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 of columbia circuit and then

later clerked for justice john paul stevens of the supreme court of the united states between 1992 and 1993. she became an associate professor at the university of pennsylvania law school. gipping in 2007 while she was still in private practice, she codirected the law school's supreme court and was a visiting professor at georgetown university law center. in 2009, ms. harris was named the executive director of the supreme court institute at georgetown serving as executive director until 2010. ms. harris then joined the justice department office of legal policy where she served as the principal deputy assistant attorney general until returning to georgetown in 2012. ms. harris is currently a visiting professor at georgetown university law center and a senior advisor to the supreme court institute. it is not surprising that the american bar association has

given her the highest rating, as unanimously well-qualified for this appointment. she has appeared as counsel or cocounsel in briefs in approximately 100 cases before the federal court of appeals in the united states supreme court. her practice has been pretty evenly divided between criminal cases and civil cases. when it comes to supreme court litigation, i must tell you, i don't think ms. harris has an equal as far as her qualifications here. her clinic at georgetown prepares litigants for the supreme court. in other words, she provides an experience for those who are going to be before the supreme court as to how to properly litigate those cases, and she takes them on a first come, first served basis. it is not ideological at awesome it is to make sure that the highest-quality presentations to the highest court of our land so we get the best decisions made

by the supreme court of united states. that's the type of person we need on our court of appealsment. as i said, i don't know of a person more qualified than ms. harris. she ngds the different role of an advocate, as someone writing an opinion, a commentary or a quoll umand a judge. i want to emphasize this: these a persoshe is a person whe all bring our views and passions to our life, but she ngds what the judiciary is all about. and, mr. president, as is the practice of the judiciary committee -- and i served on the judiciary committee. i am proud of my service and thank senator leahy for his leadership on that committee. after the public hearing, there are questions for the record that are submitted by the senators. that was certainly true in ms. harr harris' case.

i invite mys colleagues to read these answers. i can just imagine the people in the white house trying to go through all of these legal sited that she gave on each of these answers that our colleagues requested. it is one of the most thorough answers i've seen and thoroughly vetted by the supreme court decisions. and i mention that here because it's exactly why i believe what she has told success what she will do. and that is, she understands the role of a judge in our system. i'm going to quote from her answer that she gave to these questions. and this is quoting mrs. harris. "i fully recognize that the role of a judge is entirely different from the role of an advocate. if confirmed as a judge, my role would be to apply governing law and precedent impartially to the facts of a particular case." "it's inappropriate for any judge or justice to base his or her decision on their own

personal views or on public opinion. if confidence as confirmed as , i would fanal followly follow the precedentials of the supreme court in applying the approps and only the interpretative approaches used by those courts." don't take my word for it. don't take her qualifications for it. look at the record. look at the letters that she sent in support -- that were sent in support of mrs. harris. i am going to quote from one that was signed by more than 80 of her professional peers. it includes individuals who were appointed by republican presidents to key positions including gregory gehr, the former solicitor general to george bush. it includes many in that category. i am reading from this letter. this letter is part of the record, was made part of the record in the judiciary committee. and just in case it is not part of our record, i would ask

consent that it be included in the record of these proceedings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: and that letter says in part, "we are all lawyers from diverse pack grounds and varying afill bagsations but we are united in our admiration for pam's skill as a lawyer and our respect for her integrity, her intellect, her judgment, and her fair is mindedness." the letter continues, "many of us have had the opportunity to work with pam on appellate matters. she has been cocounsel to some of us, opposing counsels to others, and a valuable colleague to all. in her appellate work, pam has demonstrated extraordinary skill. she is a quick study, careful listener and acute judge of legal argument. she knows the value of clarity, candor, vigor, and responsiveness. of equal importance, she has always conducted herself with consummate professionalism, grace and collegiality and has a humble and down-to earth approach to her work.

the letter concludes, her well-rounded experience makes her well-prepared for the docket of a federal appellate court. her sub-stan:15 knowledge and low-key temperament will be great assets for the position for which she has been nominated." she has the whole package. she has the intellectual ability, she has the ability to communicate, she has the demeanor that we would like to see on our federal bench, and let me just add one more characteristic before i yield the floor. i see the distinguished republican leader of the judiciary committee is here and he's going to be commenting. she also has empathy for the importance of our legal system to all. she's volunteered her time to pro bono work in order to help address the growing access to justice gap in our system for individual whose cannot afford legal assistance, as we still strive to provide equal justice under law. while in private practice she

established a pro bono program in which the law firm where she workeed worked with the maryland office of the public defender to provide pro bono representation to defendants appealing their criminal convictions in state courts. and she supervised attorneys participating in the program. just another indication that she understands the oath that she takes to dispense justice without partiality to wealth, that everyone is entitled to access to our legal system and she has taken personal interest in doing that. senator mikulski and i are proud that she is a longtime resident of montgomery county, maryland. we take great pride in the fact that she is a marylander, and we would urge our colleagues to support this nomination. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor.

mr. grassley: madam president? officerrer sph the senator iowa. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: like my colleague from maryland, i come to the floor to discuss the nomination of professor pamela parriharris to the first circui. i come for another reason, to give me reasons for opposition. contemplating my vote on this nominee has been particularly memorable process. that's because, as i've reviewed the professor's writings, her statements, her legal briefs, it seems likes i was reviewing the record of not one but two nominees. and the size of those two nominees' records were rather uneequal. you see, on the one hand, there's the record of the

prenomination professor harris, and then there's the record reaching all the way -- that's the record that reaches all the way back to her graduation from law school in 1990, a record rich in public statements and writings, no way to question intellect, but it's a record long enough to develop a distinct and stridently left-wing philosophy. now, that's one record. then, on the other hand, there's a record of the pos post-nominan professor harris, it is a dramatically shorter record. that record only began a few weeks ago at the professor's confirmation hearing june 24. it's a record that consists of the professor's testimony before

the judiciary committee and, of course, her responses to questions for the record from my colleagues and from this senator. it's a record of a jurist who will be faithful to statutory text and constitutional precedence, a record with comments that could be mistaken for those of a justice scalia or a justice thomas. but what's so unbelievable to me is how totally at odds the record of the prenomination professor is with the record of the post-nomination professor. like i said before, it's as if there were two entirely distinct nominees vying for this single seat on the fourth circuit. so for the next few minutes, i'd like to share with my colleagues

some excerpts from the record of the pre- prenomination professor harris, and some excerpts from the postnomination professor. there's no question that the professor spent her entire legal career before her nomination to the federal bench; tha -- that , consistently and aggressively advocating for the constitution that is well outside the mainstream of constitutional. that's the prenomination record. but like i said, that all changed when she testified before the committee. so i would start with the professor's prenomination views on constitutional interpretation. she has spoken with unusual

clarity and unusual forthrightness on the topic. that's, in part, because she served for many years on the board of the left-wing american constitution society. that ironically named group spends a lot of time developing theories of interpretation that are designed to attack and re-define key constitutional principles, and the professor was at the forefront of those discussions in many years. so how exactly did the prenomination professor harris view the sources of constitutional meaning? here's a statement that she made before the american constitution society 2008. quote -- a fairly long quote -- "i just don't think that any

account of the constitution that even seems to privilege the constitution as it was originally ratified is consistent with the way that we should think about the constitution. yes, the values, the principles on some level of genera generale there at the beginning, but they take their meaning, and they should take their meaning from what comes after." end of quote. now, we should pause here for a moment because she said a lot in that quote. first, we hear how the professor rejects, out of hand, the idea that the constitution as originally ratified should guide its interpretation. instead, she sees only ambiguous principles. those principles, according to the professor, are more or less

empty and meaningless by themselves. that's because those principles, as she formulates them, take their meaning primarily from subsequent developments. an and then the professor goes on to specify exactly which subsequent developments she's talking about. she explains that her interpretive -- quote -- "source of legitimacy most particularly is what the people do" at what she calls critical junctures, including civil rights movements, the women's movements, the gay rights movements." end of quote. these movements according to the professor -- quote -- "reconstitute what it is that we're talking about when we talk

about american constitutional tradition, when we say words like equality and liberty, when we change what they mean." end of quote. so we need to pause to unpack that statement. first, the professor explicitly identifies for herself -- quote unquote -- a source of legitimacy to be used in constitutional interpretation. that source of legitimacy is not the constitution's text. it's not its structure. it's not its history. it's not its original intent. it's not any other establisheddent -- any other interpretive method. it's something outside the law

altogether, and that happens to be social and political movements. or let me put it this way. they are the social and political movements that professor harris chooses for inspiration. they are the social and political movements that professor harris decides have risen all the way up to constitutional status. it's these extra legal sources that she says changes the scope of the constitution's guarantees of equality and liberty. i'm sure you're going to say this sounds like i'm making it up. i'm not. the professor literally said that -- quote -- "we change what they mean." that sentence is a quote. so who's the we the professor is

talking about? i suspect it's the people in social movements that professor harris finds particularly inspirational. i suspect it's also the people who share her views that the constitutional original guarantees are merely empty vessels that can be filled with whatever political or social ideas a judge might privilege -- and i use her words, as the professor puts it. in other context, professor harris has said that the meaning of the constitution changes based on things like -- quote -- "an evolving and changing public understanding." another quote like things like -- quote -- "the consequences of constitutional rulings." and lastly, the circumstances on

the ground. note the absence of any legal standards in that list which seems to be the basis of the rule of law or the basis of stare decisis. let me finish up with the professor's quote. it's fairly long. quote -- "i think the constitutional legitimacy comes even in part from the fact that it does reflect these social movements and what happens at these particular moments when the people come together and force this kind of change in a way that we think about ourselves and what it means to be american. and i think there's something about originalism, at least as it's commonly understood, that's inconsistent with that. and that's why i'm not an

originalist even now." end of quote. so let's recap. the constitution derives some of its legitimacy as the professor put it, from social movements at particular moments. again, how are we to know which particular moments rise to the level of constitutional significance? now, we'll have to ask professor harris, because there is absolutely no principled or objective way of making that kind of a decision. and it's certainly not a legal decision. it happens to be a matter of personal preference. what else can we take away from that quote, or a lot of her

quotes? well, we also learned that the professor is definitely not an originalist. she literally says -- quote unquote -- i'm not an originalist. i want to you keep that in mind because what i have to say shows how she can quickly change her views. let's turn now to what the post nomination professor thinks about constitutional interpretation. as i said before, the contrast is so striking that it's almost like we're dealing with two different nominees for the single seat on the fourth circuit. does the postnomination professor still think constitutional principles change with the times? in her response to my question for the record, professor harris wrote this -- quote -- "i do not

believe that the constitution's provisions and principles change or evolve other than by the amendment process article 5. they are fixed and enduring, and judges are not free to change them whether by incorporating public preferences or their own policy views." end of quote. that's really astounding. it's like the night and day differences with the judicial philosophy that i have previously quoted from the prenomination professor harris. and it's totally incompatible with that philosophy which professor harris has developed over the decades. now suddenly we hear that the professor believes in unchanging and in fixed, dare i say eternal principles that cannot be

changed except by article 5 amendment. so all of a sudden there's no more social movements. all of a sudden there's no more critical junctures. all of a sudden there's no more -- quote unquote -- what the people do. all of a sudden no more privileging. those are her words. or reconstituting -- her words. so no more privileging or reconstituting constitutional meaning. and all of a sudden now the meanings are fixed in our constitution. and all that other stuff that she said in the rear view -- that she has previously said happens to be in the rear view mirror. now judges are forbidden from

incorporating public preferences to change constitutional principles. all of a sudden public preferences is interpreted by the judge, of course. a few years ago that was at the very core of her interpretive philosophy. interpretive philosophy. i'd like to give you another post nomination quote. quote -- "i would never suggest that a justice of the supreme court or any judge should change his or her opinions based on public opinion. that is not the way i view the role of a judge." end of quote. now that happens to be the way i view the role of a judge. now she says that's the way she sees the role of a judge, but

it's completely contrary to what she had thought for decades before this nomination. so we have the post nomination professor harris added that courts should be -- quote -- "especially cautious on social issues when the political branches and political institutions are deeply and rapidly engaged in those issues and leave as much to the democratic process." end of quote. now, that statement is also massive sea change. for the prenomination professor, the democratic process went hand in glove with the judicial process. now, however, with confirmation on the line, the post nomination professor sees a wall between politics and the courts. i'd like to return to the prenomination professor for

another quote on her approach to judicial decision making. here's what she candidly told a gathering of the american constitution society about that issue in 2009. quote -- "i always feel unapologetically, you know, left to my own devices, my own best reading of the constitution is pretty close to where i am." end of quote. so where exactly is the constitution in her view? she tells us flatly -- quote -- "i think the constitution is a profoundly progressive document. i think it's born of a progressive impulse." end of quote. well, if that's where the constitution is, where then is the professor? again, there's no mystery here because she's very up front with that answer. a quote again, "i'm a profoundly

liberal person, so we" -- she's talking about herself and the constitution as one -- quote -- "we match up pretty well. i make no apologies for that." end of quote. think for a moment about just what the professor is saying there. i frankly cannot recall a judicial nominee who has actually expressed her beliefs that the constitution embodies the nominee's personal political philosophy. but that's exactly what professor harris does in that statement. think about how she put it. the constitution is pretty much where she is as a liberal. it's almost in sync with her views. that was a crystal clear explanation of how the prenomination professor harris viewed her beliefs and the constitution.

so then what does the post nomination professor harris have to say at her hearing? she told our judiciary committee -- quote -- "i do not believe that it is the view of a judge ever to import his or her personal values into judicial decision making. end of quote. again, the post nomination statement is strikingly at odds with the prenomination views. or perhaps we should actually take the post nomination statement at face value. after all, professor harris doesn't need to import her own views when interpreting the constitution. as she explained, it just happens to be almost as liberal as she already is. so that fortunate coincidence is very fortunate for her, i suppose. what about the professor's views on a particular judicial

philosophy? remember earlier her prenomination criticism originalism and her assertion that she's definitely not an originalist? that happens to be out the window as well. here's her post nomination testimony. i do not reject originalism as an interpretive method. end of quote. those are just a few of the contradictory quotations from pre and postnomination professor harris that illustrates strikingly almost unbelievable inconsistencies in her judicial philosophy and understanding of constitution interpretation. the quotations also point to issues that are deeply troubling about this nominee, and i'll discuss a few of them. first, this nominee has made many statements suggesting that if confirmed, she would pursue a

results-oriented whatever-it-takes approach to deciding cases. from this nominee's past commentary, we know that not only is she a devoted liberal, but that she also would strive to move the courts left ward to suit her ideological preferences. so, for example, in discussing the warren court, the professor said that she wondered -- quote -- whether we almost have by now a stunted sense of what the legal choices really are and what really is a liberal legal outcome, end of quote. so just listen to that phrasing again. liberal legal outcome. is there any doubt that this nominee views the court as just simply a third political branch?

so i will quote again -- quote -- "if chief justice warren came out a certain way, that must be as liberal as it gets." that's not right. i think that we've stunted the spectrum of legal thought in a way that removes the possibility that there could have been more progressive readings of the fourth amendment and the fifth amendment, end of quote. it seems that professor harris doesn't think the warren court was nearly liberal enough. that's is fairly astonishing view in itself. i often hear liberals and some of our nominees talk about the so-called living constitution. well, it's clear to me that this nominee sees not a living constitution but a profoundly political constitution. she said so herself. she sees judges as proxies

engaged in a tug of war who use judicial power as an instrument of political control. her statement as i explained a few minutes ago also are -- her statements, as i splaipped a few minutes ago, also are clear indication of her belief that the role of a judge is to reflect those political and social forces. for example, speaking about justice kennedy's stance on gay marriage, the professor said that the justice -- quote -- should be changing the same way the whole country is changing, end of quote. that is the language of politics, not the pling of law. she said so many things to this effect, i find myself asking this question -- will this nominee even consider the law when deciding a case or is it

all progressive outcomes, social movements and critical junctures, to use three of her phrases. so it's clear that there are two professor harrises, the prenomination professor and the protestnomination professor. so let's not be naive about which professor harris will sit on the federal bench for life if confirmed, because no one else is being naive about that question. take, for example, an article published last may in "new republic" gushing that the professor is a -- quote -- champion of liberal jurisprudence and will be a sympathetic vote for liberal causes, end of quote. we know that -- that will be the case from the prenomination professor's long record of

impassioned liberal advocacy. the article also observes, accurately, in my view, that professor harris' -- quote -- clearly has an interest in using her voice to project a liberal jurisprudence perspective, end of quote. well, that quotation from the article pretty much sums it up. all anyone needs to do to confirm that claim is to read the prenomination professor's public statements because they're all out there. it's not a secret that this nominee thinks about what this -- what this nominee thinks about the law and what she thinks about the courts. and it's no secret what kind of a judge this nominee will be if she takes the branch. so it seems pretty clear to me that the timing to vote on this

nominee is not purely coincidental. we know this because of yesterday's obamacare decision handed down by the d.c. circuit and the first circuit. last november when the majority changed the cloture rule on judicial nominees, i told my colleagues that the decision was a blatant attempt to stack the d.c. circuit with judges who would view sympathetically the administration's arguments in upcoming obamacare lawsuits. the other side dismissed the notion that the rules change was designed to tilt the court in the president's direction and to salvage obamacare. well, as we all know, a three-judge panel on the d.c. circuit decided the halbig case against the administration and

it only took the administration about an hour to announce it would seek a rehearing by the d.c. circuit which now includes four of the president's nominees. as we all know, our distinguished majority leader rushed through three of those four immediately after the rules change, and yesterday the distinguished majority leader finally admitted that the up coming en bloc panel on the halbig ruling vindicated his decision to go nuclear. he said -- quote -- "i think if you look at simple math, it does." end of quote. so the distinguished majority leader isn't even trying to disguise intent, and that's exactly what happened here with this nominee on our way to the fourth circuit. this nomination is being considered ahead of other circuit nominees on the executive calendar. why is this fourth circuit

nomination being fast tracked? why fast track one of the most liberal nominees that we have considered today? if history is any guide, the answer is simple. it's all about saving obamacare. the other side wants to stack the fourth circuit just like the d.c. circuit because the fourth circuit hears a disproportionate number of significant cases involving federal law and regulations, just like the d.c. circuit. so my colleagues should understand that a vote for this nominee is also a solid vote for deciding cases favorable to the affordable care act as those cases make their way through the court. i'm voting no on this nominee and urge my colleagues to do the same, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: there are eight unanimous consent requests for

committees to meet during today's session. they have been approved by senator mcconnell and by me. i ask consent that these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the rule 22, following the confirmation vote on calendar number 777, disbrow, the senate consider and vote on calendar number 919, mendez, 920, rogoff and 921, andrews. further, at a time to be determined by me in consultation with senator mcconnell, the senate consider calendars number 915, kaye -- okay. i was a little stunned there. same person. one is to be member of the commission, the other is to be chair. that's 915, 916, kaye, 913

mohorovic, 744 mckie i don't know. that there be two minutes for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to each vote. that upon the use or yielding back of that time the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on the nominations. further, that if any nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table without any action or debate, no further motion be in order to the nomination. these statements be related to the nomination printed in the record and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: if i could revise my request, i ask -- i ask consent that notwithstanding rule 22

following the confirmation, the word should have been cloture. so i ask -- it should read i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22 following the cloture vote on calendar number 777, so if the record would reflect that, that would be perfect. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: so for the information of all senators, we expect nominations to be considered today to be confirmed by voice. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i wanted to just come to the floor for a few minutes today to talk about the absolutely devastating wildfires that are currently burning through farms and communities and public lands in our home state of washington. madam president, as a lifelong resident of washington state and

the pacific northwest, i have always been aware of the annual risks and dangers that wildfires pose to our region. every summer, it's a combination of rising temperatures and months of dry weather and our state's, obviously, abundance of forests and fields have resulted in wildfires capable of threatening homes and businesses across our state. and each summer, we have worked to become better and better prepared to help protect our communities. but, madam president, one wildfire burning this year is the single largest we have seen in washington state, and since last tuesday, massive wildfires covering hundreds of thousands of acres have ravaged our farm lands and our agricultural areas and our cherished public lands, and most importantly communities throughout chelland county and okinawa counties and other areas of washington. i'm talking about a massive wave that has burned an area four times the size of seattle, which

is our state's largest city. even for those of us who have lived our entire lives with the reality of wildfires, this is unprecedented. so, madam president, while i'm here on what we call -- in what we call the other washington today, my heart, my thoughts, my prayers are in central and eastern washington and even here on the senate floor, i can't help but think of the firefighters and first responders and everyone who is neglecting sleep and rest to protect their communities. and most of all, i can't stop thinking about the families who have lost their homes and all they own to this horrific disaster. but, madam president, if there's one thing i know about our state, it's that we don't turn away from hard times or hard work, and over the last several weeks, i have talked with a number of the local leaders in the communities that are facing these fires. sheriff frank rogers, sheriff brian burnett, and mayor libby harrison in the small tina of

peteras where dozens and dozens of homes, including her own, have been lost to this fire. every one of them told us that while their community is facing hard times, nobody is giving up. they have been doing everything they can to protect each and every person in their rural communities, and so far they have been able to do that. and, madam president, i just want to share one story that speaks to what is happening in my home state right now. this little small town of peteras has been hit very hard. they have not lost any lives but they have lost over 100 homes and buildings throughout their community, but one building they did not lose was their school which has always been to them their central place of their community, and it's now the central staging area as these fires rage on. just like in many other small communities, the school in peteras serves kids in grades k-12, and last week that fire came within just a few pete of that -- feet of that school. firefighters and responders were working elsewhere so the school could have easily burned down until a local man by the name of

augustine morales decided to do something about it. he and a friend used hoses on the backs of their own trucks to fight back that fire and save their kids' school. augustine was interviewed by a local tv station. i want to quote what he said. he said -- "everything was going through my mind because i have my kids. i have to take care of my kids. i was just thinking if you die, i don't know what's going to happen." so, madam president, that's what so many people just like augustine are facing right now in central and eastern washington, and i know they won't be giving up. so in addition to our thoughts and prayers, we have got to make sure that we are working to have all of the federal resources they need available, and i'm thrilled that the senate supplemental funding bill that was released yesterday actually includes $615 million for firefighting efforts in western states. the one i requested along with my colleague, senator cantwell, and ten other colleagues. but we know there is a lot more work to be done. we have to get that funding

passed through the senate and the house and to the president's desk right away, and i'm really pleased that early yesterday morning, the president, in fact, made an emergency declaration that is going to help those communities fight these wildfires. i know that i and senator cantwell and all of us are going to be working with our local officials and federal officials all the way up to the president to make sure that those communities get what they need. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the

senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i join my colleague from washington --. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. ms. cantwell: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: i thank the president. i join my colleague from washington to recognize the heroic efforts that are underway in the state of washington, battling wildfires, the individuals that are trying to protect their homes and property, and our hearts go out to the families friends of robert kazusky, who suffered a heart attack trying to save his own home. i want to thank the local, federal and state agencies that are working together to meet the needs of extinguishing these multiple fires and for what they've done to save lives in what is the largest wildfire in our state's history. i want to thank all the community organizing individuals who have done so much work in

their individual communities to support the efforts of the firefighters and to work with everybody in the community to make sure that every aspect of security and safety are there for the families who have lost their homes. and i want to thank the individuals who have been working to provide shelter and to help their neighbors no matter what it takes to help them. there is a huge spirit alive in the okanogan of people working very hard to make sure that they are very hard -- they are also contributing. they have a lot of self-reliance, spirit and want to make sure as others are moving in, they are also responsible in helping with fighting the fires and to work to make sure as many people in the community can be saved from this devastation. so we are hearing many moving stories of washingtonians donating their time,

volunteering goods, things that everybody in the community needs. so i just want to thank the people of washington and particularly the central part of the state for everything they're doing to help battle this fire. i also came to the floor, madam president, to talk about the ex-im export-import bank. time is running out. we only have a few days left here before the august recess and literally only a few legislative days when we return to make sure we reauthorize this important credit agency that helps manufacturers export their jobs overseas. when you grow u.s. manufacturing, you grow u.s. jobs and what we want to do is make sure our manufacturers have a fair shot at getting their products sold overseas. it makes no sense that the fate of an organization that is such an important tool to businesses anddoms no cost to the taxpayers

can't get reauthorized. i'm sure there are collection colleagues in the house of representatives who in they had a chance would kill the agency altogether. last week 1 governors signed a letter -- 31 governors signed a letter -- 31 governors signed a letter that basically reauthorized -- calling for the reauthorization of the export-import bank and that brings the total number of governors to 37. so i'm proud that my governor, jay inslee, and long with robert bentley from alabama led an effort to say to the congress this is an important thing to do. they see the results in their state as relates to jobs and they want to make sure we get this reauthorized. there are governors from all over the spectrum, liberal democrats to moderate democrats and even tea party republicans, so there are governors out there from neil amber covery of hawaii

to paul la-page of maine who want to -- paul lepage of main who want to get this reauthorized. even though they are from many different spectrums they see this creates jobs in their states. i'd like to point out nine of those signatures come from republican governors, plus five republican governors sent their own letter. so that's 14 republican governors who joined a chore us of choices -- chorus of choices to make sure we're doing what's right for the economy and renew this charter for the export-import bank. i want to point out from the letter that it basically says without the financing, u.s. firms would have lost sales to overseas competitors. and so this is what the governors are trying to tell us. they are stewards in their state, of jobs and the economy and they're very concerned about the export-import bank so we want to make sure that we continue to listen to those

governors and get their help in making sure their members of congress from their individual states support this legislation. they also are talking to thousands of small business owners who are saying that failing to reauthorize the export-import bank would lead to fewer exports and a loss of jobs in 50 states, and they are out there trying to make sure that they are drumming up support in the delegations of their state congressional delegations, and that is because trade is a critically important aspect to our economy. i just talked to one of my colleagues today who was telling me how much their state was recovering but in the areas where they were doing the most exports their state was really growing, that particular part. in 2013, u.s. exports reached $2.3 trillion in goods and services. so exports across the nation contribute to the -- that are

attributable to the ex-im bank support about $37 billion of u.s. exports and about 205,000 related jobs. so you can see that the export-import bank is a vital tool to creating jobs in our u.s. economy and it does all of this returning $1 billion to the federal treasury. so to me it is a win-win for taxpayers and it's a good aspect for jobs. as i said, it's 205,000 export-related jobs and $3.7 billion in exports. and that supports over 2,000 small businesses throughout our country. so that's pale, actually, the direct impact of businesses -- that's actually the direct impact of the businesses being helped by the export-import bank. i say that because so many more people are involved in the supply chain and we talked about that last week. but i wanted to, madam president, address one

issue that is here today that i hear from a lot of colleagues, well, isn't this just something the prospect could do? -- patrick do -- private sector could do? i'm here to debunk that myth. in the words of the private sector it is all about them needing the help of the bank to actually make deals work. anyone who thinks that they know what they're talking about should really -- i want to make sure people are clear first and foremost in the bank's charter it prohibits, it prohibits private firms and individuals from having -- it prohibits them from competing with private financing and requires that all financing have a reasonable chance of repayment. and so literally in the bank's charter it says that they're not there to compete with these banks. and yet i hear so many times my colleagues on the other side

trying to say, oh, well, this is just something that, you know, government shouldn't be involved in. i just pointed out we actually make money off of it so that part is really good for us because it helps pay down the federal deficit and i mentioned how banks want the partnership with this credit agency because it helps them but it actually is not in their -- it is in their charter that prohibits them from doing so. specifically, the charter says in section 2, that the bank should supplement and encourage and not compete with private capital. not compete with private capital. so there it is in their own charter, exactly how they're supposed to operate. so this is not a bank that somehow is competing with banks across america. they are partnering with financial institutions who see risk in overseas markets that they think are undeveloped and don't have the banking and financing institutions in their

organizations to help get these things done, and so they want to partner with the export-import bank. so it is helping businesses all across our country, and, in fact, 98% of the export-import bank's transactions are involved with banks throughout 2013. so it isn't taking business away from them, it is actually -- it is actually helping businesses throughout our country. so the export-import bank is a leading indicator for u.s. companies in how to get business done in these developing markets and it is often in the national and local banking interest to have a partner like this because they see deals and opportunities that come through their local communities, i know that there are banks, the presiding officer's major banks in parts of the midwest, key bank, others, you know, have talked

to me about how important it is because they have homegrown businesses that come to them, they see the opportunity but they also see the risk, and having this credit agency be a partner with that local bank helps them secure the deal. so as we look at this chart, it basically shows that 98% of the ex-im bank transactions are involving commercial banks. so, again, this notion somehow this bank is competing with the private sector when, in fact, it's basically prohibited in their charter and 98% of the deals are actually done with an individual bank shows that this is really a tool for our commercial banking. so these are banks everywhere from alaska commercial fishing, agriculture bank in anchorage to wallace state bank in texas and national banks like wells fargo and others. so they find it a very, very

viable tool and something that is important to do. according to a recent statement by the bank earns for finance and trade and financial services roundtable, the export-import bank of the united states plays a critical role -- quote -- "in international trade by providing financing products that fill the gap in trade financing that otherwise would not be provided by the private sector" -- end quote. so we're hearing from these individual banks who are saying this and basically articulating that this is a tool. in fact, one c.e.o., john stump from wells fargo, recently talked about his work with a company called air tractor. air tractor is a texas company that manufactures agriculture aircraft with 50% of its business being overseas. and so he said how important it was that the export -- i'm going to say -- quote -- "air traffic wouldn't be where they are today without the export-import bank and certain

things that would not have been done without them." so i want to go back to the fact that the banking industry really does believe that the export-import bank is a necessary tool. the export-import bank is a vital partner for the lending community, according to the bankers association. so, madam president, i think that this shows you that there are people who are just not educated on the structure of the bank, how it works, how important it is to be an important tool for us. so i just want to make sure that we, you know, understand why the private sector can't do these loans themselves. so now if people understand how the bank works and now they want to come back and say they still have been doing -- should be doing it themselves, i want to go to one chart that basically shows some of the challenges that bankers face when they are dealing with this.

they say bank balance sheet limitations, that is, the ability to hold all of those deals on their books over the period of the loan. they have the added risk of exporting to foreign markets, which can be challenging at best. and the lack of the financial sector presence in those emerging markets. so all of those things, if you're, as i just mentioned, one of the -- one of these banks from the wallace state bank in texas or alaska commercial fishing and agricultural bank, you can see they want to help this business in their state export or like in this company that i mentioned the air tractor in texas who manufactures aircraft for agriculture purposes public works you can see they want to help them but again is wallace bank going to be able to go out and assess all these

international marketplaces and assess whether that end customer is going to be able to continue to pay on the life of this purchase? no, this bank isn't figuring out how to do this, so basically they're turning this business now. yet we have a u.s. manufacturer who's figured out a great product, figured out how to get customers overseas, figured out how to compete with international competitors and we have people here strangling the one tool they need, the credit agency that helps the local bank in their community finance the deal. so, madam president, i just want to say that i hope that we resolve this issue with the export-import bank. highway especially thai hope tht our colleagues can come to terms with the amendments that are necessary to move this bill to the senate floor. i no h know that last time we ha similar debate and a lot of discussion but in the end there was about 79 votes for the export-import baipg.

bank i guess i would ask my colleagues to consider how much u.s. manufacturers need to sell in overseas markets. we are having an unbelievable growth in a middle class around the globe. it is going to double in the next 15 years. that's 2.7 million more about middle-class consumers that could buy u.s. products and u.s. services, but they won't if we hamstring the export-import credit agencies that help support banks in the financing of u.s.-manufactured goods sold overseas. so i hope that my colleagues will help us get this bill to the floor, get it reauthorized, and not for short-term, not for three months, not for more mischief to be had, about to give predictability and certainty to people who are actually growing jobs in the united states of america, our manufacturers. thank the president and i yield the floor.

mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i ask unanimous consent that the confirmation votes on menendez, rogoff occur after the dis-bro nomination and all other provisions remain in effect. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. cantwell: thank you, madam president. mr. kaine: madam president, i have got a deal for you. let's create american john jobs. let's do it at no cost it the american taxpayer. i rise to speak about exactly the point that chairwoman cantwell just spoke about, the chairwosm our small business committee. the importance. export-import bank which expires on september 30 of 24 year. the senate and congress need to act to continue the job so we

can -- to continue the bank so that we can create hundreds of thousands of jobs, so we can help american businesses find customers abroad, and do it at no cost to the american taxpayer. chairwoman cantwell did a good job of explaining the bank whand it does. it is an independent, self-success staining governmental agencies and it is one of the most important tools that u.s. companies can have to boost exports to all the countries and customers abroad who want high-quality products produced in the united states. the bank assumes country and credit risks that other private-sector lenders are unable or unwilling to do at a reasonable cost, and it helps level the playing field for u.s. businesses because so many of our global competitors have banks just like this that loan even more or support even more loans than we do. so this is about leveling the playing field for american businesses. in fiscal year 2013, the ex-im

bank approved an all-time high 3,842 loan authorizations with a total estimated export value of $37.4 billion that's estimated to have created or sustained over 200,000 export-related jobs right here in the united states. countries like china, france, germany, korea, and india are extending multiple times as much financing are as our export-import bank. this is not the time to let international competitors eat our lunch. we have to be aggressive and we have to compete. that's why this bank needs to be reauthorized. now, madam president, i'm really here to talk about why it matters in virginia, just using virginia as an example. i know you'll forgive me for being partial to the commonwealth, but anyone could get up here and do exactly what i'm going to do, talk about businesses in their states to whom the export-import bank is incredibly important. in virginia generally since 2007

the ex-im bank has supported 98 companies in every congressional district, 59 are small businesses, 10 will minority-owned, three are women-owned, more than $1 billion in exports supported in virginia since 2007. and i have heard from everybody in virginia, from governor mccall love to the virginia chber of commerce to both the the national and virginia association of manufacturers, saying whatever you do, find an agreement to authorize the continuation of this very important bank. let me tell but four companies, and they're very different companies: rockets, apples, compressors and paper. sounds like a rock, paper,, scissors thing, right? medium-class space systems and rockets, headquarters in dulles.

3,600 employees. launch rockets from all over the country. they build satellites for the u.s. government but also sell commercial communications satellites to many international buyers. this commercial business that orbital has is faced with significant competition from european satellite manufacturers, eades, us a str . those european manufacturers get assistance from their governments to go out and compete for this commercial business and orbital does the same. this neutral ioizes the advantae that european governments try give to their satellite industry. since 2012, orbital has produced 38 satellites. six of them relied on export-import bank financing and would not have been done without the backstop that the ex-im bank

provides. for every commercial satellite that orbital builds, 300 jobs are supported direct and indirect within the company and then there is a supply chain and there is an another additional 300 jobs in the supply change. so the story of orbital manufacturing rockets and satellites is illustrative of the contribution the ex-im bank makes. let's switch from octobers and talk about apples for a minute. turkey knob orchard in timbe timberville, v.a. they grow apples on 3,500 acres. it is a long-standing family business that's produced apples since 1918. this family-owned business in timberville uses the export-import bank to protect deals made with companies in rapidly expanding markets like west africa and india where the risks are high and conventional lenders may be a little

skittish, and then it gives their partners peace of mind and a credible system for evaluating buyers abroad. the credit insurance is one of the most user friendly markets in like turkey knob who don't have large international export offices. without insurance, turkey knob would export less and their exports would be exposed to more risk, more potential liability, and additionally the credit insurance program small exporters are able to build these deals so they can expand business that otherwise wouldn't be possible. we want importers to buy virginia apples. he would think our apples are every bit as good as other states' apples and we're proud to market them and other products from virginia as well especially in a time when the economy need to be stronger. but we wouldn't be able to find those clients for growers like

turkey knob without the ex-im bank. compressors, bristol bringsers in bristol, virginia, right on the border with tennessee. this is a manufacturing company, very cutting-edge. they design and manufacture competentsers for residential and commercial applications, heat pumps, refrigeration. it is one of the largest compressor manufacturers in the world. they also serve manufacturers and distributors across six continents. i think antarctica might be the exception. they have enough air conditioning there. but bristol has worked directly and indirectly can the ex-im bank through their credit lenders for many years. bristol would not be able to service the majority of its business without the support of the ex-im bank. i have been to this company. it is in a part of the state that needs more jobs, not less. and without the ex-im bank, they wouldn't be able to service their customers in six continents. bristol has told us that without the support, jobs at brings stoll would be at risk, which would have a negative impact on

the local economy. we want to promote american manufacturing, not shrink it. finally, eagle paper international in virginia beach. this is an international paper manufacturer and distributor. been around since 1998. virginia beach is an important place because we have an octavee port in virginia beach. it is a great place to find exports and ship exports from. so eagle paper has succeeded in exporting paper worldwide. eagle has told us, "ex-im is a crucial part of our business. without the export credit insurance, we would not be able to support the customer base that we currently have. without this customer barricks our sales would decrease and in turn we would have to eliminate employees in order to keep our business up and running." madam president, not often do we have such no-brainers present themselves on the floor.

i'll end where i started. let's create american jobs. let's help businesses find customers around the world. and let's do it at no cost to the american taxpayer. we do not make general fund applications to the ex-im bank because they charge their customers for the services they provide. and not only do they break even, they actually raised $2 billion above the loans that they put out in the last few years that they then used to make more loans to more american businesses to create more jobs. i've been heartened to see 50-plus months of private-sector job growth. and i know madam president has as well. but we're not where we need to be yet. g.d.p. needs to be higher. more jobs need to be created. we need more high-skilled workers to fill those jobs. the ex-im bank is one of the best tools we are to move the economy forward. all we have to do is vote to

reauthorize it before september 30. it is my hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both houses will join in this very important and completely logical mission. thank you, madam president. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i raise today to speak in opposition to the legislation before the senate, the so-called bring jobs home

act. i oppose this bill because it is a political stunt designed as an election-year campaign ploy that will have no meaningful impact on jobs creation or economic growth. this bill is a carbon copy of a bill that the senate rejected two years ago when it was offered by another democratic senator who just happened to also be up for leaks. simply put, if there is a democratic bill on the senate floor supposedly about outsourcing, you can rest assured it must be an election season. the bill before us purports to deal with the problem of companies relocating companies from the united states to foreign countries by denying the deduction associated with doing so. this must be the tax benefit for shipping jobs overseas that we heard so much about from the become campaign in 2008 and again in 2012. there's only one problem with

repealing this special tax break for companies that ship jobs overseas: it doesn't exist. according to the joint committee on taxation -- and i quote -- under present law there are no targeted tax credit credits or dis-allowances of deductions related to relocating business units inside or outside the united states." end quote. that's from the joint committee on taxation. this statement is not surprising, given that numerous independent fact checkers disputed the repeated claims in 2008 that companies were receiving tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. these fact checkers called that statement false and misleading. but i guess the facts don't matter when it is an election year. what this bill will do is insert yet more complexity and uncertainty into our tax code. the united states economy is a $17 trillion enterprise with

businesses all across this country constantly closing old operations and opening new ones. if this bill becomes law, companies who might want to close an old factory or open a new one would now have to worry if they'll have to pay a tax pen nealt, even if their decisions are totally unrelated to any business decisions that they might make oud the united states. -- outside the united states. the legislation also includes a new tax credit for companies that eliminate a business operation in a foreign country and move that operation to the united states. it sounds like a good idea, but consider how this would tilt the playing field against companies here in america who haven't opened operations overseas. a purely domestic company that opens a new factory in my state of south dakota won't get a federal tax credit for doing so, but a global company with jobs overseas will get a generous credit under this bill. instead of what a coalition of

companies made up of the national association of manufacturers, national foreign trade council and u.s. chamber of commerce had to say recently in a letter regarding the legislation that is pending before us. many of the major business organizations in this country, this is what they said in their letter -- and i quote -- "while intended to promote u.s. job creation, the legislation actually would have the unintended consequence of making it even more difficult for american worldwide companies to compete at home and in world markets. thereby placing at risk jobs of american workers. end quote. that's a letter from some of the major business organizations in this country. if we want greater economic growth and more jobs, we need a tax code that creates a level playing field, not one that picks winners and losers based on the preferences of members of congress. madam president, even if you were to assume that a new tax credit for insourcing would be a

good thing, the official estimate of the bill from the joint committee on taxation tells us that this particular tax credit will have essentially no impact on our economy. according to this new estimate, the new in-sourcing credit will provide a tax credit to u.s. companies of $35 million a year. that's $35 million out of a $17 trillion economy. or put another way, this credit will equal .000002% of annual u.s. economic activity. yes, madam president, that's a decimal point followed by five zeros. this bill isn't a drop in the bucket. it's more like a drop in the pacific ocean. yet despite the fact that this legislation won't help our economy or create jobs or make

america more competitive in the global economy, i voted with most of my colleagues to move forward with this debate because i believe we need to have a robust debate about those measures that will energize our economy. as such, i filed a number of amendments that would have a meaningful positive impact on our economy, unlike, i might add, the underlying bill. for example, i filed an amendment to make the small business expensing limits that expired at the end of last year permanent, something i hear about consistently from farmers and ranchers and small businesses in my state of south dakota. this limits -- these limits allow small businesses, farmers, ranchers to deduct up to $500,000 per year in expenses, make it easier for these businesss to grow and to hire new workers. i filed an amendment to make the r&d tax credit permanent. this amendment would also strengthen the credit by raising the credit rate from 14% to 20%, thus making this credit more competitive with the research incentives offered by many

european and and asian nations. i filed an amendment to help s corporations if they turned into a c corps making this business option more accessible. this would make it easier for s corporations to give appreciated property to charity. i filed an amendment to make permanent the internet tax freedom act which protects most internet users in america from taxes on internet access. this law was enacted in 1998 and for more than 15 years it helped our economy grow and helped the digital economy flourish by keeping state and local taxes off of internet access regardless, regardless of consumers access the internet via their home computers or by hand held device. unfortunately, this law is scheduled to expire just over three months, on november 1, if we don't take action to prevent that. some might claim that my amendments are partisan amendments, that these tax relief measures are republican priorities that can't muster support on the democrat side of the aisle.

the problem with this claim, madam president, is that all the measures i've mentioned have found democratic support already, significant democratic support. consider the r&d amendment i just mentioned. it's identical to the bill that passed the house of representatives with 274 votes in favor, including 62 house democrats. that's right. roughly one-third of house democrats have already voted for this exact amendment. the same is true for the small business expensing amendment i mentioned, an identical measure passed the house in june with 272 votes, including 53 house democrats. or consider the s corporation improvements passed by the house with 263 votes, including 42 house democrats voting yes. or consider my amendment to make the internet tax moratorium permanent. my bill would finance committee chairman ron wyden to make this law permanent, has 52 senate

supporters. in fact, this bill has so much support that an identical bill in the house just last week passed by a voice vote. this measure supported by a majority of senators, sponsored by the democrat chairman of the finance committee and approved by the house of representatives by voice vote isn't even scheduled for a vote here in the united states senate. what a shame. or consider the medical device tax repeal which is supported by 79 senators, including 34 democratic senators. unlike the minuscule economic impact of the bill pending on the senate floor before us right now, repealing the medical device tax would remove an obamacare tax increase totaling $24 billion over ten years on some of the most innovative companies in america. according to a survey by the trade association advamed the medical device tax is estimated to destroy sass -- as many as

55,000 american jobs. let's be clear, it's not there aren't reasonable measures to boost our economy that we could be considering. all the measures i just mentioned have broad bipartisan support. the problem is simply that the democrat majority refuses to allow their consideration. the senate majority would prefer that we spend our time on inconsequential election-year gimmicks rather than any of the job-creating measures i've just mentioned. senate democrats have chosen to block nearly all republican amendments rather than risk having to take any difficult votes. consider the senate has had roll call votes on only 12 republican amendments since last july. house democrats, the minority in the house of representatives, in contrast, have had 189 amendments voted on during that same period of time. put another way, house democrats have been allowed on average more than one vote for each legislative day the house has been in session over the past

year. here in the senate, senate republicans have been allowed just one vote per month. one vote per month. let me repeat that, madam president. the minority in the house is being allowed one vote per legislative day. the minority here in the senate is being allowed one vote per month. the senate used to be known as the world's greatest deliberative body. that description now sounds like a cruel joke considering how few amendments we've been allowed to consider. the other measure of our economy desperately needs -- the other measure i should say our economy desperately needs is comprehensive tax reform. if we really care about making america a more attractive place to do business, so as to lure new business investment and jobs, we need to have a much simpler tax code with tax rates that are competitive with our global competitors.

let's consider the facts. when president reagan signed a tax reform act of 1986 into law, the united states had a corporate tax rate that was more than five percentage points below our major economic competitors. the u.s. corporate tax rate has basically stayed the same since 1986. yet today our tax rate is the highest in the developed world and is more than 14 percentage points higher than the average of developed economies. why? well, look at what's happened. unlike the united states, other nations decided they needed to lower their tax rates to spur economic growth and job creation. unfortunately, today we're reaping the negative consequences of inaction as we see more and more investment and economic activities moving to those nations that have created a more favorable business environment. if we want to keep the best, highest-paying jobs here at home, we don't need new tax credits targeted at a narrow set

of companies. we need a complete overhaul of our tax system with new competitive tax rates and a modernized system for taxing the global revenues of american companies. yeah, it's going to be a difficult lift but it's far from impossible. just take a look at the united kingdom, which as recently as 2010 had a 28% tax rates and an outdated system for taxing global income. the u.k. enacted tax reform that will result in a 20% tax rate by next year and has resulted in a modernized system for taxing the income earned by global u.k. companies. for the past five years japan and other economic competitor of the united states has done something similar. japan cut its corporate tax rate by five percentage points and moved it a more competitive system for taxing global income. if the u.k., japan, and other nations can modernize their tax

code for competition in the 21st century global marketplace, certainly we here in the united states can do it as well. madam president, in closing, i hope the senate democrats will change course and allow for an open and robust amendment process to allow a wide variety of job-creating measures to be considered. our economy is still mired in the sluggish obama economy, can certainly use it. but if not, i look forward to a future congress where the senate can get back to real debate and real solutions. i hope that once the campaigning is done, once the election year slogans have been retired, we can get back to real substantive legislating. american families and workers deserve permanent tax and regulatory relief. they deserve a better economy than they have today and they deserve a senate that once again functions as the world's greatest deliberative body that puts their interests first and

their futures and their quality of life and their standard of living where it should be. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. research and development -- mr. reed: iz rise to support the national transportation law. it is urgent we keep the highway trust fund solvent and avoid a shutdown of work on our highways, bridges and transit systems. a recent letter from 62 national organizations, including the american association of state highway and transportation officials, the american public transportation association, the chamber of commerce, the labors international union echoes what the white house has warned. if we don't shore up the trust fund, we put at risk 100,000 instruction projects that support more than 700,000 jobs, including 3,500 jobs in my home

state of rhode island. we have to save these jobs. but i have to say that the legislation before us is inadequate on two fronts. first, instead of a short-term bill, we should be undertaking a long-term extension of transportation funding to provide certainty to the states and create much-needed jobs. second, the house version of the bill uses the very offsets that house republican leaders rejected when they were included as part of my bipartisan legislation to extend jobless benefits to the long-term unemployed. house leadership has used every excuse to deny these benefits to people who have been hurting for months invoking increasingly problematic conditions. i for one will not stop working to help people who despite their best efforts find themselves without the opportunity to find work. we need this patch, even though it's not the preferred solution, but we need this patch to avoid

a virtual shutdown of construction throughout the country and prevent further job losses. but the mere fact that the trust fund is so close to becoming bankrupt has already had an effect. last month moody's downgraded the rating on the garvey bonds for 26 transportation agencies in rhode island our department of transportation has about $67 million worth of projects on hold because of the uncertainty about the trust fund. these are projects that could put people to work in a state that is unfortunately tied for the highest unemployment rate in the nation. there is more at work the state wants to move forward. that would create more needed jobs but can only do that with a long-term reauthorization bill. with only a few months of funding under the so-called patch, rhode island will be able to start little or any new construction. the trickle from funding will pay back debt for projects

already finished. it will support disienl some some design work thap that will help keep designers from going out of business but won't get much started. so my state is forced to wait in a costly holding pattern. only a bill that invests significant resources over multiple years can provide this certainty for states and help get new projects underway. that was the point made by secretary fox and 11 former secretaries of transportation in a letter just a few days ago noting that we are more than a decade removed from the passage of the last long-term transportation reauthorization bill. another point that secretaries make is this. while longts certainty is eserntion -- essential, greater infrastructure system is needed. as a nation our system is in desperate need of improvement. the report from the american society of civil engineers gave both our roads and transit

systems a grade of d. our aging infrastructure doesn't get is much attention as other issues until the worst happens, like the collapse of major bridges in minnesota in 2007 and washington state last year. but there are structurally deficient roads and bridges in every state, bridges at that millions of americans drive across to work or travel, that companies use to transport products, and that our school buses drive over with our children. analling infrastructure is a major challenge -- aging infrastructure is a major challenge for rhode island, which has the highest percentage of roads in poor condition and the highest percentage of bridges that are deficient or obsolete, according to the society of civil engineers and the u.s. department of transportation. in the last five years, rhode island has had to actually replace two major bridges on the i-95 corridor. likely, the state has been able to take action to to avert a as doedisaster.

one of these bridges, the pawtucket river bridge, was closed until it was replaced. the oh, the providence via duct, which is being currently replaced, requires boards in order to protect traffic and passersby from falling concrete. each year these kinds of dwishence sis cost american families $120 billion in extra fuel and time. businesses pay $27 billion annually in extra freight costs which then get passed on to consumers. in rhode island, the poor road conditions cost $496 million each year in added vehicle repair and operating expenses, which is over $650 per year for each motorist. to tackle the significant challenges to keep our roads, bridges, and transit in safe and good re-pierks states like rhode island will need a strong federal commitment. according to the society of civil engineers, we need to

increase our surface transportation funding at all levels of government by $846 billion by 2020 to restore our transportation system to a state of good repair and meet the demand for our growing population and economy. without more investment, we increase the chance of another infrastructure failure and create inefficiency in our economy. federal fund something critical for all states in meeting that challenge. but it is especially important for states like rhode island that struggle to generate their own funds for infrastructure. indeed, stagnant federal support for make it harder for states that are struggling economically to share in our national prosperity, running the risk of increasing economic inequality among the states. however, with added investment in infrastructure, we can improve freight, roads, and transit systems, meaning commuters get to their destinations more quickly and safely while businesses save on

shipping goods. mr. president, too many times in the past, the republican leadership in the house has exploited deadlines like this to engage in brinksmanship, shutting down the federal government, and bringing the country to the edge of default. in part because we haven't had a manufactured crisis in the last several months, we've seen some good signs in the economy. and so i'm encouraged that we will not see a shot jun of work on our roads and bridges this summer. but again averting disaster shouldn't be our goal. we need to press ahead with a multiyear authorization to create jobs and improve our economy. unfortunately, when it comes to helping the american workers and our economy, republican leaders, particularly in the house, have stalled progress. indeed, we've seen republicans block several measures that would help strengthen our economic recovery. as i discussed earlier, house republicans refused to act on restoring emergency unemployment insurance, despite the fact that the congressional budget office

estimates that a year-long extension would generate 200,000 new jobs. republicans have also blocked minimum wage, let borrowers refinance their student loans, pass a paycheck fairness bill. we need long-term solutions to awful these issues. in my view, we should make this extension the one we're considering now for the transit bill and the highway bill, as short as possible, to increase the likelihood that we can pass a long-term bill that increases our investment in our transportation system. regardless of the duration of this short-term bill, we should be working to address the issue before the end of the year. awhat america needs is to break this cycle of governing cries to crisis only to enact a stopgap measure at the last moment. the secretary has made another important point. "until recently, congress

understood that as america grows, so must our investment in transportation. and for more than half a century, they voted that principle and increased funding with broad bipartisan majorities in both houses. we believe they can and should do so again." mr. president, we should follow their advice. with that, i would yield the floor. mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise again today on the senate floor to talk about the crisis at our southern border, and it is a crisis. i don't use that word lightly. but it's clearly a crisis on many, many levels. this fiscal year alone, since october 1, 2013, 381,000 -- over 381,000 illegal aliens entering our country through that border. and, of course, a big part of that crisis, unaccompanied alien

children -- 58,000 of those the obama administration itself says that number will probably grow to 85,000 or 90,000 in just the next few months, by end of this fiscal year. we see on this chart that since 2008, sending these people back has plummeted, absolutely plummeted and this is a key part of the problem. since this crisis really came into clear focus, i've been doing cephal things. i've asked the administration through a letter to the department of homeland security secretary jeh johnson for facts, de-table, about the -- details about the impact of this crisis, the numbers, the particulars and specifically what impact it can have on louisiana, my home staivment i haven'state.

i haven't gotten any response. i'm asking publicly again to a detailed response to those legitimate, straightforward questions. and i've agreed with many, many others in the house and senate to partner with the administration around strong action to change this trend, to change our policy, to deport illegal aliens effectively, to send a very new and different message to central and south america, and to stem this growing crisis. unfortunately, that plea has not gotten a positive response from the administration either. in reaction to that i've had to dig around wherever i can -- credible sources -- and find out key information myself, particularly as it affects louisiana. and i've been making calls to military leaders, local ice officials, anyone else with significant, credible

information. again, this should be able to come directly from the department of homeland security. it's not. but this is what i'm finding out. in louisiana, the i.c.e. office has been -- has a backlog of juvenile cases, cases involving mines. first of all, it had already about 2,000 of those cases in louisiana alone before this wave upon wave of minor illegal aliens reached crisis proportions. now, adding onto those 2,000 cases, 1,956 to be exact, there are now over 1,200 new juvenile cases in hughes lewis. these are unaccompanied children coming into the country illegally and then being brought into louisiana, in most cases turned over to the custody of a family member or a sponsor. and many of these family members

are themselves illegal. we're not a border state. we're not texas. we're not arizona or new mexico. we're not one of the states most affected. and yet even louisiana has this significant impact, very, very troubling numbers. i talked to folks at the hersch coliseum. found out that the international association of fairs and exhibitions -- a trade a. ssociation for they are sorts of facilities around the country -- was contacted by the department of homeland security about locating mass space for housing of illegal alien u.a.c.'s. the hersch coliseum was contacted to see if they could be part of that, and they said they couldn't. that was not practical at all, but that inquiry was made. on the military side, i talked to leadership at fort polk.

they were contacted by the u.s. army installation management command headquarters. asked if they could house between 400 and 500 unaccompanieunaccompanied alien. they said they couldn't, for very compelling practical reasons at phot polk. an air base in shreveport was asked if they had capacity for the same mass-housing operation. their response was as follows, "clarks dale's answer has been consistent with our strategic mission and supporting base infrastructure for the next's number-one nuclear mission, we would not support or participa participate." but it's significant, those inquiries were actively made. bell chase naval air station in new orleans. they were contacted, again, on behalf of the department of

homeland security about their capacity for this same sort of thing twice. again makes the point that even louisiana, not a border state, not a state most affected, is feeling many inquiries -- fielding many inquiries and significant impacts. 1,259 new juvenile cases being brought into the state. awful these inquiries. i -- all of these inquiries. i wish i could get the information directly from the department of homeland security. i've asked for it. they have not been forthcoming. unfortunately, the administration, likewise, has not been forthcoming about real solutions partnering with congress to make changes in the law and anything else necessary to stem this tide and reverse the policy that continues to encourage this tide. we've seen no leadership there either. while the president spent the first ten days of focus on this

crisis talking about various parts of federal law that he said were tying his hands, when he came to send a request to congress, there was no request to change any of that law. there was no request to streamline any deportation procedures. there was no request to heighten the standard for asylum or anything else. the only request was to send him a huge amount of additional money -- billions upon billions of dollars. so, again, in the absence of that leadership and partnership and information, i started to develop legislative ideas with many others myself, and i've introduced a legislative solution, s. 2632, to address the specific unaccompanied alien children crisis. and it's been introduced in the house by my louisiana colleague,

congressman bill cassidy. fundamentally, this legislation would reverse the policy we have in place, which accepts these folks over and does nothing to quickly deport them to their home country. it would reverse that policy, so we would have quick, effective, immediate deportations to send the message to central and south america that this has to stop and to stem that tide. specifically, the legislation would do nine things. one, it would mandate detention of all unaccompanied alien children upon apprehension. no catch-and-release, no catch and then, yes, here ... we'll further the smuggling and give you to your family members or sponsors in this country. number two, we would amend the law to bring parity between u.a.c.'s from contiguous and none contiguous countries.

all u.a.c.'s, regardless of country of origin, will be given the option to voluntarily depart. that is a practical solution in the case of those coming from mexico and canada. obviously, many more from mexico. number three, those u.a.c.'s who do not voluntarily depart will be immediately placed in a streamlined removal process and detained by the department of homeland security. currently, they are transferred instead to health and human services office of refugee resettlement where they are basically resettled -- the presiding officer: all time is expired. mr. vitter: i ask unanimous consent for one additional minute. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i have no objection. i have no objection after the vote, but i object before the vote. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to five minutes prior to the vote. mr. vitter: i will consider objecting but i far prefer to amend the unanimous consent request so i get the additional minute i was just denied and the senator from maryland gets her time. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection, the senator from maryland. mr. vitter: mr. president, my unanimous consent request was for me to finish my remarks in one minute and then have the senator -- the presiding officer: pending unanimous consent request from the senator from maryland. is there objection? mr. vitter: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i that are call for the regular order. ask unanimous consent that my full statement be included in the record. i yield back whatever time we would have and that we move expeditiously to the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: i would again like to ask unanimous consent to be recognized for one additional

minute followed by the senator from maryland being recognized for four additional minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. mikulski: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired and the question occurs on the motion to proceed to s. 2569. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar number 453, s. 2569, a bill to provide an incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to america. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of pamela harris of maryland to be united states

circuit judge for the fourth circuit, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of pamela harris of maryland to be united states circuit judge for the fourth circuit shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: