Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today as the chair of the Appropriations Committee to talk about several challenges facing our country. First, I wish to respond to the comments made by many of the Senators this morning on the compelling need to pass supplemental appropriations to help Israel replenish the rockets it has used in its Iron Dome missile defense system. I am an unabashed, unrelenting supporter of that effort. For many years, as a U.S. Senator on the Appropriations Committee, on the Defense Subcommittee, as well as as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I know how important the Israeli missile defense system is, including Iron Dome, David's Sling, and others that are absolutely crucial. I worked hands-on with Senator Inouye--the late great Senator, a Congressional Medal of Honor winner--to make sure we funded the missile defense system for Israel and to work on a bipartisan basis with Senator Stevens and Senator Cochran. We worked together, and thank God it worked. We also implemented an agreement signed by President Bush with the Government of Israel that we would always help Israel maintain its qualitative edge. We have done it, and I am proud of it. Now more than ever an antimissile defense system that has worked needs to continue operation. We know the technology works, but they need to make sure they have the tools to make the technology work-- these additional rockets. We know Israel is under attack. It has always been under attack since its very founding. This is not an existential threat; this is not an abstract threat; it is a daily threat. We know Israel is trying to defend itself against the grim, unrelenting attacks by Hamas--a self- avowed terrorist organization that has sworn in its documents not to allow Israel to continue. They absolutely oppose an independent Israeli State. This month we are commemorating the Warsaw uprising. The Presiding Officer is a member of a group we affectionately call the Polish Caucus--those of us who have a relationship with the Polish Government, one of our greatest supporters in the NATO alliance. We recall that 70 years ago people were willing to fight back against the Nazis, rising out of the sewers of the Warsaw ghetto to be able to fight them off with sticks and stones and out-of-date weapons, working to liberate Poland from Nazis oppression. Miles away, in places such as Dachau, Auschwitz, and others, there were the death camps. We are 1 year away from commemorating the liberation of the death camps. We know that as those people marched out of those death camps, they made their way into Palestine, which became the State of Israel. We were the first Nation to recognize the necessary and rightful place for Israel to exist as an independent government and forever and a day the homeland for the Jewish people so they would be safe from terrorism and what occurred. I am for this whole Iron Dome supplemental, and we need to do it, but it cannot be the only thing we put in this supplemental. We have neighbors right now hurting in our own country--our Western States with wildfires raging over hundreds of thousands of acres, land being depleted, local resources for first responders being exhausted, local funds being worn down. We have to--we have to--be able to respond to the Western border. Then there is the crisis at our border, and the crisis is at our border because of the crisis in Central America. So when we move on the supplemental, let's look out for the great State of Israel, let's look out for our neighbors who are facing wildfires, and let's look out for what is going on at our border. But, Mr. President, I came to the floor, first of all, to compliment Senator Sanders for the outstanding job he did working on a bipartisan basis to pass the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014. What a great job they did, out of a scandal--a terrible scandal-- affecting our Nation's veterans, where they had to stand in line simply to see a doctor in the very country they fought to defend. Now they have found they have had to defend themselves against VA bureaucracy and in some places duplicitous action. Well, the Sanders bill goes a long way, again, working on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the dome. Gosh, when we do this, this is why I wanted to be a Senator. I know this is why many others wanted to be a Senator: coming here, working on concrete problems, shoulder to shoulder, on a bipartisan basis, hands across the aisle, hands across the dome. And they did it. When this bill is passed, we will reduce the long wait times for veterans, we will increase doctors and nurses and specialty providers. It will allow veterans to see local providers if they have been on a wait list for an extended period of time or have to drive 40 miles to be able to get to a VA clinic. Boy, do I know that when I look at some of the rural areas. We are going to pay for it with $10 billion in mandatory emergency funds. Mandatory emergency funds, that is the way to do it. The Sanders bill will go a long way in increasing personnel and also in expanding a number of clinics--27 new clinics. So I think it is great. But as important as that bill is--and it is an important step--it cannot be the only step we take this week. I am so excited that shoulder to shoulder, again, if we work together, we can do a trifecta for our veterans. We can pass the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act--new opportunities for health care, where veterans do not have to stand in line. Also, we are going to vote today on Robert McDonald to give the VA a new Secretary, a new CEO, new leadership, hopefully new energy, new vitality, and new ways of doing business, bringing the practical know-how of the private sector to meeting our mission. But as important as those two are, I also come as the chair of the Appropriations Committee to say, why don't we take a third step that really will do the job? Let's pass the VA MILCON appropriations bill so we can actually put next year's funding in the Federal checkbook rather than just putting VA on autopilot? We can actually make a big difference with the new accountability, expansion of care bill, but that will take days, weeks, months to put in operation. Right this minute we could pass the VA MILCON bill as well as giving new leadership. I come here because I really do want to move the VA MILCON bill. The Appropriations Committee works through its subcommittees. And, wow, I have two great leaders on the VA MILCON Subcommittee, the chairman and ranking member, two outstanding Senators: Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. They have worked so assiduously on coming up with a bill for funding our veterans for fiscal year 2015. It is an outstanding bill. But right now we are out there in the wilderness. We have moved it through the subcommittee. We have moved it through the full committee. It passed unanimously. We are out in the ethers waiting to come to the floor. Johnson and Kirk, Mikulski and Shelby, we are like people with our noses pressed against the glass. We see it within our grasp but we cannot get through. All we want to do is help to complete the job we are trying to undertake today. As much as the bill will be that Senator Sanders worked on, without the VA MILCON appropriations bill, the veterans will lack key tools to expand care, important support personnel that allows the doctors and nurses to do their job, important technology to run contemporary institutions. By the way, the bill we are going to be working on, the Sanders bill, is focused on health care, but we on the Appropriations Committee dealt not only with aspects of that but also the terrible backlog on veterans disability. Mr. President, veterans disability--not only do you have to stand in line to get health care, but you are standing days, weeks, months to get your disability claim. You have lost an arm or a leg or you cannot breathe or you have PTSD and we cannot get your disability processed. This is unacceptable. What we do in the VA bill is come up with the funds to really modernize the VA. First of all, just in terms of health care, to complement the Sanders bill, we have money in there to develop state-of-the-art technology so the doctors can provide medical health care, to make sure we have the modern equipment and the modern IT systems. Right now, we need to be able to have DOD talking to the VA because veterans come from DOD. But we have an interoperable system. We work to fix this. We also deal with this backlog. You have no idea, Mr. President. My State of Maryland and my office in Baltimore have not had a good track record. I vowed to my veterans that I would try to break that backlog. And you know what. Working together we have been able to do this. In the fiscal year 2015 bill, we fund an appeals process, we train additional claims processors, we require the management at the Veterans Benefit Administration to deal with the backlog, working with the new Administrator. We have not only great ideas, but we actually put the money in the Federal checkbook. Johnson-Kirk did it. Do you know how they did it? Yes, talking to the VA, reviewing tons of GAO and inspector general reports, and guess what else they did. They talked to the veterans. They talked to these wonderful volunteer service organizations. So I am going to propose something later on today or later on this week. I do not want to be the chair of a committee who has her face pressed up against the glass looking longingly at the Senate floor with a bill I know will help the Veterans' Administration with the heavy lifting to deal with the health care and disability backlog. Because I believe in no surprises and no stunts, later on today or later on this week, I will ask unanimous consent to bring up the VA MILCON on third reading to be able to compliment what we are doing here today. I want to be able to do that and I hope no Senator will object to it. Now, just again, in the spirit of full disclosure--because I truly have pledged to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle I would never be a surprise chair and I would never be one to pull gimmicks or stunts--I am going to ask that consent. I want people to know about it so they can discuss it, chew on it, talk at their respective luncheons. When I ask unanimous consent, I am going to ask that it be brought up on third reading. Why am I doing that? Because under the rules of the Senate, if you bring up a bill on third reading, there are no amendments. So the question would be: Senator Mikulski, are you trying to stiff-arm again? No. I am trying to get the job done. I am not trying to stiff-arm the opportunity to offer amendments. But we have 72 hours left before we take this really long break--really long, long, long, very long--did I say ``long''--break. I do not think, when you need health care for veterans, when you need to modernize technology, when you need to crack the backlog--while we are kind of basking in the Sun somewhere--I do not want them in line. So either this afternoon or sometime tomorrow, I will ask unanimous consent. I will turn to my 99 colleagues, and in the spirit of really meeting compelling needs of our veterans, I will ask that bill come up so that as we move through the other two aspects that we are going to do to help veterans, we can do the VA MILCON bill. So I wanted to come to the floor today to talk about how we support a treasured ally, how we look out for our neighbors in the West fighting our wildfires, and how we deal with the crisis in Central America, where children are being victimized and brutalized every day so they are making the long march across that terrain and territory to come to the United States of America. So I hope in the short time the Senate is going to be in session this week and this month and even this year we could use this week to meet the needs that are confronting us, but, most of all, I would hope we do not just do part of the job for our veterans; we do this trifecta that I am recommending: passing the Veterans Accountability Act, the health care act; give us a new CEO; and have a chance to pass the VA MILCON bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. If I could respond to the Senator from Illinois, yes, I am staying in Maryland because I had hoped we would even be working on conference reports and so on. But while the Senator is in Illinois and I am in Maryland, most of all, we do not want our veterans standing in line for their health care or their disability benefits. So shoulder to shoulder, forward together.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Carper, Corker and Boxer amendment to the highway trust fund extension Bill before us today. This amendment will provide certainty and a guaranteed funding stream that our State departments of transportation and the construction industry desperately need. It provides a short-term extension through December 19, 2014, which will allow Congress to complete its work on a multi-year bill this year. The underlying bill only prolongs uncertainty by extending the solvency of the trust fund to May of 2015. In the last transportation authorization bill, I fought for a Federal formula that gives the State of Maryland approximately $780 million annually from the highway trust fund: $580 million for highway funding and $200 million for transit funding. The Maryland Department of Transportation's, MDOT, average weekly expenditure of these Federal funds is $10 to $12 million. Right now during construction season, MDOT is submitting reimbursements to the U.S. Department of Transportation for $20 million a week. Without this extension, the Federal highway trust fund will go bankrupt in a matter of weeks. What does this mean for my home State of Maryland? I am advised that MDOT will not meet its commitments. The Department would be unable to begin new projects. It would be forced to focus on safety and system preservation instead of putting shovels into the ground. Existing projects will slow down or stop. The State of Maryland would have to find bond or State revenues to pay existing contracts. Most importantly, over 9,000 construction jobs will be in jeopardy. This is why MDOT, other State departments of transportation, and the construction industry support a multi-year bill. Enacting a long-term bill this year will provide certainty with a guaranteed funding stream, allow MDOT to plan for the future, and provide stability to the construction industry. Projects take time and thoughtful planning averaging approximately 10 years to complete through construction. In addition, a multi-year bill will strengthen our transportation networks improving safety and reducing congestion. It also will create 3 million jobs and support our economy. I urge all my colleagues to vote for the Carper, Corker and Boxer amendment. I also ask unanimous consent that the op-ed Senator Cardin and I wrote in the Baltimore Sun be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, we have just listened to a very lively debate on the highway trust fund, which is certainly a great issue confronting our Nation because our infrastructure is crumbling. But we also know another great infrastructure has really been crumbling, and that is our VA infrastructure, including the ability to deliver health care to our veterans as promised, as well as to meet their claims when they file for their benefits, particularly those poignant, compelling claims around disability benefits. I come to the floor today to see if we can't do a trifecta this week by passing the serious reform bill advocated by Senators Sanders and McCain----

Ms. MIKULSKI. These are excellent Senators whose voices are heard and heard and heard, as is mine. In addition to the Sanders-McCain bill that comes as a result of the conference, really what that bill does is focus primarily on the health care issues facing us. What concerns me is also the fact that we need to eliminate the VA disability claims backlog for which there is also a compelling need. Now, what I am advocating is that we do a trifecta this week; that is, we pass the conference report that has been advocated by Senator Sanders and Senator McCain that will deal with the important reforms, including adding new personnel. We have given the VA a new chief executive officer to bring about the reforms with the know-how of business. I also wish to bring to the floor the VA-MILCON appropriations bill. This is a fantastic bill that moves from the subcommittee, led by my very able subcommittee chairman, Senator Tim Johnson, with the help of the ranking member, Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. They have done such incredible diligence on how we can use the taxpayers' dollars wisely to really provide the services we promised the veterans--yes, health care, but also that veterans shouldn't stand in line for health care and veterans also shouldn't stand in line and wait in line and then hope the line gets smaller for disability benefits. What the VA-MILCON bill does this year, under the very able leadership of Senator Johnson, with the cooperation of Senator Kirk, is to implement these very important reforms, and the committee responded. I wish the Presiding Officer could have been in the full committee that day. We passed it on a bipartisan basis of 30 to 0. Now I want to be able to bring this bill to the floor so this week we could do all three of these and make sure that the Sanders-McCain conference report bill is not on a weak foundation. We need to modernize our VA infrastructure. There is over $10 billion of backlog in crumbling physical infrastructure at the VA. Its technology is dated. We want them to have great technology. Most of all, we finally want to crack this veterans backlog. So I am going to propound shortly a unanimous consent request. I talked about it earlier. But before I make this request--I have spoken about this bill--I would like to yield to my colleague and my very able subcommittee chairman, Senator Tim Johnson, who has spent more than a decade working on these issues, and now, on a bipartisan basis, we have such a splendid bill--so wise, so prudent, so effective--that I wish we could do it. I yield the floor for Senator Johnson and then I will reclaim the floor for my unanimous consent request.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bring Jobs Home Act. I am a blue-collar Senator. I grew up in a blue-collar neighborhood in Baltimore during World War II where my father had a small neighborhood grocery store. We were the neighborhood of mom-and-pop businesses and factories. We made liberty ships. We put out turbo steel to make the tanks. Glenn L. Martin made the seaplanes that helped win the battle of the Pacific. We were in the manufacturing business. But the blue-collar Baltimore of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam just isn't what it used to be. In the last decade, 2.4 million American jobs were shipped overseas. Where did those jobs go? Those jobs are on a slow boat to China and a fast track to Mexico. And why did they go? In some cases, they went because of tax breaks that rewarded corporations for moving manufacturing overseas. It is wrong to give companies incentives to send jobs to other countries, especially when millions of Americans are looking for work. The current Tax Code is putting companies that keep their business here, hire their workers at home, pay their share of taxes, and provide health care to their employees, at a disadvantage. We should be rewarding these companies with ``good guy'' tax breaks for hiring and building their businesses right here in the United States. I have been on a jobs tour of Maryland. I visited bakeries, microbreweries, and factories of small machine tool companies. I visited Main Street, small streets, and rural communities. I talked with business owners and their employees. These are ``good guy'' businesses. They work hard and play by the rules. They have jobs right here in the United States. They want to expand. They want to hire. They need a government on their side and at their side. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of the Bring Jobs Home Act. This bill ends the loophole that gives companies a tax break for sending jobs overseas. The Bring Jobs Home Act tells companies: If you want to export jobs out of America, you can't file a deduction for doing it. And it ensures the Tax Code can't be used to boost corporate rewards at the expense of American workers. Economic patriotism means bringing our jobs back home, bringing our money back home, and standing up for America. So let's pass the Bring Jobs Home Act and take an important step toward economic patriotism.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I wish to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Geraldine Ferraro's nomination as the Democratic candidate for Vice President of the United States. On the night of July 19, 1984, Gerry gave her acceptance speech as the first woman to be nominated for U.S. Vice President by a majority party. I was there, experiencing the thrill, excitement, and turbo energy as 10,000 people jammed the Mosconi Center. Male delegates gave their tickets to female alternate delegates and their daughters. Gerry's walk on stage was electrifying. We gave her a 10-minute resounding ovation and wouldn't sit down. That night, a barrier was broken. That night, they took down the ``men only'' sign on the White House. For Gerry and all American women there was no turning back--only going forward. Some people only knew Gerry as a political phenomenon, but I first knew her in Congress. She was a born fighter--for New York and every little guy and gal. She was an advocate for women, fighting for our status and giving us a new stature. Long after the campaign was over, she continued to be a source of inspiration and empowerment. When Gerry was chosen for the Vice Presidential nomination, she showed modern American women what we had become and what we could be. Women felt that if Gerry could go for the White House, we could go for anything. For some of us women, that meant going to Congress to make a difference. Today, I know Gerry would be so proud of all we have accomplished. Back when we met in the House, we were the early birds. We weren't afraid to ruffle some feathers, but we were in the minority. In 1979, there were 16 women in the House: 11 Democrats and 5 Republicans, and 2 women of color. Today, there are 79 women in the House: 60 Democrats, 19 Republicans, and 30 women of color. As the Dean of the Senate Women, I am proud we are 20 women strong in the Senate: 16 Democrats and 4 Republicans. Together, we are changing the tide and changing the tone. We have had some amazing victories along the way. We increased breast cancer research funding at NIH by 750 percent to $657 million in fiscal year 13. We increased childcare funding by 75 percent--$2.2 billion in fiscal year 14. We made sure good science included women by founding the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health. The research from that office has changed medical practices, reduced breast cancer by 15 percent, and saved lives a million at a time. This year, we celebrated the fifth anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which kept the courthouse doors open for women to sue for discrimination. Last October, women on both sides of the aisle created the climate for compromise that was crucial to ending the disastrous government shutdown. We have had some amazing victories, but we still have more to do. The Senate women are fighting for women across America. We know women need a raise to raise their families. That is why we are fighting for equal pay for equal work and to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. We are fighting for a better minimum wage because we know that a full-time job shouldn't mean full-time poverty. We are fighting for education that helps our kids every step of the way. We want to give working families peace of mind and give children quality care for a brighter future. Passing my bipartisan child care and development block grant bill will bring affordable, accessible childcare to working families. Women need a social safety net they can count on, at every age and in every stage. That is why we are fighting so hard for seniors by saving Medicare from becoming a coupon and a promise. We are ensuring Social Security remains guaranteed, lifetime and inflation proof. We are also fighting for health care that is affordable and accessible, by passing the Affordable Care Act to end gender discrimination in health care. I was so proud when we passed my Mikulski preventive health amendment, so simply being a woman is no longer a preexisting condition. We are taking a stand against the Supreme Court decision that denies women contraception and family planning, while valuing employer rights over employee rights. And we are fighting to ensure the safety and education of women and girls around the world--whether they are in Nigeria, Central America, or Afghanistan. When Gerry took the stage at the 1984 Democratic Convention, she forever altered the course of history. For the rest of her life, she remained dedicated to empowering thousands of women in the United States and around the world. Today, we honor her lasting legacy and her impact on generations of women with a dream--and a desire to make a difference.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes prior to the cloture vote on the Harris nomination.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I therefore call for the regular order. I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be included in the Record, to yield back whatever time we have, and that we move expeditiously to the vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am so proud to be here today in support of the nomination of Pamela Harris--a brilliant litigator, professor, and public servant--to serve on the Fourth Circuit. Senator Cardin and I recommended Ms. Harris to President Obama with the utmost confidence in her abilities, talent, and competence for the job. The ABA agreed--they gave her their highest rating of unanimously well-qualified. I thank Senator Reid for being so prompt in scheduling this vote. I also thank Senator Leahy for his expeditious movement of her nomination through the Judiciary Committee. I have had the opportunity to recommend several judicial nominees for our district and appellate courts. I take my ``advise and consent'' responsibilities very seriously. When I consider nominees for the Federal bench, I have four criteria: absolute integrity; judicial competence and temperament; a commitment to core constitutional principles; and a history of civic engagement in Maryland. I expect our recommendations to not only meet these criteria but to exceed them, as Ms. Harris surely does. She has dedicated her career to the rule of law, achieving equal justice under the law and the perfection of appellate advocacy. She is truly an outstanding nominee. Ms. Harris's career spans academia, private practice, and government. But there has always been a common thread of public service. We are proud to say that she is ``home-grown''--although born in Connecticut, she has called Maryland home since she was a child, eventually graduating from Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, MD. She went on to Yale where she received her bachelor's degree summa cum laude as well as her law degree. After completing a clerkship on the D.C. Circuit, Ms. Harris went on to clerk for Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court. She has served at the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel and at the Office of Legal Policy under two different administrations. She also spent 10 years appearing regularly before the Supreme Court while counsel and then partner at O'Melveny & Myers, taking on some of the most complex issues of our time. Ms. Harris also has a distinguished career in academia as a Professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, co-director of the Harvard Appellate Practice Clinic, and later, at Georgetown, where she is today. At Georgetown she serves as executive director of the Supreme Court Institute, preparing litigants--first come, first served--and regardless of their position--for arguments before the Court. But Ms. Harris remained connected to Maryland, whether it was a pro bono appellate clinic at O'Melveny to work with Maryland's public defender or an amicus brief in major litigation involving Montgomery County Public Schools. Ms. Harris has a commitment to the legal profession that is unmatched. It shows in the students that she has taught, the litigants that she has prepared, the briefs that she has written, and the pro bono service that she has rendered. She has risen to the highest levels of her education and career. Yet she has seen people in her life confront adversity and she knows the impact that the law has on people's daily lives. I believe it is this which contributes to her very humble nature. She believes that the Court is a place for justice and not a stepping stone. Ms. Harris continues to give back to the community, serving on the board of trustees at her children's school, and also to legal scholarship, as a member of the board of directors for the American Constitution Society and the Constitutional Accountability Center. So I am so honored to be here today to support her nomination. I ask that you all join me in doing the same. It is critical that we have judges with commitment to public service, civic engagement, and the rule of law. And we have that in none other than Pamela Harris.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I object.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as the chair of the Appropriations Committee that will be proposing the emergency supplemental bill. This bill will be introduced tonight, and I want to briefly describe it. First of all, what does the emergency supplemental bill do? It deals with three crises; one, it will fight wildfires with additional resources as to what is going on in our own country; second, it will help Israel be able to continue to man its Iron Dome antiballistic missile system, as has been under siege by Hamas rockets; and, third, it will help be a downpayment on resolving the crisis of the children arriving at the border. To be specific, it will fight wildfires to the tune of $615 million. Right now there are 127 wildfires burning in our Western States, covering four or more States. Second, it will strengthen Israel's Iron Dome and add $225 million to replenish the antimissile defense system, saving lives by shooting down Hamas rockets, helping our essential ally Israel. Third, it will deal with the crisis of our children arriving at the border, and that will be $2.7 billion--$1 billion less than what the President asked for. It will care for the children. It will provide food, shelter, and other needs. It will resolve children's asylum status, and it will have enforcement money to break up organized crime cartels, the traffickers, and the smugglers. The total for all three of those will be $3.57 billion. I agree with President Obama. This is an emergency supplemental. These funds are designated as emergency spending because they meet the criteria set in the Budget Control Act of 2011 that the needs must be urgent, temporary, unforeseen, and prevent loss of life. That is exactly what we are facing. What does it mean to designate the funds as emergency spending? It means no offsets. So we do not take existing funds where we are either defending the Nation or helping America's families to pay for the spending in this bill. The needs are urgent. Firefighting needs are needed now. The Forest Service will run out of money in August. Fires are burning Oregon, Washington, and other States. We need to be able to provide the support to fight those fires and help our neighbors in our Western States. Iron Dome. The funding is needed now to replenish a key part of the missile defense system, replace Iron Dome artillery. Israel has already used a great deal of its assets dealing with the more than 2,000 Hamas rockets aimed at Israel. Israel has the right to self-defense. We are helping them have what they need to intercept 90 percent of the rockets. Funds to deal with unaccompanied children crossing our border are needed now. If we do not do this, the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement will run out of money in August, and the Department of Homeland Security Border Patrol will run out in early September. It does not mean that our Border Patrol agents or ICE agents will stop working, but it will mean the Department of Homeland Security will have to take money from other Homeland Security needs to keep these agencies doing their jobs. Also, Health and Human Services will run out of money to house children in August. It means that children will stay longer at the border. They will be in inappropriate holding cells. It also means Border Patrol agents will be taking care of them, rather than child welfare social workers. If you want to use Border Patrol agents to take care of children, that is one thing. I think they should be defending our border and we should have social workers taking care of the children. Our approach is sensible. It meets human needs. While we acknowledge a tight budget situation, we fund only that which is needed in calendar year 2014. This is very important. It funds only what is needed in calendar year 2014. It defers $1 billion of the President's request until 2015, subject to Congressional action that the need be validated. We hope by 2015 the surge will have diminished because of the prevention and intervention issues we are dealing with. But make no mistake, the funds we say we need we really do need. This bill defers funds until next year, because I am deeply concerned if we do not follow the Senate number, the House will make draconian cuts that impact the care of the children, and also being penny wise and pound foolish, they are going to stop our ability to go after the smugglers and the coyotes. So we do not want to go after the children, we want to go after those people who are exploiting the children and trying to recruit them into despicable activities. We also do not want radical riders that will weaken our refugee and human trafficking laws or accelerate deportation of children without due process under existing law. We do not want a backdoor version of bad immigration reform. This bill is only a money bill. It does not include immigration legislation. How that will be addressed on the Senate floor will be decided by the leadership on both sides. The challenges to this request are many. We have made changes to the President's request. We have included more money for immigration judges and more money for additional legal representation for children so we can determine their legal status and determine whether they have the right to seek asylum status. We also have robust enforcement against gangs and organized crime. Seven organized crime syndicates are operating in these three Central American countries now. We are talking about more guns at the border. We need more law enforcement and the help of the United States going after the real bums and scums, which is these drug dealers who recruit these children, murder children before other children's eyes. You know what. We also know that when we work in a crisis and we do urgent supplemental efforts, we sometimes waste money. We can only look at some of the other agencies where we have done this. This bill includes strong oversight from the inspectors general to make sure the taxpayers' money is well spent, to protect our border, protect the children, and go after smugglers, coyotes, and human traffickers. The best way to make sure the surge of children is slowed is not by rewriting refugee and human trafficking laws, it is by making it harder on these crooks and criminals. I am going to conclude by saying this: We already have 60,000 children at the border. This crisis is not at our border, however. The crisis is in their home countries: Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala. These children are truly fleeing violence. I have been down to the border. I have talked to these children, listened to children who faced sexual assault, the recruitment into human trafficking, gang intimidation, persecution, threats of grisly physical actions directed against them. What is happening in these countries? When you listen to the cries of the children, I can tell you, in these countries there is a war on children. We cannot turn our backs on these children who are seeking refuge. We need to pass this supplemental and we need to deal with the violence that is coming out of Central America; that if we do not deal with it there, it is not that the children will come to our borders, it is that the violence and the gangs will come to our borders. I hope when the leader introduces the bill later on this evening we can proceed and debate this with due diligence. I look forward to chairing the committee as we go through this process. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the 40th anniversary of Turkey's invasion of the island of Cyprus. Today, Cyprus remains a divided island, with a third of the territory still occupied by Turkish forces. I am proud to stand with the people of Cyprus and call for an immediate end to the Turkish occupation of their country. On numerous occasions, United Nations resolutions have called for the respect of the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Cyprus and for an immediate end to the Turkish occupation. The Republic of Cyprus continues to demonstrate full commitment to a peaceful process that will reunify the island in accordance with these resolutions. Over the past year, the Republic of Cyprus has taken significant steps to lay the groundwork for peaceful negotiations, including proposals that would bring the two sides together to build confidence, strengthen ties, and integrate the Turkish-Cypriot community. It is clear that the government and people of Cyprus stand ready to make the hard decisions needed to achieve peace. Continued unrest that threatens the security and stability of the region further underscores the importance of supporting the Republic of Cyprus. A peaceful agreement that reunifies Cyprus would signal that just and fair resolutions can be achieved to end decades long confrontations. We must continue to stand with them to fight for a fair and responsible agreement--one that safeguards basic freedoms and human rights for all Cypriots. During his visit in May of this year, Vice President Biden reiterated the need for Cyprus to be reunited. The Republic of Cyprus is a strong and trusted friend of the United States. I am proud of the strategic partnership we have developed over the years. The Government of Cyprus currently hosts the joint mission responsible for carrying out the removal and destruction of Syria's chemical weapons as well as providing maritime cooperation to facilitate the process. The role of Cyprus demonstrates the island's important strategic location and critical international engagement efforts. I am encouraged by renewed efforts to reach a comprehensive and fair solution to reunify Cyprus. I urge the government of Turkey to cooperate with negotiations and I applaud the people of Cyprus for their steadfast commitment to securing a peaceful and prosperous future.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the life of Matthew Joseph Thaddeus Stepanek, best known as Mattie, who passed away 10 years ago at the age of 13 from complications due to his rare form of muscular dystrophy. Though his death was a tragedy, his life was a triumph. He was a gifted author and noted peacemaker. He took a personal challenge and turned it into a tool of inspiration for all of us. Mattie once said, ``I want my message to live beyond me,'' and it does. His message of peace and hope has reached millions around the world. When Mattie was born in 1990 in Upper Marlboro, MD, doctors did not expect him to live longer than 24 hours. Mattie suffered from the same rare form of muscular dystrophy as his mother, his two brothers, and sister. His siblings all died before the age of 4. Though the disease eventually rendered him unable to walk and breathe on his own, Mattie was a survivor. He began writing poetry at the age of 3. He wrote poems about hope and peace. His philosophy was, ``Remember to play after every storm,'' and he did. Mattie believed that wishes can come true. He had three. The first was to talk peace with Jimmy Carter. They spoke several times through email correspondence. His second was to have his poems published in a book. He wrote the most successful volumes of poetry in the last 30 years and became a seven-time New York Times bestselling author. His last was to see his poetry read on Oprah. He appeared on Oprah's show several times and became her good friend. In September 2001, Mattie faced a setback. He was so sick that his doctors warned a laugh could cause his damaged windpipe to collapse. But that did not stop Mattie from a spectacular recovery. His doctors could not explain his comeback from this brush with death, but Mattie knew what it was. It was hope, prayer, and just one in a series of miracles in a miraculous life. After the chaos and confusion of September 11 and the anthrax attacks on the Capitol, I was very grief stricken. I saw a little boy on TV reading poetry, offering hope and healing. Mattie comforted me and lifted my spirits. I contacted him through his hospital and visited with him and his mother in his home. In 2002, I presented Mattie with the Children's Hope Medal of Honor. This medal is given to young heroes who have shown valiant effort and courage in facing life's daily challenges. No one was more deserving of that medal than Mattie Stepanek. Today we must also remember Mattie's mother Jeni Stepanek. Like Mattie, she suffers physical challenges, but her heart, mind, and spirit remain strong. Without Jeni, Mattie would never have been able to share his beautiful, inspiring words with us. Mattie got his knack for public speaking from his mom. She writes and talks about children with disabilities. He also got his love of life from her. Jeni continues to inspire us all with her life, with Mattie's words, and most importantly, a message of peace and hope. In his poem entitled ``The Daily Gift,'' Mattie wrote: You know what? Tomorrow is a new day. And today is a new day. Actually, every day is a new day. Thank you, God, For all of these special and new days. This is how Mattie Stepanek lived his life--with appreciation, inspiration, and energy. That is why I wish to say: Thank you, God, for blessing us with the gift of Mattie Stepanek and his heart of songs.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Senator Sanders is speaking. Senator Risch, I believe, is going to speak. The time now is on unaccompanied children; am I correct?

Ms. MIKULSKI. OK.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I haven't yielded the floor. I reserved my right to object. I am just clarifying. So Senator Sanders wishes to speak, and as I understand it, I have time--this is not in any way to interfere with the Senator from Idaho, but at 4:30 I am supposed to have the time under the time controlled by the Democrats; is that right?

Ms. MIKULSKI. How much time is--all I am trying to do is know when I am going to be able to speak. If I could turn to the Senator from Idaho, how long does he intend to speak?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I withdraw my objection. I think we deserve to hear Senator Sanders, and I will wait patiently for my turn.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an urgent crisis at our border in which over 250 children a week are coming from Central America, fleeing horrific gang violence--horrific gang violence--to seek refuge and asylum in the United States of America. This is being called a crisis at the border. Well, it is a border crisis, but the crisis actually begins in Central America, where brutal, violent gangs, based on organized crime, are either trying to recruit the boys into organized crime, drug smuggling, human trafficking, or to recruit the girls into human trafficking in other just dangerous and repugnant circumstances. But when you go to the border the way I have, you will see that the situation is dire. It is dire because, as these children come to the border, crossing the Rio Grande--probably within really almost a 50- mile stretch of the Grande; it is not over the 1,900 miles of the Grande--they come and, actually, they do not try to sneak in, they come right up to where the border control is and they have pieces of paper with their name on it. They are then taken into custody by border control. They are placed into holding cells that are designed for adult males. They were designed to hold drug smugglers, narcotraffickers, and now they hold as many as 20 or 30 or 40 children, while under the law they are to be placed in the hands of the Health and Human Services Agency while their legal and asylum status is being verified. Well, I am telling you, the entire infrastructure for dealing with these children--from the way the border control is trying to take care of them, the overrunning of the capacity of these holding cells, to the backlog on processing their legal and asylum determination, to really trying to place them in facilities under the care of Health and Human Services--the situation is dire. The President of the United States has asked for emergency funding to deal with it. I hope we consider this emergency funding. The amount of money the President is seeking is $3.7 billion. This is to care for the humanitarian needs of the children, the enforcement at the border, the identifying of their legal status under a law passed under the administration of President Bush to deal with the trafficking of children, both boys and girls, and also for robust deterrence in the home countries where these children are coming from. But the deterrence comes from breaking down and prosecuting organized crime syndicates of the smugglers and the traffickers. We are also asking for money to conduct a massive educational campaign advising Central American families against the dangers and false hopes of this journey. The journey is, indeed, dangerous. They come on foot. They come by car. They ride the tops of a train that is referred to as The Beast. There was one little girl who I spoke to with Secretary Johnson. She had stayed awake for 2 days on the rooftop of a train, terrified that she would fall off and be mutilated, just to be able to make it into the United States of America. And why did she make such a perilous, dangerous journey? It was because they were trying to recruit her into these violent and vile ways. We need to make sure Central America, with our help, goes after the seven organized crime units that we know are sparking this, that are trying to recruit these kids; giving them false promises too, that if they come to this country, they will be able to get a free pass somehow for getting into this country. We need to be able to stop this and be able to deal with it in the most effective way. The President's program actually does outline the money to be able to do that. When the children do come, as I said, while they are awaiting their legal status to be determined, they are placed in the hands of HHS. Now, HHS does not run group homes. HHS does not run foster care. HHS funds it, and they need to be able to turn to local communities to be able to have these children be able to stay. I saw fantastic work being done while the children were being placed at Lackland Air Force Base and the social services were being run by-- under contract of a faith-based organization--the Baptist church. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer knows a lot about human services. I myself am a social worker, and I will tell you that faith- based organization is really running a good program for these kids. But we are running out of money. We need money for food and shelter for the children. We need money for the border agents. We need money for transportation to shelters and also transportation, when we can, returning these children home. We need money for immigration judges and legal services for the children to determine their asylum status, and, as I said, we need the muscular deterrence in the home country breaking up the organized gangs that then create the violence that then sets these children on this journey. The best way to make sure the surge of children is stopped is not by harsher immigration laws. It is by making it hard on the drug dealers and the human traffickers, the smugglers, the coyotes. Because they are the ones who are the reason they are coming. Looking at the data--looking at data--we see that these children are coming not only where there is high poverty, but that children are coming where there is a high level of crime, particularly homicide, murder, and other recruitment of children. These children are almost being recruited by child soldiers in their own country to engage in violent criminal activity. So we need to be able to look at this emergency supplemental and be able to meet the human needs while the children are here, make sure we fund the judges, the immigration judges and the legal services, to determine their asylum status, and be able to take care of them. Already, 60,000 unaccompanied children have come into our country during this last year. In the 2 weeks I toured the border, I saw young children as young as 5 with one instruction: Cross the border, turn yourself in, and try to get as safe as you can. Border agents find these children often dehydrated, malnourished, and usually a victim of some type of trauma. Also, they have heard false promises from the smugglers about what it will be when they come here. These smugglers--as part of these dangerous gangs and cartels--see women and children as a commodity to be bought, sold, transported, as if they were cargo. Children leave these homes based on lies. They think they are coming to an area where they will never have to go home or that they will be safe. I hope we then pass this appropriations. I hope in passing the appropriations we will be able to protect the safety of the children, we determine their legal and asylum status, and we have this muscular deterrent strategy in the home country. There are those who want to have a new immigration policy or want to repeal the George Bush law. I would caution that because, remember, our problem is not the children; our problem is what causes the children to come. We have to go after what causes the children to come; and that is the drug dealers, the smugglers, the coyotes, those who are engaging in such violent crime. The host countries, along with Mexico, need to help deal with this, and we need to marshal our law enforcement resources to be able to help them do this. Now they say: Let's bring in the National Guard at the border. What is our National Guard going to do? When these little kids cross the Rio Grande, they are going to go right up to that soldier, put their arms around his or her leg, and say: I need to be safe. Can you help me? What is the National Guard going to do? It is not a border enforcement problem; it is a criminal gang problem in Central America. So we need to be able to be sure we are targeting the right areas in order to solve this problem. The children are not the threats. They are coming here because they are threatened themselves. We need to meet these urgent humanitarian needs, and we need to focus on our hemisphere to break up the gangs and crime. Later on today we are going to have a briefing for every single Senator so they can ask the questions about this situation. Who are the children? Why are they coming? What are their legal rights under the law? But how can we effectively deal with this children's march, where the children are in danger in their host country and on the long journey to this one? We are also asking that this $3.7 billion be designated as an emergency. There are those who will want to take from other domestic programs. I would caution that. In fact, I would object to the very idea. The President has said this is an emergency because under the Budget Control Act of 2011 it meets the criteria that it is sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary, deals with the loss of life, property, or our national security interests. I think it meets that test. I do not want to take offsets from existing programs to do this. It is unexpected. It is significant. We can deal with it, but let's not do it at the expense of other programs designed to help the American family and the American middle class. I know there are others who want to speak on this issue. I will have more to say later, but for now let's examine the urgent supplemental and let's really solve the problem at the border and what causes it to be a problem for us. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I wish to take this opportunity to speak in support of the Murray legislation to protect women's health from corporate interference. Because of an obligation to speak at a memorial service tomorrow, I will not be able to speak tomorrow morning. I feel so strongly about this issue that I would like to say a few words today. This legislation ensures that the personal opinion of an employer doesn't trump the medical opinion of a doctor. I sure wish this legislation were not necessary, but, unfortunately, because of the recent Supreme Court decision now known as the Hobby Lobby decision, it is necessary. Let's talk about how we got here. As the Presiding Officer knows, we worked on health care reform. We were so concerned that over 40 million people didn't have access to health care. We were concerned that just being a woman was treated as a preexisting condition. We were charged double for our insurance, and we often had to pay significant copayments for those procedures related to early detection and screening, for those procedures that would affect us such as mammogram care. So on a bipartisan basis we ended that discrimination so women couldn't be charged more than men of the same age or comparable health status. We also wanted to be sure we could do preventive health care benefits. That was an amendment I offered on the Senate floor. We had a spirited debate, even with Senator Murkowski. Senator Murkowski and I agreed on the same goals, but we had different methods. Ours won; mine won. I wanted to be sure politicians didn't decide what was preventive health care. I wanted to be sure politicians didn't decide what should be covered or not, and I didn't want to bring politics into it. So we turned to one of the most distinguished organizations in our government that makes recommendations to our government on health care policy. It is known as the Institute of Medicine. It is a nonpartisan group funded by this Congress made up of scientific experts to advise us on medical and health care. We wanted them to tell us what should be the preventive services that were included. So when we hear the criticism: ``Some government agency decided this; some bureaucrat decided this''--these are scientists, these are physicians, these are skilled researchers, and they determined that women should have access to eight preventive health care benefits for free. First of all, screening for gestational diabetes--that is, when a woman gets diabetes while she is pregnant or because she is pregnant-- high risk to the mother, high risk to the child. That means high risk HPV DNA testing, annual counseling and screening for HIV, comprehensive lactation support, and counseling, screening for domestic violence, an annual well-woman preventive care visit, and a full range of FDA- approved contraceptive methods. That is what it was. It was the Institute of Medicine--the Institute of Medicine--not Barbara Mikulski, not the Democrats, not President Obama--that said the FDA-approved contraceptive methods should be available. That brings us to the Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby, a for-profit company, employing thousands of people of different faiths and religions. Hobby Lobby's owners did not want to cover certain forms of contraception for their female employees. They said it was against their religious beliefs, and the Supreme Court agreed with that-- actually, the five men on the Supreme Court said they did not have to. The women on the Supreme Court offered a dissenting opinion. This ruling of the Court says the personal opinion of your employer is more important than the medical opinion of your doctor. As the Presiding Officer from Wisconsin knows--she, has put a lot of work into understanding health care and the delivery system--contraceptive methods are not always used to prevent pregnancy. Some are to deal with fibroids and other medical conditions. This ruling, unfortunately, says that a for-profit company can deny female employees coverage of important preventive health care based on religious objections of the company's health care ownership or leadership team. I always felt health care decisions should be made by the patient and their doctor, by a woman and her doctor, not by an employer or an insurance company. So it concerns me greatly that the Supreme Court Justices decided against that. It concerns me greatly that the Supreme Court Justices decided the employers should have the power to determine what medical care is available to their female employees. This is pretty scary, actually. I support what Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg said. What exemption does this extend? Does this go to blood transfusions for some groups, antidepressants for some other groups, vaccinations for other groups? The Supreme Court said: Oh, no, it is only for this. Well, one Supreme Court decision leads to another Supreme Court decision. So Senator Murray, who is an architect of a bill of which I am a cosponsor, has led the way. Her bill does two things. It prohibits employers from denying coverage of specific health care items or services if the coverage of that item or service is required by Federal law. It keeps in place, however, protections for religious organizations. So houses of worship can be exempted from this mandate of contraceptive coverage, religious nonprofits can certify that they do not want to offer contraceptive care, and insurers work separately with employees. The Supreme Court decision is an attempt to deny women's access to birth control disguised as an effort to protect religious freedom. I am a strong supporter of religious freedom. I stood on this floor and voted with its architect, Senator Ted Kennedy--a happy memory--that we would always have this religious protection of religious organizations, their nonprofit affiliates. So I hope we do support the Murray bill, that it follows the processes within the Senate, and it comes to our attention. I believe this will go a long way to clarifying this very important distinction between the religious freedom, particularly of religious organizations--houses of worship and the nonprofits affiliated with them--but it does not embody in a private business the rights of an individual. Madam President, I thank you for your attention and that of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to speak about the missing girls from Nigeria who on the 73rd day are still held in captivity. But before I do, as a Senator I would like to express my sorrow to hear about the passing of one of the great Senators, Howard Baker of Tennessee. Many Senators will come to the floor to extol what a great Senator he was, what a great leader he was. I also want to take a moment to express my sympathy to his widow, another Senator, Senator Nancy Kassebaum. When I came to the Senate, there was only one other woman, and that was Senator Nancy Kassebaum, then representing the great State of Kansas. She was a great friend to me. We served on the HELP Committee. We worked together over many years. Then Senator Kassebaum retired. She thought she was going back to Kansas, but she found herself in the arms of Howard Baker. We watched a love story unfold that was so endearing to many of us. Senator Ted Kennedy and I were invited to the wedding of Howard Baker and Nancy Kassebaum. After the vows there was a beautiful reception and they played the music. Howard and Nancy twirled and whirled around the floor. Then they turned to the crowd. Ted Kennedy and I rushed out. I grabbed Howard, he grabbed Nancy, and we did the bipartisan boogie through the night. Those were the days that one remembers. That is the kind of spirit the Senate had. That is the kind of spirit that Senator Howard Baker had--that you could argue, you could debate, and so on, but deep down the Senate should be the saucer that cools irrational passions of the time. He was a great leader. He created this atmosphere of being able to come together and solve problems. So whether it was on the Senate floor or whether it was on the dance floor, he really spoke about the need for bipartisanship. Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker is exactly the same way. So remembering with such fondness, we want to express our condolences about him and certainly to her as just one woman to another.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I am proud to rise today in support of the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act. I want to thank Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, Senator Murray, and Senator Isakson for putting together a strong reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. I am happy that we were able to come together in a bipartisan, bicameral way to reauthorize this bill. As our Nation continues to look at how to best create, sustain, and support high-paying jobs, we must look at how best to educate our workforce and how best to provide needed resources to fill jobs in high demand. WIA does just that. It helps people learn new skills and increases their chances of succeeding. This bill before us today is a major step toward improving WIA and helping our Nation remain competitive globally. This bill allows local workforce boards to tailor services based on regional employment and workforce needs. This means that workers will get access to education and training for the skills needed to fill jobs, including professional development. It helps ensure that Federal workforce and training programs are working together by bringing together multiple programs and providers into a unified State plan to break down barriers and improve efficiency and effectiveness. This bill also ensures that all WIA programs are held to one set of common performance measures. This will help integrate case management and reporting systems while strengthening evaluations. Finally, this bill ensures that youth with disabilities will be provided the services and support they need to be successful in competitive, integrated employment. I am particularly proud that this bill takes an in-depth look at nontraditional occupations. These are jobs where a gender makes up less than 25 percent of the workforce for that occupation. Women currently represent half of our Nation's workforce, but two-thirds of women are concentrated in 21 of 500 occupational jobs. Except for nursing and teaching, most of these jobs are among the lowest paid, including work in retail, service, and clerical jobs. Less than 16 percent of women who go through federally funded workforce programs receive any training. Most only get a ``needs'' assessment and receive help in finding a job. The economic recovery is leaving women behind. Of the 1.3 million jobs gained in the United States, nearly 90 percent went to men. Men have since regained 19 percent of jobs lost while women have only regained 6 percent. The incomes of women in the workforce are too often not adequate for a decent standard of living to support a family. This bill would require one-stop career centers to provide info to individuals, including women, on opportunities in fields that are nontraditional. It requires reporting related to job-placement services for participants, including the number and percentage of participants who enter a nontraditional occupation. It also requires all programs to make an effort to develop programs that increase employment opportunities for those that are interested in nontraditional work. The Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act supports our workforce in providing education and training for millions of America's workers. It ensures that local workforce boards have the flexibility needed to meet their regional needs. It encourages better coordination between Federal workforce and training programs and State and local efforts to attain economic development. It requires all programs to be accountable, and it provides more opportunities for youth with disabilities. This bill is a downpayment on our middle class and our Nation's future. It is my hope this bill be passed in a swift, expeditious, and uncluttered way and continue to work with Members on both sides of the aisle and across the dome to improve our workforce system. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to claim those 9 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, before we move to the adoption of the motion to proceed on CJS appropriations, if in fact we do so, I wish to speak as the chairperson of the Appropriations Committee and the chair of the subcommittee on CJS. I am really sad about what has happened here. I am really sad we couldn't find a way to proceed to bring up these three outstanding bills. I note that what we wanted to bring to the floor was the Commerce- Justice-Science bill, the Agriculture bill, and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development. There are significant policy differences even on each one of those bills, whether it is truck requirements, whether it is school nutrition, whether it is environmental--important discussions and decisions on the environmental protection. On my own CJS bill, we are going to really lose a lot. You know, I had money in this bill--working with Senator Shelby--for bulletproof vests for cops to protect those who protect us and more money for domestic violence to be able to protect those in their own homes. I have also added more money to work with those people who have been rape victims, doubly assaulted by the system where they are not only raped by a perpetrator, but the very system didn't process the forensic evidence that would have validated the guilty party or even ascertained that there was a serial rapist. Agriculture fed the hungry in this country and fed the hungry around the world. And of course transportation and housing both created jobs, solved problems in physical infrastructure, and also at the same time met compelling human needs in our housing. Particularly, I note the items such as housing for the elderly and the economic development. I am not going to take my full 9 minutes, but I would hope that at the end of today we figure out how we could have another day. I know on both sides of the aisle in the Appropriations Committee itself, those subcommittee chairmen really worked hard to produce bills. As of today, we have moved six bills out of our full committee and are pending on the floor. But now we have to truly arrive at a set of rules for the road on how we can proceed to bring these bills to the floor. I really hope we can do so. There has been so much good will on both sides of the aisle and also on both sides of the aisle a really incredible effort to be able to meet the needs of our country, to have a more frugal government and a really, truly civil process. So this day will come to an end. But I really hope that the Appropriations Committee coming to the floor doesn't die today. I yield the floor.