. She has been working in the Senate since she was 19 and an aide to Senator Paul Sarbanes. Nancy practically grew up in the Senate. Her countless friends and the respect she has earned from both sides of the aisle are a testament to her accomplishments and her demeanor.

If you want to see a monument to Nancy's work here, look no further than the Senate rain garden. This innovation has been capturing and filtering runoff from parking lots to reduce storm water flooding and keep pollutants from entering local streams and rivers for 10 years now. This remarkable project could not have happened without Nancy's work for the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. Thanks to her tenacity and pleasant--but stern--oversight, the Senate rain garden was completed on time and under budget. Today, the Senate rain garden stands as a constant reminder of sustainability and stewardship every day for the visitors and staffers on Capitol Hill.

I could go on much longer talking about Nancy. She is accomplished, humble, and kind. Many of us in the

Senate, from the men and women responsible for maintaining these hallowed halls to the most senior Senators, have been on the receiving end of her bright smile and cheerful greetings. Three million annual visitors and thousands of staffers are unknowing beneficiaries of years of work she contributed quietly behind the scenes, playing a pivotal role in the construction of Capitol Visitor Center.

So what is Nancy going to do now? She is excited about joining the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, where she will contribute her considerable skills to conservation efforts across the country.

While I wish her continued success in her new job, I have a suspicion her future also will involve a certain baseball team not too far from here, the Washington Nationals. Nancy is a fourth generation Washingtonian, and she is all in for the Nats. I hope Bryce Harper and Jayson Werth understand that they will have to up their game. Because Nancy will be there, coaching them from the stands.

It is with great pride that I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Nancy for her long career in the Senate and celebrating the many contributions she has made here. Her extraordinary work will be remembered by many. Thank you, Nancy Olkewicz.

I am going to be joined shortly on the floor by Senator John Walsh of Montana and Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, who are going to speak to the bill that is pending before us.

Until they arrive I wish to set the context here. We are trying to create incentives in the Tax Code to bring good-paying manufacturing jobs back to the United States, to incentivize companies that will bring jobs from their overseas facilities back into our country and put Americans to work. How we pay for it is we reduce the current subsidies which we give to American companies to ship jobs overseas. Pretty simple.

So the vote really comes down to the question of whether Democrats and Republicans in the Senate want to create an incentive in the Tax Code to keep jobs--good-paying jobs--in America, to build the workforce in America so that they have a future, and to discourage shipping American jobs overseas. I don't know what the debate is about. I don't know what Republican can go to a town meeting in any State in the Union and argue that this is not a good

idea. It is a very important idea, and it is one that we want to use to repopulate the United States with good-paying jobs and hard-working families getting the kind of money they deserve.

We are in the midst of a debate now--a national debate that has touched the State of Illinois--about something called inversion. Most people are not familiar with that term. It is a situation where, at least on paper, an American company moves its headquarters and operations to a foreign country to avoid paying American taxes. We have major companies that are doing that. Some are considering making that move. The President spoke to it last week, and I think the President hit the nail on the head. It isn't a question of whether it is legal; it is a question of whether it is right.

Is it right for a pharmaceutical company that is dependent on the Federal Government to build their company, build their products, and build their profitability, to walk away from their tax responsibilities in America? You don't put a successful drug on the market unless it starts with research, and most research begins with our government. The National Institutes of Health, for about $30 billion a year, does basic research that leads to new discoveries, new drugs. Those efforts of basic research are converted into pharmaceuticals and drugs that are then developed by these private companies.

When the private companies think they have finally found the right combination, they have to submit their drug to the Food and Drug Administration, which is a regulatory agency in Washington that tests their drug to make sure that it doesn't harm people and that it performs as promised. It takes some time. It takes a lot of taxpayer money. But when the Food and Drug Administration then hands down its decision that your drug is safe to go on the market, you have just received the most amazing endorsement possible in the world for a drug--that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved it for sale in the United States of America. That is a ticket to success and profitability, but that isn't the end. You have to protect your right in that drug, and to protect it you go to the U.S. Patent Office and make sure there is a registration that protects your legal right to make a profit on that drug and keep others from duplicating it at your expense.

Look at the process that led to the profitability of these blockbuster drugs--National Institutes of Health research, taxpayer funded; Food and Drug Administration approval, taxpayer funded; Patent Office protection, taxpayer funded.

Now major pharmaceuticals are saying: Well, it sure would be nice to stay in America, but what we are going to do is move our corporate headquarters to a European country or perhaps to the island of Jersey-- which I am not sure I could find on the map--and in doing so, we won't have to pay as much in Federal taxes to America.

Is that ingratitude? It certainly is. You have used all these Federal agencies to become profitable, and now you walk away from your Federal tax responsibility.

There is another side to this coin. When these companies invert and move overseas, the tax they don't pay is a burden shifted to other American companies and other American taxpayers. They are getting off the hook for American taxes, but they are pushing the burden on to others.

We have to come to grips with the reality that many major companies are using global commerce and global opportunities at the expense of America. We have to encourage good-paying jobs in this country and companies that stay in this country. In our Tax Code we need to reward American-based companies headquartered in America, with their jobs in America, paying a good wage, good benefits, and veteran preferences. Give them a break in the Tax Code. Don't subsidize companies that want to move their jobs overseas.

The bill before us gets to that basic question: Should our Tax Code incentivize bringing jobs back from overseas or should it incentivize and encourage shipping jobs overseas? It is a simple vote, and I hope it is overwhelmingly positive and bipartisan when it comes before us.

We know our country can grow with the right encouragement because we are lucky. For those of us who were born here, we were born into one of the strongest democracies in history. We were born into an economic system that creates opportunity for those who are educated and trained and strive to improve themselves. We also know we have a responsibility here in the Senate, in the House, and in the White House to create a tax climate and an economic climate for that kind of growth. That is what we are trying to do with this bill--give a fair shot for American companies so they can bring jobs home and be incentivized and rewarded to do it and discourage the companies that do just the opposite.

I think this is a front-and-center issue. Good-paying jobs are the key to restoring the middle class in America--something I think is long overdue to create an incentive for people who are struggling to see at the end of that rainbow the chance to raise a family in a good neighborhood and a good church and parish and a good State that really helps America.

I will be supporting this measure before the Senate this morning.

I yield the floor and suggest that during the quorum call the time be equally divided between Democrats and Republicans.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, USCIRF, Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2014.

This legislation would reauthorize the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, also known as USCIRF, while making important reforms to the Commission to encourage bipartisanship, enhance coordination with the State Department, and improve Congressional oversight.

I strongly support USCIRF's mission of promoting and protecting international religious freedom. My legislation will help USCIRF to more effectively pursue this mission.

In 2011, I authored a number of reforms in the previous USCIRF reauthorization legislation, including term limits for Commissioners; a prohibition on employee discrimination; a requirement that Commissioners follow federal travel regulations; and maintaining nine Commissioners, rather than five Commissioners, as called for by the House-passed reauthorization. I have heard from USCIRF that these reforms have strengthened the Commission, and the legislation I am introducing today will build on these reforms.

The USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act is supported by a broad swath of religious and civic leaders and faith organizations, including, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good; the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; HIAS; Muslim Public Affairs Council; Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, Archbishop Emeritus of Washington and former USCIRF Commissioner; Dr. William J. Shaw, Immediate Past President of the National Baptist Convention, USA. Inc. and former USCIRF Commissioner; former Congressman and USCIRF Commissioner Sam Gejdenson; Sister Simone Campbell, Executive Director of NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; Rateb Rabie, President of the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation; Dr. Azizah Al-Hibri, former USCIRF Commissioner and Founder and Chair of KARAMAH: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights; Rev. Drew Christiansen, S.J., Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Global Development at Georgetown University; Dr. Alfred Rotondaro, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress; Dr. Laila Al-Marayati, former USCIRF Commissioner; and Benjamin Palumbo, Board of Trustees, Catholics United.

There is bipartisan agreement about the need for our government to promote and protect international religious freedom. USCIRF is, by design, a bipartisan organization, with Commissioners appointed by the President and Congressional leaders, and USCIRF can most effectively promote religious freedom by doing so on a bipartisan basis. This issue is too important to be stymied by the excessive partisanship which too often leads to political gridlock in Washington.

It is to be expected that the members of a bipartisan Commission will not always reach consensus. However, I am troubled that some Commissioners have on occasion engaged in partisan rhetoric that is not conducive to USCIRF's bipartisan mission and does not represent USCIRF's official views.

For example, one Commissioner recently appeared on Fox News' Hannity program, and, after identifying himself as a member of USCIRF, claimed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had failed to take steps to combat Boko Haram in Nigeria and accused the Obama Administration of having ``no strategy'' for combating terrorism. Mother Commissioner testified in Congress on behalf of USCIRF and said that the Obama Administration ``sends a message to other countries that we don't care'' about religious freedom.

The USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act will facilitate bipartisanship by taking a number of steps. First, the legislation will codify USCIRF's existing procedures for the election of a Chair and Vice Chair so that these positions rotate annually between Commissioners appointed by elected officials of each political party. This will help ensure continued bipartisan leadership at the Commission.

Second, this bill will establish a dedicated bipartisan staff as a complement to nonpartisan professional staff. The legislation permits Commissioners appointed by elected officials of each political party to appoint designated Staff Directors and three designated staff members. This will help foster a bipartisan environment at USCIRF.

Third, the bill will codify procedures for publishing the views of the Commission. The bill encourages Commissioners to reach consensus on statements on behalf of the Commission. When consensus is not possible, the bill requires a statement to be approved by at least six of the nine Commissioners. This supermajority requirement is current USCIRF policy for the approval of statements that are circulated electronically. Codifying this policy will ensure that at least one Commissioner of each political party supports every Commission statement.

USCIRF has noted that it is the only organization of its kind in the world. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, recently issued a report on USCIRF which highlights some of the challenges inherent to USCIRF's unique mission.

The GAO notes that there are two governmental entities charged with promoting international religious freedom: USCIRF and the State Department's Office of International Religious Freedom. The GAO found that these overlapping missions and ``the lack of a definition regarding how State and the Commission are to interact has sometimes created foreign policy tensions that State has had to mitigate.'' The GAO notes that State Department officials highlighted several instances ``when the Commission's approach with foreign government officials created bilateral tensions.''

The GAO's concerns about the overlap between State and USCIRF are serious enough that it included USCIRF in its annual duplication report. As my colleagues know, Senator Coburn authored legislation requiring GAO to issue this report to identify unnecessary duplication in the federal government.

I am concerned that the lack of coordination between the State Department and USCIRF may undermine our government's efforts to promote international religious freedom by sending mixed messages to foreign governments and human-rights activists who are fighting to defend religious freedom in their countries.

Consider another example. The State Department and USCIRF both produce an annual report on international religious freedom. Under current law, USCIRF is required to publish its report ``[n]ot later than May 1 of each year,'' but the State Department's report is often not completed before May 1. This forces USCIRF to issue its report prior to publication of the State Department report, which leads to unnecessary duplication of efforts, saps USCIRF's limited staff resources, and prevents USCIRF from opining on the State Department report.

The USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act will enhance cooperation between USCIRF and the State Department with two measures. First, it clarifies that the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, as an ex officio member of USCIRF, is permitted to attend all Commission meetings. GAO's duplication report specifically highlights the failure to define the role of the Ambassador at Large as an ex officio member of USCIRF.

Second, this legislation requires USCIRF to publish its annual report after reviewing the State Department's annual report on International Religious Freedom. This division of labor takes advantage of the State Department's worldwide presence and much larger staff to draft a comprehensive report. It also takes advantage of

USCIRF's unique role to provide an independent and bipartisan commentary on the State Department report.

USCIRF is a part of the legislative branch and it is ultimately the responsibility of Congress to oversee USCIRF's work and ensure that it is effectively pursuing its mission. The need for greater Congressional oversight of USCIRF has been highlighted by concerns about USCIRF's practices, including, for example, the work environment at USCIRF for religious minorities, particularly prior to the 2011 reauthorization.

In the past, human rights advocates made allegations about financial improprieties at USCIRF, particularly that USCIRF Commissioners had made lavish travel arrangements. As a result, in 2011 I authored a provision clarifying that USCIRF Commissioners are subject to Federal travel regulations.

I was troubled to learn about more allegations of financial irregularities at USCIRF only a few weeks after the last reauthorization. In early 2012, USCIRF staff notified my office that USCIRF's office manager had been involved in embezzlement and fraud for several years. The office manager subsequently pled guilty and was sentenced to 20 months in prison for embezzling $217,000 from 2007- 2011. This is a significant amount of taxpayer money in any circumstance, but particularly for a small organization like USCIRF.

I am also concerned about unresolved claims that USCIRF, an organization charged with protecting religious freedom, discriminated against a former employee on the basis of her religion.

In 2011, I included language in the last USCIRF reauthorization providing anti-discrimination protections to USCIRF employees and allowing pending civil rights claims to proceed. The impetus for this provision was a lawsuit filed by a former USCIRF employee, who claimed that her permanent employment offer was rescinded after the Commissioners learned of her prior job with a Muslim civil rights organization. USCIRF did not deny the discrimination claim. Instead, they argued that USCIRF employees do not have federal civil rights protections.

Unfortunately, the lawsuit is still pending. I understand that USCIRF's lawyers have refused to enter into settlement negotiations with the Commission's former employee and instead are aggressively litigating the case.

As Christianity Today said, ``the trial will be one of the most ironic in American history, with the congressional commission charged with monitoring religious freedom around the world defending its own employment practices in court.''

In light of these concerns, the USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act would improve Congressional oversight by reauthorizing the Commission for two years. A 2-year reauthorization period will allow the Commission to continue to pursue its important mission while Congress closely monitors USCIRF's activities to assure the reforms in this legislation are fully implemented.

I strongly support the mission of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to protect and promote international religious freedom. I believe the reforms in my legislation will help USCIRF more effectively pursue this mission.

I urge my colleagues to support the USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act so that USCIRF can quickly be reauthorized with these important reforms.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduced the Adjunct Faculty Loan Fairness Act, a bill that would make adjunct professors eligible to participate in the Public Service Student Loan Forgiveness Program.

Contingent faculty members are like full-time instructors. They have advanced degrees. They teach classes and spend many hours outside the classroom preparing for class. They hold office hours, grade papers and give feedback to students. They provide advice and write letters of recommendation. Students rely on them. Since most adjuncts have advanced degrees and, as almost 75 percent of graduate degree recipients have an average of $61,000 in student loans, they are also among the 40 million Americans with student debt.

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is meant to encourage graduates to go into public service by offering student loan forgiveness for eligible federal loans after ten years of full-time work in government or the non-profit sector. Public service fields like nursing, military service, and public health qualify. And many education jobs qualify, including full-time work at public universities and part-time work at community colleges in high-needs subject areas or areas of shortage. But other faculty members who work part-time are not eligible for loan forgiveness because the law requires an annual average of 30 hours per week to qualify for the program. For adjunct faculty working at several schools on a contingent basis, this requirement can be difficult or impossible to meet, even when they are putting in more than 30 hours of work each week.

The number of faculty hours given for each class is calculated differently at different schools. Some give one hour per hour in the classroom while others actually take into consideration the time required outside the classroom. So, even as these faculty members are working hard and as their options for tenured, full-time positions become slimmer, more of them are overworked and undervalued for their work in public service.

The Adjunct Faculty Loan Fairness Act of 2014 would solve this by amending the Higher Education Act to expand the definition of a ``public service job'' to include a part-time faculty member who teaches at least one course at an eligible institution of higher education. They would still have to meet all the other requirements to qualify for the program, including making 120 on-time payments while employed at a qualifying institution, and they could not be employed full-time elsewhere at the same time.

This bill would benefit someone like David Weiss, an adjunct professor from St. Paul, Minnesota, who graduated with $48,000 in student debt and, after 12 years of on-time payments, has $35,000 left. Like most adjuncts, David has dealt with uncertain job security. In good years, he is able to teach 5 to 7 courses a year, but recently he has only been offered two to three courses. He supplements his income from teaching with other part-time work. This bill would ensure that David and many thousands like him, could obtain credit towards PSLF for payments made while teaching whether or not he was teaching one course or 7.

Unfortunately, for all their contributions to the college programs and the students they work with, adjunct faculty don't have the same employment benefits or job security as their colleagues. The number of classes they teach every semester varies. To make ends meet, these professors often end up teaching classes at more than one school in the same semester, getting paid about $3,000 per class and making an average annual income that hovers around minimum wage. This also means that, in some parts of the country, they spend as much time commuting as they do teaching.

Nationally, \2/3\ of all higher education faculty work on a contingent basis, with low pay and little or no benefits or job security. In the past, these were a minority of professors who were hired to teach an occasional class because they could bring experience to the classroom in a specific field or industry. Over time, as university budgets have tightened and it has gotten more expensive to hire full-time, tenure track professors, higher education institutions have increasingly hired adjuncts.

From 1991 to 2011, the number of part-time faculty in the U.S. increased two and a half times from 291,000 to over 760,000. At the same time, the percentage of professors holding tenure-track positions has been steadily decreasing--from 45 percent of all instructors in 1975 to only 24 percent in 2011. The number of full-time instructors, tenured and non-tenured, now makes up only about 50 percent of professors on U.S. campuses. The other 50 percent of the 1.5 million faculty employees at public and non-profit colleges and universities in the U.S. work on a part-time, contingent basis.

Illinois colleges rely heavily on adjuncts. In 2012, 53 percent of all faculty at public and not-for-profit colleges and universities in the State, more than 30,400 faculty employees, worked on a part-time basis. This is a 52.6 percent increase in part-time faculty in Illinois compared to a 13 percent increase in full-time faculty since 2002.

Not surprisingly, in Illinois, 69 percent of all part-time faculty work in Chicago, where the cost of living is 16 percent higher than the U.S. average. Based on an average payment of $3,000 per class an adjunct professor must teach between seventeen and thirty classes a year to pay for rent and utilities in Chicago.

They would have to teach up to 7 classes to afford groceries for a family of four and two to four classes per year just to cover student loan payments. Because they are part-time, they are not eligible for vacation time, paid sick days, or group health-care. So they would have to teach an additional two to three classes to afford family coverage from the lowest priced health insurance offered on Get Covered Illinois, the official health marketplace.

Even though these professors are working in a relatively low-paying field, teaching our students, their part-time status also means they aren't eligible for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.

This bill does not completely fix this growing reliance on part-time professors who are underpaid and undervalued. But it would ensure that members of the contingent faculty workforce are no longer excluded from the loan forgiveness program for public servants. I hope my colleagues will join me in the effort to provide this benefit to faculty members who provide our students with a quality education.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, USCIRF, Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2014.

This legislation would reauthorize the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, also known as USCIRF, while making important reforms to the Commission to encourage bipartisanship, enhance coordination with the State Department, and improve Congressional oversight.

I strongly support USCIRF's mission of promoting and protecting international religious freedom. My legislation will help USCIRF to more effectively pursue this mission.

In 2011, I authored a number of reforms in the previous USCIRF reauthorization legislation, including term limits for Commissioners; a prohibition on employee discrimination; a requirement that Commissioners follow federal travel regulations; and maintaining nine Commissioners, rather than five Commissioners, as called for by the House-passed reauthorization. I have heard from USCIRF that these reforms have strengthened the Commission, and the legislation I am introducing today will build on these reforms.

The USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act is supported by a broad swath of religious and civic leaders and faith organizations, including, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good; the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; HIAS; Muslim Public Affairs Council; Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, Archbishop Emeritus of Washington and former USCIRF Commissioner; Dr. William J. Shaw, Immediate Past President of the National Baptist Convention, USA. Inc. and former USCIRF Commissioner; former Congressman and USCIRF Commissioner Sam Gejdenson; Sister Simone Campbell, Executive Director of NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; Rateb Rabie, President of the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation; Dr. Azizah Al-Hibri, former USCIRF Commissioner and Founder and Chair of KARAMAH: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights; Rev. Drew Christiansen, S.J., Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Global Development at Georgetown University; Dr. Alfred Rotondaro, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress; Dr. Laila Al-Marayati, former USCIRF Commissioner; and Benjamin Palumbo, Board of Trustees, Catholics United.

There is bipartisan agreement about the need for our government to promote and protect international religious freedom. USCIRF is, by design, a bipartisan organization, with Commissioners appointed by the President and Congressional leaders, and USCIRF can most effectively promote religious freedom by doing so on a bipartisan basis. This issue is too important to be stymied by the excessive partisanship which too often leads to political gridlock in Washington.

It is to be expected that the members of a bipartisan Commission will not always reach consensus. However, I am troubled that some Commissioners have on occasion engaged in partisan rhetoric that is not conducive to USCIRF's bipartisan mission and does not represent USCIRF's official views.

For example, one Commissioner recently appeared on Fox News' Hannity program, and, after identifying himself as a member of USCIRF, claimed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had failed to take steps to combat Boko Haram in Nigeria and accused the Obama Administration of having ``no strategy'' for combating terrorism. Mother Commissioner testified in Congress on behalf of USCIRF and said that the Obama Administration ``sends a message to other countries that we don't care'' about religious freedom.

The USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act will facilitate bipartisanship by taking a number of steps. First, the legislation will codify USCIRF's existing procedures for the election of a Chair and Vice Chair so that these positions rotate annually between Commissioners appointed by elected officials of each political party. This will help ensure continued bipartisan leadership at the Commission.

Second, this bill will establish a dedicated bipartisan staff as a complement to nonpartisan professional staff. The legislation permits Commissioners appointed by elected officials of each political party to appoint designated Staff Directors and three designated staff members. This will help foster a bipartisan environment at USCIRF.

Third, the bill will codify procedures for publishing the views of the Commission. The bill encourages Commissioners to reach consensus on statements on behalf of the Commission. When consensus is not possible, the bill requires a statement to be approved by at least six of the nine Commissioners. This supermajority requirement is current USCIRF policy for the approval of statements that are circulated electronically. Codifying this policy will ensure that at least one Commissioner of each political party supports every Commission statement.

USCIRF has noted that it is the only organization of its kind in the world. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, recently issued a report on USCIRF which highlights some of the challenges inherent to USCIRF's unique mission.

The GAO notes that there are two governmental entities charged with promoting international religious freedom: USCIRF and the State Department's Office of International Religious Freedom. The GAO found that these overlapping missions and ``the lack of a definition regarding how State and the Commission are to interact has sometimes created foreign policy tensions that State has had to mitigate.'' The GAO notes that State Department officials highlighted several instances ``when the Commission's approach with foreign government officials created bilateral tensions.''

The GAO's concerns about the overlap between State and USCIRF are serious enough that it included USCIRF in its annual duplication report. As my colleagues know, Senator Coburn authored legislation requiring GAO to issue this report to identify unnecessary duplication in the federal government.

I am concerned that the lack of coordination between the State Department and USCIRF may undermine our government's efforts to promote international religious freedom by sending mixed messages to foreign governments and human-rights activists who are fighting to defend religious freedom in their countries.

Consider another example. The State Department and USCIRF both produce an annual report on international religious freedom. Under current law, USCIRF is required to publish its report ``[n]ot later than May 1 of each year,'' but the State Department's report is often not completed before May 1. This forces USCIRF to issue its report prior to publication of the State Department report, which leads to unnecessary duplication of efforts, saps USCIRF's limited staff resources, and prevents USCIRF from opining on the State Department report.

The USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act will enhance cooperation between USCIRF and the State Department with two measures. First, it clarifies that the Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, as an ex officio member of USCIRF, is permitted to attend all Commission meetings. GAO's duplication report specifically highlights the failure to define the role of the Ambassador at Large as an ex officio member of USCIRF.

Second, this legislation requires USCIRF to publish its annual report after reviewing the State Department's annual report on International Religious Freedom. This division of labor takes advantage of the State Department's worldwide presence and much larger staff to draft a comprehensive report. It also takes advantage of

USCIRF's unique role to provide an independent and bipartisan commentary on the State Department report.

USCIRF is a part of the legislative branch and it is ultimately the responsibility of Congress to oversee USCIRF's work and ensure that it is effectively pursuing its mission. The need for greater Congressional oversight of USCIRF has been highlighted by concerns about USCIRF's practices, including, for example, the work environment at USCIRF for religious minorities, particularly prior to the 2011 reauthorization.

In the past, human rights advocates made allegations about financial improprieties at USCIRF, particularly that USCIRF Commissioners had made lavish travel arrangements. As a result, in 2011 I authored a provision clarifying that USCIRF Commissioners are subject to Federal travel regulations.

I was troubled to learn about more allegations of financial irregularities at USCIRF only a few weeks after the last reauthorization. In early 2012, USCIRF staff notified my office that USCIRF's office manager had been involved in embezzlement and fraud for several years. The office manager subsequently pled guilty and was sentenced to 20 months in prison for embezzling $217,000 from 2007- 2011. This is a significant amount of taxpayer money in any circumstance, but particularly for a small organization like USCIRF.

I am also concerned about unresolved claims that USCIRF, an organization charged with protecting religious freedom, discriminated against a former employee on the basis of her religion.

In 2011, I included language in the last USCIRF reauthorization providing anti-discrimination protections to USCIRF employees and allowing pending civil rights claims to proceed. The impetus for this provision was a lawsuit filed by a former USCIRF employee, who claimed that her permanent employment offer was rescinded after the Commissioners learned of her prior job with a Muslim civil rights organization. USCIRF did not deny the discrimination claim. Instead, they argued that USCIRF employees do not have federal civil rights protections.

Unfortunately, the lawsuit is still pending. I understand that USCIRF's lawyers have refused to enter into settlement negotiations with the Commission's former employee and instead are aggressively litigating the case.

As Christianity Today said, ``the trial will be one of the most ironic in American history, with the congressional commission charged with monitoring religious freedom around the world defending its own employment practices in court.''

In light of these concerns, the USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act would improve Congressional oversight by reauthorizing the Commission for two years. A 2-year reauthorization period will allow the Commission to continue to pursue its important mission while Congress closely monitors USCIRF's activities to assure the reforms in this legislation are fully implemented.

I strongly support the mission of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to protect and promote international religious freedom. I believe the reforms in my legislation will help USCIRF more effectively pursue this mission.

I urge my colleagues to support the USCIRF Reform and Reauthorization Act so that USCIRF can quickly be reauthorized with these important reforms.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduced the Adjunct Faculty Loan Fairness Act, a bill that would make adjunct professors eligible to participate in the Public Service Student Loan Forgiveness Program.

Contingent faculty members are like full-time instructors. They have advanced degrees. They teach classes and spend many hours outside the classroom preparing for class. They hold office hours, grade papers and give feedback to students. They provide advice and write letters of recommendation. Students rely on them. Since most adjuncts have advanced degrees and, as almost 75 percent of graduate degree recipients have an average of $61,000 in student loans, they are also among the 40 million Americans with student debt.

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is meant to encourage graduates to go into public service by offering student loan forgiveness for eligible federal loans after ten years of full-time work in government or the non-profit sector. Public service fields like nursing, military service, and public health qualify. And many education jobs qualify, including full-time work at public universities and part-time work at community colleges in high-needs subject areas or areas of shortage. But other faculty members who work part-time are not eligible for loan forgiveness because the law requires an annual average of 30 hours per week to qualify for the program. For adjunct faculty working at several schools on a contingent basis, this requirement can be difficult or impossible to meet, even when they are putting in more than 30 hours of work each week.

The number of faculty hours given for each class is calculated differently at different schools. Some give one hour per hour in the classroom while others actually take into consideration the time required outside the classroom. So, even as these faculty members are working hard and as their options for tenured, full-time positions become slimmer, more of them are overworked and undervalued for their work in public service.

The Adjunct Faculty Loan Fairness Act of 2014 would solve this by amending the Higher Education Act to expand the definition of a ``public service job'' to include a part-time faculty member who teaches at least one course at an eligible institution of higher education. They would still have to meet all the other requirements to qualify for the program, including making 120 on-time payments while employed at a qualifying institution, and they could not be employed full-time elsewhere at the same time.

This bill would benefit someone like David Weiss, an adjunct professor from St. Paul, Minnesota, who graduated with $48,000 in student debt and, after 12 years of on-time payments, has $35,000 left. Like most adjuncts, David has dealt with uncertain job security. In good years, he is able to teach 5 to 7 courses a year, but recently he has only been offered two to three courses. He supplements his income from teaching with other part-time work. This bill would ensure that David and many thousands like him, could obtain credit towards PSLF for payments made while teaching whether or not he was teaching one course or 7.

Unfortunately, for all their contributions to the college programs and the students they work with, adjunct faculty don't have the same employment benefits or job security as their colleagues. The number of classes they teach every semester varies. To make ends meet, these professors often end up teaching classes at more than one school in the same semester, getting paid about $3,000 per class and making an average annual income that hovers around minimum wage. This also means that, in some parts of the country, they spend as much time commuting as they do teaching.

Nationally, \2/3\ of all higher education faculty work on a contingent basis, with low pay and little or no benefits or job security. In the past, these were a minority of professors who were hired to teach an occasional class because they could bring experience to the classroom in a specific field or industry. Over time, as university budgets have tightened and it has gotten more expensive to hire full-time, tenure track professors, higher education institutions have increasingly hired adjuncts.

From 1991 to 2011, the number of part-time faculty in the U.S. increased two and a half times from 291,000 to over 760,000. At the same time, the percentage of professors holding tenure-track positions has been steadily decreasing--from 45 percent of all instructors in 1975 to only 24 percent in 2011. The number of full-time instructors, tenured and non-tenured, now makes up only about 50 percent of professors on U.S. campuses. The other 50 percent of the 1.5 million faculty employees at public and non-profit colleges and universities in the U.S. work on a part-time, contingent basis.

Illinois colleges rely heavily on adjuncts. In 2012, 53 percent of all faculty at public and not-for-profit colleges and universities in the State, more than 30,400 faculty employees, worked on a part-time basis. This is a 52.6 percent increase in part-time faculty in Illinois compared to a 13 percent increase in full-time faculty since 2002.

Not surprisingly, in Illinois, 69 percent of all part-time faculty work in Chicago, where the cost of living is 16 percent higher than the U.S. average. Based on an average payment of $3,000 per class an adjunct professor must teach between seventeen and thirty classes a year to pay for rent and utilities in Chicago.

They would have to teach up to 7 classes to afford groceries for a family of four and two to four classes per year just to cover student loan payments. Because they are part-time, they are not eligible for vacation time, paid sick days, or group health-care. So they would have to teach an additional two to three classes to afford family coverage from the lowest priced health insurance offered on Get Covered Illinois, the official health marketplace.

Even though these professors are working in a relatively low-paying field, teaching our students, their part-time status also means they aren't eligible for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.

This bill does not completely fix this growing reliance on part-time professors who are underpaid and undervalued. But it would ensure that members of the contingent faculty workforce are no longer excluded from the loan forgiveness program for public servants. I hope my colleagues will join me in the effort to provide this benefit to faculty members who provide our students with a quality education.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, my chairwoman, Senator Mikulski.

I would add perhaps one particular point; that is, this Senator will be basking in the Sun in Illinois during the recess, and I invite the Senator from Maryland to come join us any time she would like to. But it will not be in ordinary vacation climes; it will be in my home State. I am sure the Senator is going to be spending a lot of time in hers as well.

I thank Senator Mikulski.

Mr. President, this supplemental appropriations bill is important. It is timely. One of the provisions in it is an additional $225 million for the Iron Dome defense. The Iron Dome defense is a joint effort by the United States and Israel to protect Israel from rocket attacks. Imagine you are living in your hometown and a neighboring State or neighboring town just fired 2,000 rockets into your hometown. These are not Fourth of July rockets; these are deadly rockets that kill. You want some protection. The Iron Dome provides protection for Israel.

This joint effort by the United States and Israel has been successful. Despite 2,000 rocket attacks, the casualties on the Israeli side have been minimal, relatively minimal, and it is because of the Iron Dome defense.

What attacks does Israel face today? Well, they face Hamas attacks from Gaza. Hamas is an organization which the United States characterized as a terrorist organization almost 20 years ago. We know Hamas. We know their tactics. What they are doing is putting rocket launchers in civilian neighborhoods near hospitals and apartments and homes, and they are launching these missile attacks on Israel and daring them to fire back into civilian populations.

Iron Dome protects the Israeli population from the missiles being shot by Hamas in Gaza. Now the Israelis have invaded Gaza to go to the source to stop these rocket attacks.

Sadly, during the course of this effort in Gaza, there have been casualties--some on the Israeli side, of course; but hundreds, maybe a thousand on the side of the civilian population in Gaza. This is because the strategy of Hamas is to put their armaments smack-dab in the middle of civilian populations. As has been said, in Israel, they use weapons to protect civilians; and in Gaza, they are using civilians to protect weapons. That has to come to an end. We have to have an end to the hostilities between Gaza and Israel. No nation--no nation on Earth--would sit still for 2,000 rocket attacks into their population. That is what Israel has faced over the past several weeks. But the people of Gaza also need much better than they are receiving when it comes to Hamas.

Hamas, sadly, is engaging in tactics using human shields at the expense of the civilian population. When they are told about the civilians that are dying in Gaza, leaders in Hamas say: Well, they are martyrs for the cause. I will have to tell you, it would be very difficult for me to understand and explain to a family that has lost a child they love that their child has just become a martyr.

This has to come to an end. The hostilities between Gaza and Israel have to end, I hope, in some negotiation and peaceful resolution. Maybe it is wishful thinking, but I do believe we need to make the effort. I commend Secretary of State Kerry for his effort at trying to engage Egypt and others in this conversation.

The supplemental bill before us today provides more money for interceptor missiles for Iron Dome--to protect Israel--money requested by our Secretary of Defense, money which I support. As chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, we added some $350 million for Iron Dome defenses in the next fiscal year which begins October 1. This money is needed now because of the hostilities between these two countries. I certainly support it.

A second part, the major part of this supplemental appropriation, deals with the humanitarian refugee crisis we have on our border. It is not often the United States faces a refugee crisis. Think back in history. The only refugees who come to our shores are usually from nearby countries: Haiti, Cuba. Occasionally, we have refugees coming such as after the Vietnam War, the Hmong people who were our allies in that war.

But we are not like most countries in the Middle East, for example, that have a steady stream of refugees. The United States does not engage in refugee crisis alleviation because of our location and geography and our history. Seldom have we been challenged. But today we are challenged. We are challenged because in the first 6 months of the year 57,000 unaccompanied children--children--presented themselves at the border with Mexico. They were not trying to sneak in. They literally walked across the border and presented themselves to the first person in uniform.

They were told to do that by their families. Why did they make the trip to the border as kids--by themselves--to present themselves? Because in three countries in Central America there is a state of lawlessness: Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador. Eighty percent of the children who have come to the border came from those three countries. They are not just coming to the United States, incidentally. There has been a 700-percent increase in refugees to adjoining Central American countries from those three countries.

This has been going on for some time. But for the past 2 or 3 years, it has gone from bad to dramatically worse. We met last week with the Ambassadors from these three countries, and we talked about what created this. A lot of it has to do with the drug gangs--drug gangs that are transporting drugs through those countries for sale largely in the United States. These drug gangs have become powerful and rich, well armed and notorious for their barbaric tactics.

They recruit young people into their drug gangs at the point of a gun. They mutilate those who even hesitate to join the drug gangs. God forbid it is your daughter, because they have a reputation for raping young girls. If they are not satisfied with their response, they kill them on the spot and leave them in plastic bags by the highway. That is why many families are sending their kids away from this deadly violence.

Two weeks ago I went to a shelter in Chicago. This was a transitional shelter where 70 children from the border are being held until they can be placed with their families in the United States or with some trusting family that takes up foster care. I saw these kids firsthand. Your image of them may be different than what you actually see.

My wife said to me: Well, why do they not show pictures of these kids? Well, they try to protect their identity and confidentiality by not showing photos. But if you could see them, you would see children of all ages. There were five women who walked into the dining hall at this transitional shelter.

They did not seem to me to be 14 years of age. Each one was carrying a baby. They were the victims of rape in Honduras. They were carrying these newborn infants in their arms, as they

had done during the 8-day bus journey to get to the border. I asked some of the staff at this transitional shelter--I had been told that many of the families, before they send their young girls on this dangerous and sometimes deadly journey, give the girls birth control pills because they anticipate they will be attacked during the course of this journey. They said: It is true.

What desperation would you have to reach before you turned your daughter loose under those circumstances? These families are literally trying to escape a burning home and sending their kids to the only safe and secure place they can think of.

What do we need to do? First, we need to get to these countries and tell them: Stop. Stop these deadly journeys, these journeys which, sadly, lead to harm and even death for some of these children. Do not let this happen any more. We have to work with the governments of those countries to make it clear this is the wrong thing to do. It is wrong because once these kids get into America, they are not entitled to stay. They are not entitled to be citizens, unless, perhaps, they qualify for asylum. They are going to be sent back.

After they are sent back to these countries, if they ever try to reenter the United States they can be found guilty of a felony. This is serious. So the notion that they can just come to America and stay here if they wish is not true. That is the first thing we need to do.

The second thing we need to do is to stop the smuggling and the coyotes that are bringing these kids into the United States. They are charging these poor families in Central America thousands of dollars they do not have to bring these kids to the border. We have to work with Mexico to hold these coyotes and smugglers accountable.

Third, I want to tell you, I think this really is key to our discussion. This is a test of who we are as a country. How many times in our history has the United States rallied for families and children around the world?

Do you remember just a month or two ago in Nigeria when 300 girls were kidnapped by Islamic extremists? Members of the Senate from both parties came to the floor to protest outrage that 300 young teenage girls would be kidnapped by these extremists. We engaged at every level to let the world know America cared. It was not the first time. There is a long history of it. We have stood for families and children around the world for humanitarian purposes throughout our history. Look back to the refuseniks, the Russian Jews who were being discriminated against in the Soviet Union. The United States was one of the leading nations in the world to stand behind those families and those children, bringing them to the United States so that they could escape antisemitism and Communism.

When you look at the victims of the Haitian earthquake, the United States was providing foreign aid to those families and children because we are, in fact, a caring nation. That is who we are. Throughout our history we have shown it. We need to show it again with these children. Some extreme American politicians have said: It is not our problem. Put them on a bus. Put them on a plane and dump them back wherever they came from--not our problem.

God forbid that is the verdict of history, that the United States, when it saw vulnerable, helpless children, did not care. I think more highly of this country. I think we have proven over and over that we do care. There have been some extraordinary statements made about this crisis by many people. The one that caught my eye was from a friend who happens to be the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Deval Patrick was born in Chicago. Maybe that is why I am partial to him. But Deval Patrick spoke about Massachusetts and its feelings toward these children.

He recalled moments of history. Here is what he said: My inclination is to remember what happened when a ship full of Jewish children tried to come to the United States in 1939 and the United States turned them away. Many of them went back to their deaths in Nazi concentration camps.

He went on to say:

I think we are a bigger hearted people than that as

Americans.

I agree with Governor Patrick. President Obama has asked for resources to care for these children, to place them, to give them the right of seeking asylum if they can make that established legal claim and, if not, to return them, humanely, to the countries they came from. Two of the three Ambassadors we met with, incidentally, said they could not guarantee the safety of those children in Honduras or El Salvador, if they came back. Let's do the right thing and pass this supplemental appropriation. Let's provide the resources so these children are treated humanely, ultimately given their hearing, ultimately returned, in most cases, to the country they came from.

How will history judge us? How will we be judged if, when these refugee children came to our border, they were turned away and sent back to harm, violence or even death?

We do not want that to happen. That is not who we are as Americans. We care. We show it. Our government should show it as well. The Senate will get an opportunity to do that very soon--we hope maybe this day or this week--as we wind down the session.

The last point I want to make is a tribute to two of my colleagues who have done an extraordinary job when it comes to the Veterans' Administration. I am referring to John McCain, my friend who came to Congress with me many years ago, the former Republican candidate for President and a conservative from Arizona. He teamed up with--of all people--Bernie Sanders of Vermont, self-styled independent socialist Democrat. How about that? Sanders and McCain sat down to solve the challenge facing the VA. God bless them. They did it. They are reporting a bill to us which is a dramatic improvement over the current VA system.

We are now overwhelmed with the Veterans' Administration disability claims. Forty-five percent of the veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan have filed a claim. We have tens of thousands of these claims pending, many of them for post-traumatic stress disorder.

We have said, incidentally, that we are going to help all veterans. Some 400,000 veterans from other wars are making PTSD claims. In addition, we have those who served in Vietnam, exposed to Agent Orange and with nine different diseases being treated. We have those who were victims of Gulf War Syndrome being treated. We have homeless veterans who are now being brought in and counseled so they can get their lives back on track. It is an overwhelming responsibility which the VA has today.

The Sanders-McCain veterans bill is going to address them by providing more resources for our veterans and more medical professionals, which we need. Remember--we all should every single day--that we said to the men and women who enlisted in our military and who volunteered: If you will raise your hand, swear allegiance to this country and risk your life, we will stand by you when you come home.

We are going to keep our word. We promised. We are going to keep our word. This bill--this veterans bill that is going to come before us this week--does exactly that. Sanders and McCain met with the House conferees and worked out an agreement--an agreement which is going to benefit the Hines VA in Chicago with an additional facility which they need. There is an amendment which is going to help facilities all across this country serving our veterans--an amendment which says: If you happen to live too far away from a veterans hospital, we are going to find a way to make sure you get timely care that is near your home. I think it is the least we can do. We owe it to our vets.

I tip my hat to my colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, who put this together. I am looking forward to voting for it this week.

I yield the floor.

If the Senator from Vermont would yield for just one moment. I want to thank him personally. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he has made a point of making sure the DREAM Act, a bill which I introduced 13 years ago, has had a fair hearing before the committee on more than one occasion and has been reported by the committee. It was part of that comprehensive immigration bill. I thank him for bringing it up.

I just want to say for the record that one Republican Senator has said he wants to deport all of the DREAMers. He is in for a fight because these young men and women are proving over and over they can make a valuable contribution to this country. I thank the Senator from Vermont.

(The remarks of Mr. Leahy pertaining to the introduction of S. 2658 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

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

Madam President, the child refugee crisis on America's border is a human tragedy.

Two weeks ago in Chicago I met 70 of these children. It was a meeting I won't forget. These are children, some are infants. How they ever made it to the United States is nothing short of a miracle, and many who tried didn't.

Those who made it--some of them--come scarred from the journey--young women who were assaulted, children who were beaten. Some lost their lives on the way, but these were the survivors. They made it. They were in a transitional shelter in Chicago that has been there for 19 years, and 70 of them were getting physical exams and meals. As one person there said, for the first time in their lives, many of them, were free to be children.

These children are in the United States and they are testing us. It is a test for the United States as to whether we care. I believe we are a caring nation. We proved it over and over. How many times in far- flung places in the world have we rallied--politically to stand behind 300 girls who were kidnapped in Nigeria, to be there during the Haitian earthquake to make sure the families and children would at least have shelter, medicine, and food. The list goes on and on for this caring nation.

But this is different. This is not about a problem over there. This is about a challenge here. What President Obama has said to us is we must rise to this challenge. As we have in so many places in this world, we must rise to the challenges at home. When it comes to these children, we can be humane and caring and do the right thing.

He sent us a bill to pay for the services they need. It is expensive. Some people argue it is too expensive. Well, we can argue about the exact amount of money, but I hope we aren't arguing about the value and the principle that is being tested. I hope we are not arguing about whether the United States is a caring and compassionate nation.

I just left a meeting with the Presidents from the three Central American countries which are responsible for 80 percent of these refugees: El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Yesterday we met with their Ambassadors.

It is easy to understand what is happening. It is easy to understand when the economies are so poor in this area that families cannot feed their children. It is easy to understand when the drug gangs are so powerful that these children are being threatened, exploited, raped, and killed. It is only then that in desperation some member of the family says: There is only one chance. We send you to the United States--putting these children in the hands of coyotes and smugglers who take them on a journey that doesn't last hours but days and is 2,000 miles. Imagine. Imagine a mother taking her child to the freight train--this 12-year-old boy--watching him climb up the ladder on the side and hang on. She says: You will be there in 4 days.

Can you imagine that. Can you imagine the family in Honduras, who before they send their young girl on this journey with the coyote, giving her birth control pills in anticipation that she will likely be sexually assaulted during the course of that journey? How desperate must that family be? That is the reality of this human child refugee crisis that we face.

The President has said we need to do several things. First, we need to tell these countries: Don't send these children. It is too dangerous, and when they have arrived, they have no special legal rights to be citizens or to stay. We need to get that message through loudly and clearly: Do not send your children. The countries involved-- Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala--are joining us now in getting that message out.

Secondly, we need to start apprehending and prosecuting these coyotes, these smugglers. They extort from these families 1 year of wages to try to bring children into this country.

Some of these children are teenagers--most of them are--but many of them are babies and infants.

Five women walked into the dining room at the shelter carrying newborn babies. All of these women are from Honduras and all are victims of rape. They had gone on these buses for 8 days to bring these newborn infants to a safer place so that they might survive.

I am heartened by the fact that religious groups all around the United States have rallied behind these children. I am proud the Catholic Church--which I associate with; occasionally they associate with me--I am proud the Catholic Church and the bishops have spoken. Evangelicals are one of the first groups to come forward and say: We have to do something for these children.

Even some of the most conservative political commentators have said: First, America, show your heart that you care for these children.

That is what the President is asking us to do.

So let us take care, when we consider the supplemental appropriations bill, that we don't lose sight of our values. To those who politically disagree and sometimes even despise the President, I urge them not to try to show how tough they are with this President at the expense of these small children. Let's show how big we are as a nation first. The political debate can be saved for another day.

I support this legislation. I think it is the right thing to do.

I want history to write this chapter about America, and I want it to be a chapter of which we are proud. I want a future generation to look back to this year and say that in this year, when the United States was presented with this border crisis with children, America showed its heart; America stood and did what was right for these children, as we have so many times in the past.

Iron Dome

There are other parts of this bill. One of them is a section I have worked on in my capacity as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. This is called Iron Dome, and it is much different than a debate about children or refugees.

Over the past 3 weeks, more than 2,000 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel. According to press reports, civilian casualties have been limited--maybe even only 2 out of 2,000 rockets. There are two reasons for the low number of injuries from this barrage.

First, many of these rockets land in uninhabited areas. Second, these rockets are headed for cities and towns, but these rockets are stopped and destroyed before they strike their targets. The reason? The Iron Dome missile defense system, a joint effort by the United States and Israel to protect against just an attack. The United States and Israel have deep ties on this program. Of the 10 Iron Dome batteries that have been fielded, the United States provided funding for 8 of them. I am pleased we have because this system has saved innocent lives.

Our country has been asked for additional assistance to ensure that the Israeli stockpile of Iron Dome interceptors is adequate to the challenge. We don't know when this crisis will end. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel endorsed an additional $225 million in funding for Iron Dome in a recent letter.

The requested funds are in addition to next year's appropriations. It may be some time before the appropriations bills are enacted, and that is why the President has asked to include in this supplemental appropriation $225 million to speed up the production of Iron Dome missiles.

The Senate simply has too little time. There is next week, and then we are gone for 5 or 6 weeks, return for perhaps 2, and then we are gone until November. So we have to act and act now.

This supplemental appropriations bill with the Iron Dome money needs to pass. I am going to be supporting it. This is an emergency which is front and center.

The Ambassador from Israel to the United States came to see me last week. He said at one time two-thirds of the population of Israel was in bomb shelters during these attacks. It is a serious threat to them.

Let me add too that all of us are praying this violence and war between Gaza and Israel will come to an end soon, that they will institute a cease-fire, sit at a table and resolve their differences.

But we cannot expect any country--not Israel, not the United States-- any country--to sit and take 2,000 incoming rockets and not respond. This saves lives--the Iron Dome.

But now we need to take the next step, bringing peace to this region so

that innocent people on both sides of the border are going to be spared.

Hamas, a group which we have characterized as terrorist since the late 1990s, is leading this attack on Israel. This terrorist group is politically popular in some parts of Gaza. How do they protect their rocket launchers? They place them in homes, they put them in crowded areas, and they build tunnels under Gaza streets for their weapons and to escape when they are attacked.

The latest report is they were building these tunnels under hospitals, knowing that Israel and other countries would spare these hospitals. Meanwhile, the hospitals are covering tunnels, which is just the source of much more violence in the area.

Child Refugee Crisis

I wish to close on the issue about the child refugees. I see Senator Portman of Ohio is on the floor. I will close and yield in a moment for him.

One of the questions I asked of the Ambassadors from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala was this: We believe the children who come into the United States once given a chance to state why they are here--we believe that half of them or maybe more will be returned to their countries.

I asked the Ambassadors from these countries: Can we have confidence that if these children, who have come to our border, are returned back to their countries, they will be safe. A simple question, Will they be safe. Do you have people, charities, agencies of government to guarantee that when they return, when they get off the plane or the bus, they will be safe?

The Ambassador from Guatemala said: Yes, we do. The Ambassador from Honduras said: No, we don't. The Ambassador from El Salvador said: Neither do we.

Let us think about this for a moment. Let us reflect on this for a moment. Let us make sure we do everything in our power to hand these children over to a safe situation.

Let us work with these countries to stop the flow into this country, but to make certain that when they return, they are returned to a safe setting.

Can you believe that in Chicago a brother and a sister--a 6 year-old and a 3-year-old brother and sister--came to one of these shelters? I could see from the bruises on their bodies they had been through something on their way here. It took 2 months before these children-- the 6-year-old--finally talked about what she can remember from this horrendous journey. I won't recount the details, but it is heartbreaking to think that a child of 6 years would have endured this experience.

Let's do right by these children. Let's make sure at the end of the day America has proven again we are a caring nation and that for those children who come to our shores, come to our borders, we will treat them humanely and compassionately, as we would want our own children to be treated if they were ever in such a desperate circumstance.

Let's set the politics aside. Let's put these children front and center.

I yield the floor.

I listened carefully as the Republican leader came to the floor to talk about the Senate issues, and he failed to mention this issue, S. 2569, which we will be voting on in 1 hour and 10 minutes. In fact, we have listened carefully. There has not been a single Republican Senator who has come to the floor to literally debate this issue or to disagree with this bill. What is this measure that is the source of such a mystery on the floor of the Senate?

Well, it is an effort by Senator John Walsh of Montana and Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan to bring good-paying manufacturing and other jobs back home to America. Wouldn't you think that would be worth a comment from the Republican leader or perhaps from one of the Republican Senators? I hope it means they are going to join us in a bipartisan effort in a little over 1 hour to bring this measure to the floor.

What does it say? Simple. We will give a tax break to companies that bring jobs home from overseas. We will reduce the current tax incentives for companies to ship American jobs overseas. There it is-- straightforward, clear--bring the jobs home.

I would think this would be so bipartisan it would get a unanimous vote at 11 o'clock. But the fact is, despite the support of all Democratic Senators, we are still struggling to find five Republicans who will join us so we can move to this measure and do something in the Tax Code to help bring American jobs back home instead of shipping them overseas.

Senator Reid, our majority leader, spoke this morning about another aspect of this issue. Sadly, in my home State of Illinois, a major company, AbbVie, which was formerly part of Abbot Laboratories, the eighth largest pharmaceutical company, just announced last week they are going to relocate their corporate base of operations to an island off the U.K.

The U.K. is a beautiful country, but to think that American companies such as Abbot--now AbbVie--are prepared to desert America, is worth a little reflection.

Senator Reid raised an important point. Pharmaceutical companies in America depend on tax-supported organizations and agencies. The National Institutes of Health, the leading biomedical research agency in the world, is supported by American tax dollars. Pharmaceutical companies like AbbVie, with blockbuster drugs such as Humira, which has earned them over $1 billion so far this year, rely on the NIH for research and then rely on the taxpayer-supported U.S. Patent Office to protect their legal rights.

They also count on the Food and Drug Administration, supported with U.S. tax dollars, to do the testing necessary to bring this drug to market. It is said the approval by the FDA of a drug in the United States is really the gold standard--more than any other country.

So here is a pharmaceutical company which is very profitable, with over 4,000 employees, based in the United States, based in the State of Illinois for virtually its entire existence, now picking up and leaving. Why? They are leaving to avoid paying taxes in the United States.

What is the definition of a corporate ingrate? I think it would start with a company that has become immensely profitable because of the United States of America and the agencies of its government that support that company which is now turning its back on the United States.

Across the street the Supreme Court tells us with regularity we have to view corporations now as persons. They are no longer legal creations. They have some personhood under the Constitution, according to five of our Supreme Court justices--personhood that entitles them to freedom of speech under the Citizens United decision, personhood which entitles them under the Hobby Lobby decision to have religious freedom as a corporation.

So if we are going to give personhood to corporations, what can we say of this decision to renounce their American citizenship to get a tax break?

I think what we can say is these inverters are deserters, to quote Allan Sloan and others who have written about this issue in the past.

I am troubled by this, and I am troubled there isn't a sense of outrage on both sides of the aisle.

Senator Reid has spoken about this issue, I have spoken to it, Senator Levin of Michigan has been a leader on this issue, and yet the Republicans are strangely silent. Do they believe it is in the best interests of the United States for our major corporations to pick up, cut and run, go to some foreign land, claim this is now their new headquarters, and avoid paying taxes in the United States?

This process, known as inversion, is a clever tax dodge. At the end of the day, who loses? Well, I can tell you. The taxpayers in this country lose because valuable revenue and resources are no longer there to sustain our great Nation, whether it is the defense of this country, the building of infrastructure, great agencies like the National Institutes of Health--the list goes on. There will be money lost.

Who are the winners? The winners are those investment bankers, folks who are buying up these corporations and coming up with these tax dodges and incentives to raise stock prices at any cost.

I often wonder, as I look at the list of members of the boards of directors of AbbVie and Walgreens, if there wasn't in their boardroom one person who held up their hand and said: Does anybody else feel a little sick about this--that we would give up on America, that AbbVie would renounce its American citizenship; that we would listen to those who say stock price is more important than loyalty to the country we live in, the country we have prospered in? Was there one hand in the air dissenting from this corporate desertion of the United States?

I think this is worth a debate. I think it is worth bringing this bill to the floor, S. 2569. In a little over 1 hour we will have a chance to decide whether it should come to the floor. There aren't many things that we do around here that have an impact on the lives of Americans. This one will. This bill will bring jobs home from overseas.

Senator Reid has suggested we move into the inversion--a change in the Tax Code. I support that. I am a cosponsor of Senator Levin's bill. That, to me, is overdue. Last week Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew issued a statement about this warning us this was just the beginning; a dozen corporations are now working on this.

One of the corporate leaders on the street, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, said in Fortune magazine: We shouldn't moralize about this decision.

He characterized it as largely a protest against the Tax Code--the unfair Tax Code.

I wish to remind Mr. Dimon and the CEOs and members of the boards of these corporations, this Tax Code, which certainly should be reformed, is the same Tax Code that has generated record-breaking corporate profits and record-breaking CEO salaries.

I didn't hear complaints about that so-called unfair Tax Code when these corporations were making record-breaking profits or getting compensation at record-breaking levels. It troubles me too that many of the corporations that are now rationalizing abandoning the United States not that long ago were counting on this government and taxpayers all across the United States to bail them out.

When the Wall Street banks were failing, when AIG was flat on its back, did they turn to Ireland or Switzerland for help? No. They turned to Washington and the United States of America and to the taxpayers who came through with billions of dollars to save them from their perfidy.

That is the reality of history, a reality which many of these corporate deserters are now ignoring. I have trouble with this-- clearly, a great deal of trouble. I am going to offer an amendment, should we get on this bill, called the Patriot Employer Tax Credit Act.

Very simply, here is what it says: If you have a corporation in the United States, headquartered in our country, and you have not moved jobs overseas; if you pay your employees at least $15 an hour, which means they don't qualify for most Federal benefits, just their paycheck; if you will give them quality health insurance as required by the Affordable Care Act; if you will provide at least 5 percent of their income as a contribution by the company toward their retirement; and if you will give a preference for the hiring of veterans, you will be entitled to the patriot employer tax credit, a credit for each of your employees. I think that is the proper incentive--incentivizing and rewarding companies that are making a positive difference in the lives of their employees, staying in the United States, committed to this country.

How would I pay for that? Well, I have an idea. It would end the deductions currently available for corporations that want to move their jobs overseas. To me, that makes perfect sense. Encourage the payment of Americans in good-paying companies and discourage sending jobs overseas.

Why won't the Republicans discuss this with us? Why isn't this a bipartisan issue? Do they honestly believe only Democrats object to shipping American jobs overseas? Everyone objects to it. We want to keep good-paying jobs at home. We want to be able to walk into stores and see the label ``Made in the U.S.A.'' more often. We want to encourage our companies to stay in America, to set the standard in America, to lead in the world. Let's have a tax code that helps us reach that goal.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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 ask unanimous consent that the time of

the quorum call be equally divided between Democrats and Republicans for the remainder of the debate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.