,

mr. moran: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you very much. for three weeks we've seen the fighting going on in israel and the gaza strip carried on between the israeli military and hamas. in both gaza and israel lives, unfortunately, are being lost, homes are tried, families are devastated, security is threatened and daily life is polluted by this war. since the fighting began, hamas has made it abundantly clear that it is unwilling to behave in any responsible manner.

the organization is using civilian areas such as schools and hospitals, mosques, and playgrounds as rocket launching sites. cachets of rockets have been discovered inside two gaza schools sponsored by the united nations. a chance for peace emerged when egypt put forward a cease-fire, put forward a cease-fire plan that israel agreed to, hamas refused to cease hostilities. later, israel agreed to a temporary truce. the pause requested by hamas to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian supplies to gaza and despite israeli cooperation, hamas quickly violated the cease-fire, resuming rocket launches into israeli territory. hamas action seeks to kill and terrorize those while they do great harm to the people of

gaza. ending the rocket attacks would haven the end -- hasten the end to the bloodshed that has taken a disproportionate toll on gaza lives. on july 17, the senate passed a resolution to express american support for israel's self-defense efforts and called for a immediate cessation of hamas' actions against israel. it deserves as a -- serves as a reminder to anyone adescribing legitimacy to hamas, key de-spite any governing agreement with fattah and the palestinian authority, hamas' violence is not legitimate in the eyes of the united states the united states. since 19th 7 hamas has been included on the state department's designated foreign terrorist organizations, the group's ongoing attack on civilian targets further justified this designation. hamas' participation in a unity

government limits improvements to life in gaza as american law restricts u.s. aid to palestinian groups aligned with terrorist organizations such as hamas. gaza's poor economic condition, the justification for their attacks on israel has not at all improved by hamas' belligerence. instead, hamas' strategy of violence worsens the economic outlook, compound the consequences of smuggling tunnels rather than investing in the future of gaza and its people. the point being what hamas is doing is damaging to the people of not only israel but to the folks who live in gaza. this reality begs observes to question hamas' commitment to the people it supposedly represents. since the beginning of the current conflict, the commitment to violence against israel appears to be their

primary mission, not the care and well-being of their people. unless cessation of the hostilities becomes ham east's priority, israel must defend its people and the welfare of those living in gaza will regretfully continue to deteriorate. americans would not tolerate, we would not, our constituents would be insistent that we not tolerate the threat of terrorism that israel faces on a daily basis. since 1947 attacks from neighboring arab states have repeatedly forced israel to defend its people. this senate has and will continue to demonstrate that the united states of america stands with israel especially during these turbulent times as israel takes necessary action to reduce hamas' means of terror, to disarm those who stand firmly in the way of real and lasting peace. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: mr. president, i ask that the proceedings under the

quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: i rise today to call attention to the important efforts made each day by our public servants. we often forget our public servants, our federal employees, go to work every day with the sole mission to make this country a better and safer place to live. day after day they go about their work receiving little recognition for the great work they do. and many times, unfortunately, they're actually berated rather than acclaimed for what they do during difficult times. since 2010, i've come to the senate floor on a regular basis to honor exemplary federal employees, a tradition begun by my friend the former senator from delaware, senator ted coughlin. today i want to recognize another extraordinary public servant who has served in the

u.s. department of treasury for 41 years. 41 years, that's not a typo. mr. richard l. gregg has dedicateed more than four decades to federal service. he most recently served as the fiscal assistant secretary at the u.s. department of treasury. mr. gregg began his civilian service at treasury's financial management service. during his tenure at treasury he served as the commissioner of treasury's financial management service and as the commissioner of the bureau of public debt. mr. gregg retired for the first time in june, 2006. and was asked to return to treasury in 2009 to serve as fiscal assistant secretary. mr. gregg retired again this month and in honor of his second retirement i wanted to highlight a couple of his noteworthy accomplishments. during his long tenure at treasury mr. gregg was well nope

for his innovative thinking, ability to make hard decisions, and the desire to make government more efficient, more open, and very importantly, less costly. mr. gregg led the treasury into the 21st century by modernizing federal payment operations. he moved treasury from paper-based benefit payments toward the more sensible, reliable electronic payment systems. and boy, we should have done that a lot earlier. this is a really big deal since treasury makes more than a billion payments a year, think about that, more than a billion separate payments each year. including are benefit payments as well as others. his work will help save taxpayers $1 billion over the next decade. that's a pretty great value. mr. gregg also helped 0 achieve one of the far rare feats in the federal government, the actual

consolidation of federal programs. mr. gregg recognized that the operations -- that operations could be improved if treasury consolidateed two complementary treasury agencies into one. by merging the financial management service which makes government payments with treasury's bureau of public debt which borrows the money to fund government, taxpayers will save tens of millions over the next decade. this isn't going to clear up our $17 billion in debt that goes up $3 billion a night but these are the commonsense steps in the right direction we need to see more of. i'm also proud that mr. gregg is not only an inspiring public servant but he's also a virginian. and resides in springfield, virginia. i want to thank mr. richard l. gregg for his leadership at the department of treasury and for being a tireless advocate for the american people. his work and support of a more efficient, responsive, and

accountable government will continue to make government work better for all americans for many years to come. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is. mr. reid: i ask consent that it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by me with the concurrence of senator mcconnell senate proceed to executive session to calendar number 952, that there be four hours for debate equally divided in the usual form, upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on the nomination, that if confirmed the motion to reconsider will be considered and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, no further motion be in order to the nomination, any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then

resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: mr. president, are we in morning business? the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. tester: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: are we in morning business?

the presiding officer: the senate is postcloture on the motion to proceed. mr. tester: i ask unanimous consent to be as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have come to realize we are never going to get politics completely out of this legislative process. in the system we have today there's always another election, always another campaign. but this political posturing must be addressed. it is hurting our democracy, it's the prime reason why congress' approval is at single digits. and today, politics is hurting the men and women who bravely served our nation. it is hurting our veterans. mr. president, when the news about the problems at the v.a. became public, lawmakers ran to the press to slam the v.a. they called for reform, they called for accountability, they even dragged good men through the mud to score political

points. members from both sides of the aisle said politics needed to be set aside because if there is one thing, just one thing that should cause our politicians to look past political games, it is our veterans. it's our commitment to our veterans, our commitment to making sure they get the care that they've earned. but today some lawmakers decide to forgo the hard work of compromise, instead of putting veterans first they've made improving veterans' care political. we've been working for six weeks to find a compromise bill that improves veterans' access to care, that holds the v.a. more accountable, and hires more medical professionals so veterans can get the care they need when they need it. but for six weeks, members on the other side of the aisle in both the house and the senate have balked at the cost of taking care of our veterans. many of these lawmakers are the

same ones, the same ones who put our wars in iraq and afghanistan on the credit card. many of them didn't blink twice when we sent hundreds of troops into iraq earlier this month. way back when, when the iraq war was authorized, congress spent less than three weeks debating iraq. but now when it comes to taking care of our men and women who served, many in the same wars that were put on the credit card, they worry about the cost. i got news for them. taking care of our veterans is a cost of war. you don't -- you do not send young americans to war and then not take care of them. and it should not be the case that we rush to war but drag our feet when it comes to our vets. republicans today will announce that they're forgoing the veterans' conference committee and introducing a bill of their

own. it is a proposal aimed at benefiting our veterans. it is not. it is not a bill that takes the best ideas of veterans' organizations, experts, or v.a. officials and moves the ball forward. it is a proposal that is meant to gain political favor. it's a proposal that sheds the responsibility of governing, of honoring our commitments to veterans. it is a proposal that is aimed at the november elections. chairman sanders has been working hard to bridge the divide and produce a bill that gets veterans the support that they need and can pass in congress. but chairman sanders can't do it himself. neither can just one half of the conference committee. mr. president, i am incredibly disappointed in what is taking place today. i had real hopes that this conference committee could rise above the political process and get something done for our veterans. i've been holding listening

sessions in montana, veterans listening sessions. they didn't have much faith. those veterans did not have much face in washington politicians solving the problem but i told them it could be done if we don't change course, if we don't leave politics at the door as we promised, then it's going to be hard for me to go back to montana and look those veterans in the eye. we can do better, and we must do better. mr. president, i yield the floor. suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. sand sand thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. sand sand the senate voted to pass legislation written by senator john mccain, republican, and myself, to address the crises facing our veterans community and the v.a. and to protect and defend the

men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend us. mr. sanders: and i want to take this opportunity again to thank senator mccain for his very strong efforts on getting that legislation passed. mr. president, as you know, the legislation that we passed here was estimated by the congressional budget office, the c.b.o., to cost about $35 billion, and at just about the same time, the house of representatives passed legislation dealing with more or less the same issues, and the bill that they passed in the house was estimated by c.b.o. to cost $44 billion, $9 billion more than what we passed here in the snavmen senate. now, in the last six weeks, my staff, my colleagues, and i have

been working very, very hard to refine this legislation, to come up with a more reasonable price tag, and to address the needs of our veterans community in a significant way. in that process, i have been accused by some of -- quote, unquote -- "moving the goalpost." well, i guess i have. i have moved the goalposts so that the legislation we are introducing today is substantially lower -- substantially lower than what passed the senate and what passed the house. and if that's called moving the goalposts, i suspect in this case it's moving the goalpost in a positive direction. in fact, the bill that we are presenting today would cost less than $25 billion ... a lot of money, no doubt, but that is

some $10 million less than what we passed here on the senate floor, and it is $19 billion less than what the house passed. mr. president, our proposal is a commonsense proposal which deals in a significant way with the needs of the veterans community. what it does is provide emergency funding for contract services so veterans can, when they find themselves on long waiting periods, as in fact is the case in a number of locations around the country, they can go outside of the v.a. and get private health care or care at a community health center or whatever. they no longer have to wait during this emergency period for long periods of time to get into the v.a. i think that that is a very important part of this proposal, something we've got to do.

and, in addition, what we also say is, if a veteran is living more than 40 miles from a v.a. facility -- and there are veterans who in some cases are living hundreds of miles away -- they don't have to, when they're ill, get in their car and travel for three or four hours to get health care at a v.a. they will be able to go to a non-v.a. facility, a private physician, if they live more than 40 miles away from a v.a. facility. i think that's a significant step forward. but, mr. president, what our legislation also does is address an issue of huge concern to the veterans community. and just yesterday -- just yesterday -- i received -- and many members in the veterans' committee received -- a letter from 16 major veterans organizations. and, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to introduce

this letter into the "congressional record." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: 16 major veterans organizations, including the disabled american veterans, the veterans of foreign wars, v.f.w., paralyzed veterans of america, the vietnam veterans of america, the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, the military officers association of america, and many other wonderful veterans organizations who have worked for years representing the needs of millions and millions of veterans. and what these organizations say in this letter is that while we must address the immediate crisis of doing away with these long waiting lines and allowing veterans to get private care, what they also say, loudly and clearly, is that the v.a. must have the doctors, the nurses,

and the space capacity that it needs so that in the future it will be able to permanently eliminate these long waiting lines, so that two years from now, three years from now, when veterans come into the v.a., they will get quality care, they will get timely care. and that is what the veterans organizations have said. and i would just quote to you one small paragraph of a long letter. they say that, "the charge of the conference committee should be -- and i quote, "to ensure that all veterans currently waiting for treatment must be provided access to timely, convenient health care as quickly as medically indicated and, at the same time, protect, preserve, and strengthen the v.a. health care system so that it remains capable of providing a full continu continuum of high-quality, timely health care to all enrolled veterans."

last week in a senate veterans' affairs committee meeting, sloan gibson, the acting secretary of the v.a., stated that the v.a. needed over $16 billion in order to hire thousands and thousands of doctors, nurses, other medical providers in many v.a. facilities. in many v.a. facilities, doctors do not have the examining rooms that they need. they are space problems all over this country of the and what the veterans organizations -- 16 of them -- said loudly and clearly is that sloan gibson, the new acting secretary of the v.a., approved with wide republican support, is -- they said, we support his proposal. and our legislation does not give the v.a. all that mr. gibson would like, but we do provide them with the doctors

and the nurses and the medical staff that they need so that we do not continue to have long waiting lines at v.a. hospitals all over this country. so that we do not come back here two years from now in the same position with veterans not being able to get timely care. mr. president, i have worked for a month and a half with my house republican colleagues, led by chairman -- veterans affairs chairman there jeff miller, to find a compromise. everybody knows the house works differently than the senate. we all know that. and if we go forward, we need a compromise. we have put good-faith offers on the table time and time again, and we have tried to meet our republican colleagues more than halfway. but, mr. president, i am very sad to say that at this point --

and i hope this changes -- but, at this point, i can only conclude, with great re-luctance, that the good faith we have shown is simply not being reciprocated by the other side. standing here and saying this is the last thing i want to be doing. our veterans deserve a responsible solution to this crisis. last night -- this is an example of what's happening. somewhere around 10:00 in the night, the cochairman of the veterans conference committee, mr. miller in the house, announced unilaterally, without my knowledge or without my concurrence, that he was going to hold a so-called conference committee meeting in order to introduce his proposals. needless to say, his proposal is something that i have yet to see. i don't know what it is. this is a proposal that nobody on our side has seen. my understanding is that he then wants to take this to the house

on monday to come up with a vote. in other words, his idea of negotiation is, we have a proposal. take it or leave it. and any sixth grader in a school of the united states understands, this is not negotiation. this is not what democracy is about. so, mr. president, i note the presence on the floor of the coauthor of the bill passed here in the senate, senator mccain, and i'm happy to yield the floor to senator mccain. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, could i say that i understand the frustration that the chairman of the committee feels, and this has been for everyone involved a very frustrating process. i think to some degree the real effort has been diverted on this whole issue of the pay-fors, the costcosts of this legislation.

and i fully understand the senator from vermont, the distinguished chairman of the committee's frustration. i would hope that we could maybe all of us cool down some and maybe go to this meeting at noon and ahead of him -- as far ahead of time as possible, tell the chairman what their proposal is and also a counterproposal of senator sanders would be fully considered by the conference as well. it is the proper process to go to a conference. unfortunately, we only did that once, and that was largely a pro forma kind of activity. again, i fully appreciate senator sanders whorks -- who has worked and labored very hard

on this terrible issue. but i hope all my colleagues recognize that for us to not come to agreement on legislation which is not that dissimilar, which passed this body 93-3, and over on the house side i believe it was unanimous, is really a gross disservice to those who deserve our consideration most. there's no group of citizens in this country that deserve our help in this time of crisis than our veterans, the men and women who have served. so, may i say to my friend from vermont who, like me, is very given to calm deliberation of all issues -- we're very similar in that respect -- i say with some humor, i hope, is that, is that i hope that we could go to this conference at noon today

and sit down together and listen to the various proposals. and i believe that the fundamentals, as it was passed by this body on a 93-3 vote, should be a basis for largely the, they'll find legislation that we reach. and the other body's legislation is strikingly similar. it seems to me where we have differences is how much additional funding to the fundamentals of the legislation that we are considering. so i just came -- i was watching my friend from vermont on the floor here, and i want to say to him i fully understand his frustration. i hope we will be able to sit down at noon with our, both republican and democrat on both sides of the aisle and with the overriding priority of not leaving and going out into an

august recess without acting on this issue. veterans are dying. there's allegations that 40 veterans in my state, the phoenix v.a. hospital, died because they didn't receive care. this is not a policy academic issue here. this is the very lives of the men and women who are serving. so i guess for the third time, i would say to my colleague, and i'll yield to him in just a second, i would be more than happy to look at what we have proposed and what has passed to this body compared to what the other side of the capitol is proposing. and perhaps we can come to some agreement and compromise, which is the way that we're supposed to make, pass laws in this body. i'd like to -- unanimous consent to yield to the senator from vermont. the presiding officer: without

objection, the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: first of all, i want to thank senator mccain again for all of his hard work on this issue. but let me just ask him a few questions. he and i have been talking the last few days. senator mccain, don't you think -- you've been here for one or two years -- that the best way to go forward is for people to sit down at a table and knock out their differences? and then the idea presenting it to a conference is absolutely right. but you know and i know that when conference committees are largely about five-minute speeches. and i have been disappointed that i have not -- and i think you will agree with me, maybe not -- that the best way forward is for people to sit down in a room and work out their differences, not to go forward with just unilateral statements. that make sense? mr. mccain: could i say to my friend from vermont, i believe it's a matter of simple courtesy

that you as the chairman of the committee should be asked to come to a meeting with the other major chairmen and ranking members of the committees. and i hope that kind of thing doesn't happen again. and what i would like to see -- and i beg my colleagues to sit down and let's work this out. it's a matter of money. it's not a matter of the provisions of the bill. and that can't be the reason for us not to reach some agreement. so i intend at noon to attend, and i intend to make a strong case that we would be glad to hear any proposal by the chairman and ranking members on the other side of the capitol, and that if we would have counterproposal and maybe to start a discussion and dialogue

which could reach to -- which would lead to an agreement. mr. sanders: let me just ask senator mccain one more question and again thank him very moment. he is not at this moment the veterans' committee but has jumped in with both feet and is playing a very, very good role. would you be prepared if generally speaking what happens is the chairman and ranking member of the senate and the house get together. you're not the chairman, you're not the ranking member, but i think you could play a good role. would you be prepared to sit down with the other four members, myself, the other three, and help us reach a compromise? mr. mccain: i would be more than glad to do that, i'd say to my friend from vermont. and i'd also like to say that i hope that the participation of a number of people would lead us to some agreement today. because once we reach an agreement, then, of course, we have to go through the normal votes and all of the things that require some period of time.

and i want to say to my friends who are deeply concerned about the costs here of some of these provisions, my argument is that, yes, we should seek ways to pay for as much as we can. and i believe we can compromise on some areas of spending. but we cannot allow that alone to prevent us from acting. so i thank my friend from vermont. i look forward to engaging with him. i think maybe it's important that we show courtesy to all members who are involved in this, including the chairman of the committee. i thank -- mr. sanders: one more second. i wanted to just paraphrase it and tell me if i'm misquoting you. i don't have it in front of me. when we were debating this bill on the floor, you said something

to the effect, if this is -- in talking about emergency funding, you said something to the effect, if this is not an emergency, i don't know what an emergency is. is that a correct paraphrase? the presiding mr. mccain: that is absolutely my conviction, that the reason we have emergency funding from time to time, in times of crisis, is when there's an emergency. and i will repeat again, i do not know of a greater domestic emergency than the care that we owe the men and women who have served this country. i thank my colleague and i yield the floor. mr. sanders: i thank senator mccain very much for his statements and for his hard work on this issue and would reiterate just what he said, and that is my belief. and that is what we passed here on the senate floor that if taking care of the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend us and who came home without arms or legs or without their eyesight or 500,000 of them who came home

with post traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury, if that is not an emergency, taking care of those brave men and women, i agree with senator mccain, i don't know what an emergency is. i'm happy to yield the floor to my colleague from alaska, senator begich. mr. begich: thank you very much, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: to my chairman of the veterans' committee, we talked very briefly on the phone. i wanted to come down here because i find it amazing. you know, i'm new around here, even though it's been almost six years, i still consider myself new in the process. late last night, early this morning i get a notice of a supposed conference committee meeting, which totally unaware of, was unaware of the proposals they're putting on the other side. i know on the other side they talk a lot about transparency and timeliness and making sure the public is aware of what they're doing. but lo and behold, they just kind of snap together a meeting because they have an idea that

they want to move forward, which i'm all game for more ideas and how to solve the problems of our veterans. but the public demands -- demands -- us to solve this problem and also demands it to be done in a transparent way, not just in the dark of the night and meetings called. the chairman on the other side, in this case you, the chairman of the committee, isn't even notified. i recognize senator mccain's comments about the courtesy. it should be a courtesy. but on top of it, the basic understanding of compromise and working with each other, that's what's happened, we're not sitting down. we had a conference committee, we all made five-minute speeches, grand statements about how to help veterans. we all want to do that. but it also means sitting down, working with each other, putting proposals -- and i think the way you described it best, mr. chairman, is roll up your sleeves and solve this problem. think about this, what's the real issue here? you heard it from senator

mccain that we pretty much have agreement on a lot of basic issues. it's the money. what's still amazing to me, i wasn't here when the wars decided to be funded -- excuse me, not funded. $2 trillion afghanistan, even more. but even if you use that $2 trillion number, what we are talking about today is about 1%. 1% to take care of the veterans and their families who put their lives on the line, have come back, some missing limbs, some having mental issues, a variety of services they need, they earned, they deserve. when you think about it, my simple statement -- and you've heard me say this before, mr. chairman -- you are for veterans or you're not. we're going to quibble and nickel and dime our veterans. i appreciate what you're done trying to lower the cost, trying to find compromise. but this is, as senator mccain said, an emergency.

we need to take care of these veterans. and for the house to nickel and dime our veterans is absolutely obscene. it's outrageous. they served our country. we need to do what we can to take care of them. and it does mean not having midnight e-mails to tell us about a meeting that's going to occur on a day 12 hours later when i have no idea what the proposal is. they haven't shared it with me. it would be nice. they're all about transparency, let's do it. let's have transparency, have the debate. mr. chairman, i know you've been working on this in the last few weeks, you have had two hearings in the last two weeks with the new secretary. he already has an idea, a plan. i was amazed to see he's already moving forward. i met with him yesterday. i told him actually be bold. start doing things. get nominated, get approved, let's get some stuff going. for this body on the other side to just out of the blue decide

they're going to have a conference committee -- usually the way it works, maybe i'm wrong, you know, mr. chairman, you've been here longer than me. but a conference committee normally means senate and house. the two chair talk to each other, pick a time. everyone tells their members and we all attend. we see proposals. we say paperwork beforehand. trance parnd. the press is aware of it, the public is aware of it. it is open to the people. this is like a midnitride to, in my view, potentially shortchange our veterans. i'm outraged. you probably got that sense when you got my e-mail this morning and within seconds we were on the phone. this is not how we need to do the business. the veterans deserve the care. they earned it. we owe it to them. the bill is due. it's time to pay up and quit nickel and diemg our -- diming

our veterans. give the v.a. the capacity they need to perform the many different things from providing these people. i'm proud of the work and you heard me talk about it before in alaska, but that's not -- we're one state. there's 49 other states. we need to do everything we can. i came down here. i had something else going on right now, but i was very frustrated and outraged by this lack of transparency on the body that proclaims to always talk about transparency. but again, mr. chairman, mr. president, i just -- i can go on a rant here and i'm going to stop. the last thing i'll say is this is an emergency. we know it. the american people know it. quit nickel and diming our veterans. quit complaining about is it $25 billion? is it $26 billion. it's an emergency. we didn't complain one dime when they wanted all the money for

the wars. $2 trillion, $3 trillion. we actually, remember those photos? we put cash on pallets. cash on pallets and shipped it over there. now it's time to take care of our veterans. it is time to put up or shut up. it is time to get the work done. you are for veterans or you are against vernts. it as simple equation. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. president. sand sand thank you, senator begich. and with that, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, there's no question that immigration is one of the toughest, most device i have issues that -- divisive issues that we talk about here in washington, d.c., perhaps because it is an economic issue;

it involves cultural considerations; and it also includes security concerns. i.t. noit's not just any one ofe things. it's, basically, all of those things wrapped into one. at the same time, i've been impressed by the fact that the ongoing border crisis that's been ongoing in texas has produced a moment of bipartisan consensus and clarity, which are rare when we talk about immigration. for example, we all agree that the united states must continue to uphold the rule of law, that all of us are better off, including the people who want to come to the united states as immigrants, if they can come through a legal system and not -- in an orderly way, and not in a flood of humanity that has surrendered themselves to the tender mercies of the criminal organizations that funnel children and other immigrants up from central america through mexico into south texas. we all agree that our policies

should be one of not encouraging central american children -- and particularly their parents -- from putting their lives at risk in the hands of these criminal organizations. and we all agree that the present levels of chaos and confusion on our southern border are totally unacceptable. no one is arguing for the status quo, to my knowledge, and they're unacceptable from both a security perspective and a humanitarian perspective. and i said just a moment ago, mr. president, that no one is arguing that the status quo is acceptable, but i fear that unless we sit down and reason together, we're going to end up with the status quo before we leave here for the august recess, because unless we're successful in passing the needed policy changes that will actually address some of the causes of the current crisis as well as appropriate money that's

needed on an emergency basis to help build capacity to deal with it, the status quo is what we're going to get, and that would be a disappointing. and i think it would be tragic. so people may have good ideas, and i would love to hear them, but working together with my colleague henry cuellar from the house -- he likes to call himself a blue dog, a democrat -- but he's lives on the border, understands it very well. he and i have come up with a bipartisan, bicameral proposal that would discourage illegal immigration from central america by ending the de facto policy of "catch and release." when people are coming into the country illegally, they are detained by the border patrol, but we know there is a policy of de facto release once they are detained ban because many of thm

are given a notice for a future court hearing and never show up. i had one drug enforcement administration officer say that it really should be retitled "a notice to disappear," because that's what happens. if people are successful in navigating this glitch in our immigration enforcement system, then they're going to keep coming. and the cartels and the people who make money off of transporting people through this perilous journey that i have talked about numerous times up from central america through mexico, a journey where women are routinely sexually assaulted, and some never make it because they die of injuries or exposure. if we don't do something to fix that, then by the time we leave here for the august recess, we will have failed. our bill would reform a 2008

human trafficking law that actually passed essentially by unanimous consent, but nobody dreamed that it would be exploited as it has in a way that's -- that can weaken u.s. immigration enforcement and incentivize central american children to risk everything they have to make this perilous journey. i've said earlier that what i believe to be a fact -- and i think the cartels are smart. i mean, these are rich, wealthy criminal organizations with a lot of shrewd and inventive people. what they've figured out is a business model to exploit this vulnerability in the 2008 law that we need to address before we leave. so let me just give you one -- one sense of the problem. on tuesday of this week, 20 unaccompanieunaccompanied minorm central america had hearings scheduled before a federal immigration court in dallas.

20 scheduled. 1 failt faile18 failed to show . so, roughly -- what's that, 10% showed up? the others didn't show up. we currently don't have the resources to locate those children and make sure they actually do appear. so what happens is they are part of that 40% of illegal immigration, people who enter the country who simply melt into the landscape and we don't hear from them again. but they're still here. given how few unaccompanied minors actually company for their hearings, members of both parties have expressed their view that the 2008 law needs to be changed. the secretary of homeland security, who i talked to most recently yesterday, said -- on tuesday, he said the administration has asked for ann

a change in the law and -- asked for a change in the law and we're active with congress in doing that. the security administrator has said that the border is secure and he is not interested in taking up any reforms like the humane act like congressman cuellar and i have supported. if you don't think that's the right solution, mr. majority leader, where's yours? are there other ideas that people have that are better ideas? i'm game. i think we ought to have that discussion and we ought to be focused on trying to fix it, as secretary johnson is needed. and the and i'm sure there wille differences, but that's what this place is for. to come up with the 80% sliewrk% solution and get the job done. the irony is that the administration acknowledges that change is needed, but is any change forthcoming from the majority leader?

well, apparently not, because he is in the process of having us vote on a so-called clean emergency appropriation bill, without any reforms attached to it. i've called this a blank check, and indeed i believe it is, because it's not responsible just to spend the money without trying to fix the problem and, indeed, if history is any guide -- and i think it is -- we're seeing these numbers go up every year. in other words, it's estimated that of the 57,000 unaccompanied minors that have been detained at our southwestern border since august, that number could agree t--could grow to as high as 90,0 next year. it could have as many as 145,000. the presiding officer, like me, has read stories in "the washington post" and "new york times" and elsewhere about the bashlock that'bashbacklash thats

these children are being warehoused around the country. this is going to get worse as the numbers continue to escalate and as we don't deal with the source of the problem. i think this is a very dangerous situation, where the american people are demanding that we act on our best judgment, trying to work together in a bicameral, bipartisan way. but so far at least the majority leader, the democratic leader, has rejected any changes in the 2008 law, even along the lines that secretary johnson, secretary of homeland security, has suggested. i've actually heard that there are proposals, legislative language that's been floated among our democratic colleagues here in the senate. but under order orders of the we house, none of that has been shared with anyone on this side of the aisle. i hope that changes, because we need to be sharing ideas. we need to be working toward a consensus here, because we've

got basically the rest of this week and next we, and we're out of here, and this problem is not going to get better; it is going to get worse. well, the president -- we could use some help from the president, using some of his political capital and the power and the authority that only the resident of the white house has to try to work together with congress to get something done. seven weeks ago he called this an urgent humanitarian crisis. but for some reason unknown to me, the president has still refused to go to the border himself to witness what's happening there. and i worry that he is living in a bubble, which i think all presidents are prone to do unless they're careful and fight against it. he's living in a bubble that does not allow thim to -- allowo appreciate the seriousness of this situation and how bad it will continue to grow. now, i was back down in

mcallen, texas, last friday, and the i was glad to see a umin of our colleagues -- and i was glad to see that a number of our colleagues had traveled down to the border. senator murkowski was there from alaska, senator hirono from hawaii, senator blumenthal from connecticut, and other members from the house from california and colorado as well as texas. i'm grateful to he them for coming down -- i'm grateful to them for coming down to this site of this huge crisis. i wish the president would take the same opportunity to see with his own eyes what his fellow democrats saw. when i was back in mcallen and then in mission, texas, which is close to mcallen, last friday, they made crystal clear to me and congressman cuellar that they didn't care if we were republicans or democrats. that part of the state is heavily democrat.

what they cared about is whether we were serious about offering a meaningful solution to this crisis. can you imagine what the impact there is on the local communities and on the state of texas? i mean, this isn't broadly spread along the entire border. this is concentrated on the rio grande valley in south texas, and it's overwhelming the capacity of those local communities and our state to deal with t that' it. that's why our goafn governor st to get more boots on the ground in the form of the national guard. at least governor per economy is willing to do something when -- at least governor perry is willing to do something when the president -- there is no response from washington, d.c. so i would say it is obvious that the status quo along the border is unacceptable and

unsustainable. but the response of the majority leader appears to be that, let's just spend some more money on an emergency basis, but i dare say that if the majority leader wants us to spend $3.7 billion or whatever the figure is -- $2.7 billion on an emergency basis now, we're going to be back here at the end of the year doing it again. we're going to be back in six months doing it again. we're going to be back in another six months doing it again. in other words, unless you're dealing with the source of the problem, we're going to continue to hemorrhage money to try to deal with this crisis when we should be all about deterring people from coming into our country when they have no realistic hope of being able to stay under our current laws. and, as former border patrol deputy chief ron coburn recently was reported, not only has the border patrol's morale been lower than ever -- you have

border patrol who are being diverted from their law enforcement responsibilities in order to change diapers and feed children. you can imagine what advantage the cartels and drug smugglers are taking when the border patrol is relieved of their duties on the border and is busy trying to process these children and other immigrants through these very centers. they're having a field day and they're laughing at the federal government's ineptitude. our current policies are emboldening transnational gangs, jeopardizing public safety, and making a mockery of united states son o son-- of unitedsta. by contrast, the human act would accelerate the removal process for unaccompanied minors who have no valid basis for staying. it would give those who do have a valid basis for staying a timely hearing in front of an immigration judge so they can make their case. and if they can make their case

under current law, they will be able to stay. but it would strongly deter and discourage illegal migration and would help restore something that's sorely needed, which is some order and the rule of law in the situation that is characterized now by sheer chaos. just to clarify, this isn't about comprehensive immigration reform. we still have a lot of work we need to do beyond this. but this is what we can do now together on a bipartisan basis that needs to be done on a timely basis. it is a narrowly targeted measure designed to alleviate a national crisis. nothing more, nothing less. and you would think that that would be something we would all agree is worth doing. i would point out that some of the cosponsors of the humane act include members who voted for the gang of eight immigration bill coming out of the senate and members who voted against

it. so this is one of those rare points of bipartisanship and clarity as to what the problem is and what we need to do to fix it that is bringing together people on a bipartisan basis. our legislation transcends the typical left-right, democratic-republican immigration debate. it is a genuine bipartisan solution to a genuine emergency and it deserves a vote. and i hope the majority leader will reconsider his earlier position that all he wants us to do is write a blank check without any real reform. now the majority leader may not himself particularly like the legislation that congressman cuellar and i have introduced, but if he doesn't like that, doesn't it make sense that he would offer something different, something he thinks maybe would be a better solution? i'd be glad to take a look at it. but if you don't like our plan, fine. but i would ask where is your plan? because if you don't offer one

and if you block a vote on sensible reforms, all you're doing is guaranteeing that the current border crisis will continue. again, i'd urge the president and the majority leader to come down to south texas, like so many of our other colleagues have done, and take a look for themselves. the very least they could do is say thank you to the border patrol and other federal officers like fema who are trying to deal with this crisis. unless we take action here in washington, the problem is only going to get worse. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: i rise to discuss the bring jobs home act. at a time when washington is stuck in political gridlock, i

believe democrats and republicans should work together on policies that will create jobs not only in nevada but of course across this country. i filed five amendments on policies that i have been working on here in the senate, this congress that will spur natural resources jobs throughout the west. and i stand before this body today to urge action on what i consider to be commonsense proposals. mr. president, as you know, roughly 85% of the land in nevada is controlled by the federal government. other western states range somewhere between 50% and 80%. this situation presents our local and state governments with a lot of unique challenges. our communities' economic vitality is directly tied to the way the federal government manages our federal lands. and as a result one of my top priorities in the senate is to implement reforms to streamline bureaucratic red tape that gets in the way of natural resources job creation. so with that, i have five

amendments that i filed, that i have filed to deal with public lands specific issues that directly affect rural nevada and rural america and i encourage my colleagues across the aisle to work with me so that we consider mine and other job-related amendments. if given the opportunity, we could spur natural resources related economic development across this country and especially across the west. my first amendment is the lion county economic development and conservation act. it is a nevada centric job, a bill that i have been focusing on for years that to the disappointment of my constituents have been held up through this gridlock. the lyon conservation act would transform the local county in my state that is struggling the most during this current recession. the bill allows the city of

yurington to partner with nevada copper to develop roughly 12,500 acres of land surrounding the nevada copper pumpkin hollow project site. the intent of this legislation is economic growth. the land purchased by the city will be used for mining act yichts, -- activities, recreation and open space. enactment of this legislation is the last obstacle in the way of the company moving forward and the creation of over 1,000 jobs. for a rural county like lyon county, 1,000 jobs truly is a game changer. my second amendment, the public lands job creation act, will create jobs by streamlining the bureaucratic process, cutting red tape and ensuring that the b.l.m. reviews federal register notices in a timely manner. the permitting and approval process for energy and mining projects on federal lands takes several years.

largely because of the unnecessary delays which cause businesses valuable time, resources and jobs. this amendment which i've introduced, i've also introduced as a stand-alone piece of legislation. it streamlines the process by holding these agencies accountable to work effectively and timely to limit the negative effects of bureaucratic delays. specifically, if b.l.m. does not review a federal register notice by 45 days, the notice will be considered to be approved and the state b.l.m. office will immediately forward the notice to be published in the federal register. this type of work is basically the transfer of paperwork, but a transfer that is consistently holding up important job-creating projects. earlier this year i facilitated a meeting between a local company going through the process to start a large hardrock mineral mine and the

local b.l.m. to break this bureaucratic logjam. this mine will create hundreds of new jobs. and while we're able to get the ball rolling in this particular instance, i greatly appreciated the agency's work to move forward also. it shouldn't require congressional interaction to spur prompt action. my legislation will provide certainty to our local job creators. now, my third amendment, the public lands renewable energy development act, it's an initiative we've been working on for many years. this legislation is a strong bipartisan proposal that will help create jobs, progress towards energy independence and preserve our nation's natural wonders by spurring renewable energy development on public lands. energy is one of nevada's greatest assets, and i believe that continuing to develop renewable and alternative sources are important to nevada's economic future.

geothermal and solar production in my state is a major part of the united states all of the above energy strategy. in 2013 nevada ranked second in the nation for geothermal energy production and third for solar production. 18% of our total electricity generated came from renewable. that's compared to the national average of 13%. our nation's public lands can play a critical role in that mission, but uncertainty in the permitting process impedes or delays our ability to harness their renewable energy potential. under current law permits for wind and solar development are completed under the same process as other surface uses like pipelines, roads, and power lines. the b.l.m. and forest service needs a permitting process tailored to the unique characteristics and impacts of renewable energy projects. this initiative develops a straightforward process and will

drive investments towards the highest quality renewable sources. so in addition, mr. president, the legislation ensures a fair return for public lands communities. since federal lands are not taxable, state and local governments deserve a share of the revenues from the sales of energy production on public lands that are within their county or state borders. these resources will help local governments deliver critical services and develop much-needed capital improvement projects, projects such as road main street nants, public safety -- maintenance, public safety and of course law enforcement. this proposal, in my opinion, is a win-win situation. it's good for economic development while at the same time protecting the natural treasures out west that all of us value most. my fourth amendment, the energy consumers relief act, gets the government out of the way of our private-sector natural resource job creators.

instead of advocating for policies that will put people back to work, this administration's e.p.a. continues to develop rules that will increase americans' utility bills, cause companies to lay off employees and stifle economic growth. my amendment will specifically require the e.p.a. to be transparent with proposing and issuing energy-related regulations with an economic impact of more than $1 billion. additionally, it would prohibit the e.p.a. from finalizing a rule if the secretary of energy, in consultation with other relevant agencies, determines the rule would cause significant adverse effects to the economy. and finally, mr. president, my final amendment, the emergency fuels reduction act tackles a major problem many of our communities out west are facing right now, and that's catastrophic wildfires. one of the greatest challenges facing our western forests and rangelands is the growing

severity and the length of the fire season. nevada is a handful, one of the handful of western states that seemingly keeps enduring record-breaking fire seasons year after year after year. we're always going to have fires out west, mr. president, but we must be proactive in treating our forests and rangelands so that we can reduce the size, the frequency and the intensities of these forest fires. my amendment streamlines the bureaucratic process for fire prevention projects. where a dangerous density of fuel threatens critical infrastructure like power lines, schools, water delivery canals, private property owners that live adjacent to federal lands and areas that threaten endangered species like the greater sage-grouse. every year, every year i hear from ranch thears live in our northern rural counties like

humboldt counties where through no fault of their own fires on federal land spread on to their private property. the federal agencies have to prioritize proactive preventive work in these areas. my constituents should not have to suffer because the federal government is simply not doing their job to properly manage our own lands. i think nearly everyone can agree on a commonsense proposal like the energy fuel reduction act. if this body adopts my five amendments, mr. president, congress could go a long way, long way towards spurring economic development and job creation within the mining, energy development, ranching, timber and outdoor recreation industries. these types of jobs are the bedrock of our western way of life and concurrently these fields are struggling the most under this administration's restrictive federal land management policies. it's no coincidence that our western rural communities are suffering from unemployment rates well above the national

average. let's get the government off their backs and allow them to do what they do best, and that is to create jobs. so at a time when the american public continues to lose faith in congress, i hope the senate can put partisan politics aside, restore order to the traditional amendment process that this deliberative body has been known for over time. we should break through this political gridlock and have an open amendment process through the senate. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. shortly we're going to have the opportunity to vote on a cloture motion for pamela harris for confirmation as u.s. court of appeals for the fourth circuit which includes maryland. i urge my colleagues not only to support the cloture motion but to support her confirmation as a judge on the fourth circuit. senator mikulski and i have a

process, and i want to thank the senior senator from maryland, senator mikulski for the process that we use in screening recommendations to the president for judgeships. i'm very proud of that process. it's a very open process. we have recruited, we think, the very best in the legal professional to serve as our judges and i'm proud to be part of the process with senator mikulski. in all of the candidates that i've interviewed for an appellate court, i must tell you, pamela harris has stood out as one of the most qualified individuals that we had in the legal community to sit on our appellate court. she is exceptional in her qualifications. well qualified. she's an excellent supreme court litigator, has clerked at the federal appellate court, supervised policy initiatives at the department of justice and she has dedicated her career and her professional life to improving the administration of justice as a public servant.

a little bit of background about her, particularly her family. her grandmother was a polish jewish immigrant to the united states who valued education and worked hard to overcome personal adversity. her mom put herself through law school with young children after a divorce and died from cancer a few years later. mrs. harris relied in part on pell grants to attend college at yale. her story represents the american dream and the american experience and the opportunity of this country, coming from immigrant families. after graduating from public high school in montgomery county, walt whitman high school, mrs. harris received her b.a. summa cum laude. after graduation from law school she clerked for judge harry t. edwards of the united states court of appeals in the district