quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i would just like to make a couple of points on the -- the presiding officer: the senator is in a quorum call. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent, excuse me, the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: so ordered. mr. schumer: mr. president, i'd just like to make a couple of points on the coburn legislation -- amendment and then i will raise a point of order. the current bill, 2224, is budget neutral, as the past tria bills have been. on the other hand, c.b.o. has said coburn's amendment is not fully paid for, violating the senator's paygo rule. so basically the amendment, even though i know that the sponsor does not intend it that way, is a killer amendment.

c.b.o. has said the amendment would cause s. 2224 to increase federal deficits in both the five- and ten-year budget windows. senator coburn offered this amendment in committee. it was roundly defeated, bipartisan vote of 16-6 against it. and so i appreciate senator coburn's effort to provide more flexibility to the time frame for recoupment by the government in case of a terror event, but, in fact, the banking committee, led by senator johnson, and my office have worked with c.b.o. for a number of months to determine whether there could be more flexibility in the recoupment process. unfortunately, c.b.o. has yet to identify a way to provide more flexibility in the recoupment period while still ensuring the program remains budget neutral, as it is now. it's also important to note that if recoupment by the government poses any unforeseen challenge after a future attack, nothing would stop the treasury secretary from asking the congress then to provide that flexibility. the bottom line is that tria is

too important to allow the -- this amendment and nonreauthorization of the program because it is not budget neutral. we don't want to give anybody an excuse. i'm hopeful that senator coburn will support tria's final passage even if his amendment isn't agreed to, as he did in committee, but for those of us whose priority is to reauthorize this program, i urge my colleagues to vote to sustain the budget point of order and oppose the amendment. so, mr. president, i raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 201 of s. con. res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 2008. mr. crapo: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho the. mr. crapo: pursuant to section 904 and the waivable provisions of applicable budget provisions,

i move to waive all points of order against the bill and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on the motion to waive. all debate time has expired. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the vote is 47 yeas, 49 nays. the motion is -- thee-finals of the senators duly chosen not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will be -- the amendment falls. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the vitter amendment number 3550.

the senator from new york. shiewm i yiel mr. schumer: i yield back all time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: objection.shiewm ia voice vote. -- mr. schumer: i ask for a voice vote. the presiding officer: question occurs on the vitter amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. thunder the previous order, thee will be two minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the flake amendment number 3551. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: this is a good amendment and will be supported by chairman johnson and myself. i yield back -- i yield back all time. the presiding officer: is there objection?

hearing none, time being yielded back, the question occurs on the flake amendment. is this a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote. in not, the amendment is 97 ayes, 0 nays. the amendment is adopted. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the tester amendment number 3552. the senator from new york. mr. schumer: yield back all time. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, all time being yielded back.

the question occurs on the tester amendment 3552. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is adopted. under the previous order, the clerk will read the title of the bill for a third time. the clerk: calendar number 438, s. 2244, a bill to extend the termination date of the terrorism insurance program and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the bill. mr. schumer: mr. president, i yield back all time and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: without objection. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is sufficient second. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator wish to vote or change his or her vote? if not, on this vote the ayes are 93. the nays are 4. and the bill as amended is passed. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the cloture vote with respect to the carnes nomination now occur at 1:45 p.m. today,

while all the provisions of the previous order remaining in effect. the presiding officer: is there objection? no objection, so ordered. mr. reid: madam president? madam president? the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. reid: are we now in a period of morning business? still on the motion to proceed. okay, good. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: it's my understanding that the senator from virginia has a request. madam president, later today, -- first, may i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, it's my understanding that later today we're going to have an opportunity to approve a resolution that was voted out of

the senate foreign relations committee yesterday that deals with the tragic events in the middle east between israel and hamas. i just want to read part of that resolution, the action part of the resolution, because i hope it expresses the views of each member of the united states senate. it reaffirms the senate's senator for israel's right to defend its citizens and ensure the survival of the state of israel, condemns the unprovoked rocket fire at israel and calls on hamas to immediately cease all rocket and other attacks against israel. it calls upon the palestinian authority of president abbas to dissolve the unity government arrangement with hamas and condemn attacks on israel. madam president, we all are very concerned about the tragic consequences of the conflict between israel and hamas, and our strongest desire is that we can end the attacks in the --

and the missiles and that we can get israel and the palestinians to negotiate a peace agreement and a lasting agreement for two states living side by side, the jewish state of israel and a palestinian state. but the recent military action taken by the israel defense forces in gaza is a direct response to hamas' barrage of rockets and mortar attacks against civilian targets in israel. labeled as a terrorist organization, hamas is directly responsible for the innocent loss of life of both israelis and palestinians. it's very tragic, madam president, that what israel is doing it's doing to defend its civilian population from the incoming rockets, and what hamas is doing is indiscriminately sending missiles into israel, targeting innocent populations. hamas' actions to extend its

reach deeper into israel and its failure to end continuing attacks undermines efforts to attain peace and security in the region. the israel defense forces began operation protected edge tuesday, july 8, with one goal, one goal in mind, and that is to stop hamas' continued rocket attacks against israel's civilians. so since the start of the operation, there has been over a thousand rockets that have been launched into israel. most of those rockets hit targets. fortunately, they were not major population centers because of arrendone. i want to thank the united states for providing israel the arrendone missile defense system that has been responsible for bringing down approximately 200 of the rockets that otherwise would have hit population centers in israel.

earlier this week, egypt proposed an immediate cease-fire followed by a series of meetings in cairo with high-level delegations from both sides. israel accepted that cease-fire immediately. they said fine, let's do it. we want to stop the attacks of rockets into our country. we want to have discussions of peace. they did it immediately, and for six hours, the i.d.f. suspended operations against hamas, but during this time hamas fired 50 rockets into israel so the israel defense forces were ordered to resume attacks against terrorist targets following continued inbound rockets and hamas' official statement that it rejected the cease-fire. now, i think israel prime minister benjamin netanyahu said on cbs's "face the nation" on sunday, i think it summed it up best. i'm quoting from the prime minister -- "the difference between us is that we're using missiles to protect our civilians, and they are using their civilians to protect their

missiles." in other words, what hamas is doing is putting its missile locations in population centers, in schools, in hospitals, in modification and in direct way to use human shields. what a difference. israel's trying to protect its civilian population. hamas is putting its civilian population at great risk. hamas must end its rocket and mortar attacks, recognize israel's right to exist, honor all past agreements to peacefully move towards a two-state solution. that's what we want to see. i strongly support israel's right to defend its citizens against threats to its security and existence. hamas must end. it must be marginalized. it cannot be allowed to continue its terrorist activities. we must find a way to advance a stable and lasting peace between israel and the palestinian people. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: i would like to concur with my friend, the senator from maryland's comments on the tragedy in israel and the middle east, and i also want to say a special thanks to my friend, the senator from tennessee, for allowing me to jump line for a moment. madam president, on roll call vote number 229, i was present and voted aye. the official record has listed me as absent. therefore, i ask unanimous consent that the official record be corrected to accurately reflect my vote. this will in no way change the outcome of the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. warner: thank you, and i thank the senator from tennessee. mr. paul: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i rise today to say that i think it is abhorrent and i think most american people would be greatly distressed to know that some of your money could be sent to terrorist organizations rksz that --

organizations, that some of your money could be sent to hamas. hamas has joined a unity government with the palestinian authority. we give $700 million a year to the palestinian authority. i am appalled to think that we could be somehow indirectly paying for missiles that hamas is launching on israel. i support the resolution that will shortly come forward condemning hamas' activities, bu i want more teeth in this. i would like to see legislation that says you know what? if hamas wants to come out of the cold, they want to recognize israel and renounce peace, maybe, but if they are going to continue to say, as one of their leaders said recently, that our path is resistance in the rifle, our choice is jihad, if hamas is going to continue to laugh and to cheer with glee at the killing of three teenaged israeli citizens, one of which which was an american citizen,

we should guarantee that hamas should not get any of our money. so what i have asked today is unanimous consent to pass a bill to guarantee that hamas will not receive any of our foreign aid. so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on foreign relations be discharged from further consideration of senate bill 2265 and that the senate proceed to immediate consideration. i further ask consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: madam president, i know the senator from kentucky tried to have this bill heard this week in a business meeting. i know the senator knows i supported that effort to cause this bill to be marked up in the committee of foreign relations, which is where it should be dealt with. i thank him for his concern about foreign aid. i think he's brought a voice to the senate which has raised

many, many concerns about how we're spending taxpayer money, and i thank him for raising some of the issues that he's brought forth. as it relates to the bill itself, i have spoken to officials from israel, and i know that his -- one of the goals is to do something that complements israel and helps israel. i know they have some concerns with the way it's constructed, and actually in many ways if this bill were to become law, it would create a security -- heighten the security problem for israel, so we have had a constructive conversation i think on the floor. i'd like to talk with him a little bit further about some potential changes to the legislation, but i think that would be more appropriate than passing it by unanimous consent. i want to thank him again for his nature, the way he works with all of us, and i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. graham: madam president?

i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the senator from tennessee. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: i know the senator is supposed to be chairing a hearing here in a moment, but you are the ranking member on foreign relations. i want to compliment you and senator menendez, you all have been a very effective team, and the subject matter is iran. july 20 will be here shortly. so senator corker, what's your view of where we stand with the iranian nuclear program and what are your concerns? mr. corker: well, first of all, no one has taken a more important role in our foreign policy and security issues than you, and i want to thank you for that. i know on my last trip to -- to afghanistan, you were there serving your reserve duty there, and i want to thank you for the many contributions to open rule of these debates. i want to say that i think like many in this body, when the initial agreement was put forth and it had a six-month extension on it, there was a lot of

concern. what i am concerned about -- and the senator from south carolina i think may share some of these -- is that what we are going to end up with are a series of rolling interim agreements. what we have is iran doing everything they can to evade the sanctions that have been put in place. we have countries that see the opportunity possibly for iran to come out from under being a rogue state, and i'm worried that we are putting ourselves in a situation where we're losing all of the leverage that congress, working with the administration, that congress led on in putting these sanctions in place. so we're coming up on july 20. i was very disappointed that in essence in march the administration agreed to the fact that iran would be able to -- to have centrifuges to enrich uranium. it was something. it was just to me at the beginning of a negotiation to give one of the biggest things you can possibly give to a country like iran on the front

end, put us in a very bad position. but here is my concern. it is july 17. this agreement ends on july 20. i really believe that we're losing the leverage that all of us worked so hard to put in place. i'm worried that the coalition that we have is dissipating. and it feels to me like iran has -- is rope-a-doping us on this agreement. so i hope what is going to happen -- and i know you and i will be at a briefing later today. i hope the administration is going to share with us very clearly what the gaps are between where they are and where iran is. it is my hope that that gap is going to be very, very narrow. i don't think that's going to be the case. my sense is that the administration is going to ask for an extension over the next few days, and that concerns me. and hears what i hope congress will do. i hope congress somehow will have the ability through the

majority leader's efforts and all of us on the floor to weigh in on any final agreement that's put in place. i think that is very important. i know that you have tried to produce legislation to make that happen. i have done the same thing. secondly, i hope that the administration will agree that there will be no more extensions, period. that -- i'm pretty sure they are going to be asking for one. it's unfortunate. when you put in place an agreement on the front end that you have that ability. it doesn't create the essence, it doesn't create the focus, if you will, that's necessary to bring this to a conclusion. and again, what i hope will happen is that congress will have a final say on whether any removal of sanctions, any removal of sanctions -- that's all right. you are not supposed to sit during a colloquy. mr. graham: i learned something. mr. corker: but my hope is that before any type of sanctions

relief takes place, that congress will have the opportunity to weigh in. i had a long conversation yesterday with our lead negotiator. i shared the same concerns, that i just feel the moment slipping away from us. i think all of us want to see a diplomatic solution. i don't think there is anybody on this floor that wants to see anything less than a great result diplomatically. we are losing our leverage. time is slipping away. the coalition is dissipating. some of the parties, as you know, have differing interests now. we have had some conflicts arise over the course of time where some of our partners, some of our partners in these negotiations were at significant odds over it. with russia right now we have the issue in ukraine and crimea. with china, we have issues in chien and the east -- in china and the east china sea. all of this is giving me doubts

about reaching a diplomatic solution, even though i want more than anything -- on this issue, more than anything i want us to have a solid diplomatic solution that allows us to go forward and know that iran does not have the ability to break out and become a nuclear threat to the region, the world, and certainly create instability, and i yield back to my great friend and colleague from south carolina. mr. graham: i'd like to thank the senator from tennessee for his leadership on this and many things. we're working together. we hope to make this bipartisan. if there is an agreement reached with the iranians -- and i agree, we hope there will be -- that congress can have a say about this agreement. president obama felt he needed to come to congress to get approval to enter into syria. you led the effort, you passed the resolution in the foreign relations committee, you and senator menendez working together. you delivered republican votes to try to help the president. he drew a red line, nothing happened. if you believe you need input from the congress about going into syria, i hope the president will understand that the

congress wants input when it comes to the iranian nuclear program. i hope we'll demand it, because of all the decisions president obama will make in two terms as president, on the foreign policy front, this, to me, is the most consequential. why do i say that? the iranian regime with a nuclear capability is a nightmare for the world. senator corker, do you agree with me, based on your travels in the region, that if we allow iranians to have a robust enrichment capability -- and what am i talking about? taking uranium and enriching it to the point they can use it for commercial fuel to run a nuclear powrp reactor? the problem with enrichment is you can go beyond making commercial-grade fuel. you can actually use that process to make a bomb. without enrichment capability, you can't make a bomb. they're demanding a right to enrich. and it was, i think, given away in march was a huge mistake. if you made a list of countries that you would not trust to

enrich uranium based on their behavior and their disruptive nature, i would put iran on top of the list. my fear is that we're about to do with the iranians what we did with the north koreans, that you have a deal on paper that gives them an enrichment capability to be contained by u.n. inspection and in north korea the rest is history. when it comes to iranians, i am not going to turn our fate over as a nation to a bunch of u.n. inspectors trying to contain a robust enrichment program. i know israel will not. but here's the ripple effect. do you agree with me that any right to enrich we give the shia persians in iran, the sunnis are going to insist on an equivalent right? mr. corker: you're exactly right. i was in the region this year, and there's tremendous concern about obviously iran breaking out in this regard, and,

candidly, lots of conversations about ways for them to compensate for that because they obviously want a counter -- people in the region would want a counter to iran being a nuclear armed country. by the way, as you know with some of the proliferation that takes place, there are ways of buying those capabilities without even developing them yourself. so, yes, that's a major concern. you know, i tell you, our friend, senator menendez on the other side of the aisle, who you've worked so closely with -- i certainly don't want to speak for him but i'm glad to use a frame of reference he's used on so many occasions, and that is it is one thing to dismantle their ability to enrich and develop a nuclear weapon. it is a whole another thing to mothball. what i fear is we're creating a situation where again we have the countries who have come together, we have the sanctions that are in place, we let those sanctions dissipate and all of a

sudden, i think you know already the economy in iran is picking up. inflation has dropped. you allow those to dissipate, it took a lot of effort to put these sanctions in place, and again, there's a lot of differing interests today that didn't exist when these were put in place. then all of a sudden you have a situation where they break out again because they have got those capabilities. they have been mothballed, not been dismantled. not to speak of the fact that we don't know what's going on in parjan. we don't know what may happen at the araq facility. i hope the administration will be very clear about the gaps that exist today. my sense is they are going to extend. and, again, i have great concern about what that's going to mean relative to getting to a good end. mr. graham: along those lines, senator menendez has been one of the leading voices in the senate and the nation about having a cautious eye toward iran. they have an enrichment

capability, over the last decade it's grown dramatically. and this idea of moderate voices in iran, the president of iran was elected as the moderate. i don't believe that dichotomy really exists. this whole game of good cop, bad cop is going on in front of our eyes. in this case good president, bad ayatollah. the ayatollah, the supreme leader of iran, weighed in a few days ago talking about centrifuges ten times greater than they have today. i'm sure what he's trying to do is become the bad guy when he puts the number of 190,000 out and you wind up with 15 or 20, it's like a good deal. i can promise you one centrifuge in the hands of iranians is a risk. thousands of centrifuges in the hands of iranians is stupid. we would be crazy to let that happen. if they want a nuclear power program for peaceful purposes, sign me up. as a matter of fact, as part of any deal, i would put in the

deal the ability for the international community -- russia or the united states, china -- working together or separately to build a power plant inside of iran to give them nuclear power as long as we control the fuel cycle. 15 nations have nuclear power programs that do not enrich. canada and mexico have nuclear power programs but they don't enrich uranium. as a matter of fact, we're telling our friends in south korea, don't begin to enrich. we're telling our friends in the united arab emirates you can have nuclear power but don't enrich. i would find it incredible for us to tell allies that we trust don't enrich because it can set off unintended consequences, but we're agreeing to let one of the enemies of mankind have that capability because they're demanding it. so i hope and i pray that a deal can come about that will neuter the nuclear ambitions of the iranians and give them what they claim to want, a peaceful

nuclear power program. but i don't believe that's what they want. i don't think you would be doing all the things they have been doing lying and cheating and building plants under a mountain if all you wanted was a peaceful nuclear power program. as a matter of fact, our intelligence community tells us the program they have today has been put to military use. they deny that but we can't get to the bottom of it. what's your view about the likelihood of the iranians lying about the fact that they've tried to militarize their program? mr. corker: i think based on past behavior, that would be one's expectation. and, again, when we know there are facilities that are operating, we haven't been able to get into those facilities, when you look at the fact that one of the things that's not even being addressed is the whole delivery system, their ability to deliver the weaponry, none of this discussion thus far, to my knowledge, has anything to do with them

developing capabilities to actually deliver a nuclear weapon. what i'm concerned about, i mean, you focused on the centrifuges, and it is the central issue, no question. and i think you have wisely opponented out how the supreme leader has tried to move the goal post so far down the field that getting to the 30- or 40-yard line looks like a good deal to us. but we also did the same thing on the front end of the deal by acknowledging in the preamble or the four-page agreement that enrichment certainly could occur. but here's what's happening, i fear, on every single other portion -- not just the centrifuges -- the goal posts are being moved. in other words, the things that we thought were going to take place on the front end, whether it was the araq facility and what was going to occur there, what was going to happen in other pieces of the deal, all of which add up to very important elements or a final deal, i'm

afraid that what's happening is the goal post is moving on all of those as time goes on. mr. graham: i couldn't agree more. as a matter of fact, dismantling has become something new. removing highly enriched uranium, they have a big stockpile of highly enriched uranium. we're talking about diluting it. but the u.n. resolution called for its removal. so this deal is to the left of the u.n. resolution. as a matter of fact, this whole agreement is getting to the left of where the united nations has been. how about this scenario? it's one things to have fissile material in the hands of the ayatollah that can make a bomb, but they have a lot of highly enriched uranium still inside of iran. what's the possibility in your mind of a dirty bomb, where they turn that highly enriched uranium over to some terrorist organization and it makes its way here without their fingerprints being on it? mr. corker: one of the ways that iran has destabilized the region has been through proxies

that it funds. let's face it, until they got involved in syria, as you've talked about, i know, on the floor, until they got involved in syria through their proxies, hezbollah, actually the moderate opposition was gaining ground. so their utilization of terrorist groups to achieve their ends, obviously is their normal mode of operation. mr. graham: i'm sorry. continue. mr. corker: so when you think about the possibility of them being able to create, as you mentioned, a dirty bomb, which would create tremendous terror wherever it might have been implemented, that is something that i think is frightening. more than frightening, something that would be not quite as destabilizing as obviously having a full-blown nuclear weapon but something that would be very damaging to world

security. mr. graham: i know we're going to have a vote here in a second. but to sort of end our thoughts here, the reason 3,000 americans were killed on 9/11 and not three million is that the terrorist groups who wish us harm could not find capabilities beyond the airplanes. they're trying. they're trying to get weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, highly enriched uranium, fissile material. my fear is that if a regime like iran is given the capability to enrich, it will become a north korea where they break out, and i will not turn the fate of the united states over with my vote to a bunch of u.n. inspectors. the only hope of a breakout is a bunch of u.n. inspectors. the real whole goal for me is to have a capability that is very small, face-saving in nature that can't lead to a breakout. don't have something robust that can lead to a breakout and

expect the u.s. to protect us because they can't. they didn't do it in north korea. at the end of the day, engt decision we're going to -- i think the decision we're going to make as a nation through our president -- hopefully with congressional input -- will be the biggest decision we have made as a nation on the foreign policy front in decades because if we get this wrong, if we allow the iranian ayatollahs to achieve a nuclear capability, every sunni arab is going to want like capability, and we're on the road to armageddon. look at the mideast and ask yourself, is this a good place to give people nuclear capability? would they use it? hamas is firing every rocket in its inventory and they could care less where it lands; they hate israel that much. the sunni arabs feel more threatened by the shia persians than they do the israelis.

it's commonly believed the israelis have a nuclear cape afnlt not one sunni -- capability. not one sunni arab nation tried to procure a weapon of their own. every sunni arab state told me, you and everybody else who will listen, if the shia persians get a capability, we're going to match that capability, because they see that threat as existential. israel sees the threat with a nuclear capability in the iranians hands as existential. i see it as existential to the united states. we have an opportunity here as a nation to end this will. but what i hope we will not do is through negotiations create a scenario where they break out like the north koreans. if i've got the choice between a bad deal through negotiations that will lead to a nuclear armed iran over time and military force, as distasteful as that might be, i'm going to pick military force because we

have to stop their ambitions to become a nuclear nation. if we don't stop them, it would be like, in my view, allowing hitler to have had the bomb when you could have done something about it. mr. corker: to close out -- and i want to thank you again for your tremendous contribution for this debate and every foreign policy debate that we have -- the president did seek congressional approval on the authorization for use of military force in syria. it was not something that he had to do, but he sought it, and i'm glad that he did. and i was proud to be a part of writing the agreement with our chairman and other members of the committee to give him the power to do that and actually, to be candid, i regret that things took the course they took. but the president elected to do that. as you mentioned, a

nuclear-armed iran is a whole different scale. and what i hope will happen is the president will agree that there will be no more extensions if they ask for one in the next few days -- and i'm almost certain that that's what's going to happen. but, number two, i hope he will commit to letting congress weigh in on the final decision. i actually think that will be useful to them in the negotiations. i really do think that having a back stop would be useful to them. but if the president does agree to that, i hope we on our own would place legislation and pass it and ensure that's the case. i yield the floor and thank the president for their patience. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for five minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, please proceed. mr. kaine: madam president, in the last year, i have been in jordan, turkey and lebanon to visit syrian refugees and the

organizations that work with them. i have seen the effect of refugees fleeing violence on these nations. lebanon has four million people. they are having to care for a million refugees from syria, one in four members of their population. these countries especially jordan and lebanon are much smaller than the united states. they are much poorer than the united states. jordan has very little water for their own citizens much less refugees, but they have shown a real sense of compassionate hospitality in treating these syrian refugees who are fleeing violence and coming over their border. lebanese citizens even run double school shifts, their own kids in the morning and syrian refugees in the afternoon. madam president, i have wondered when i have been in the middle east in these countries, i wonder what would happen if refugees fleeing violence in other countries would come to the united states, i wonder if we would show the same compassion to refugees that is being shown by these poorer

nations. well, madam president, i want to say a few words about the crisis at the border now because we are now faced with that question. refugees fleeing violence and coming to the united states. who are the children that are coming to the united states? they are overwhelmingly refugees from three central american countries. 52,000 just this year. they are not just coming to the united states. they are also flooding into costa rica and nicaragua. senator menendez held a hearing this morning and we had testimony. what is the reason that they're coming? and the testimony was this -- the reason they are coming is overwhelmingly the violence in the neighborhoods where they lived that force their parents to decide to keep them safe, they should leave. what is the source of the violence? overwhelmingly again, the testimony is the source of the violence is drug trade that has corrupted the neighborhoods and made them -- made them dangerous. the kids are fleeing violence driven by the drug trade.

and, madam president, here's the sort of sad punch line. where does the drug trade originate? the drug trade is originating because of the significant demand in the united states for illegal drugs, especially cocaine. so these kids are fleeing to the united states because americans are buying illegal drugs in such numbers and the dollar is being shipped -- and the dollars being shipped south are creating conditions for gang warfare and cartels, turning these nations into transit points for drugs. i know these children and i know their neighborhoods. i lived in honduras, in el progresso honduras in 1981. 600 kids from that area have come to the united states as registers this year. honduras, a beautiful couple with beautiful team, a long-time ally of the united states, is now the murder capital of the world. more people murdered in honduras than any other country. el salvador is number four in the world.

guatemala is number five in the world. i recently met with the the president of honduras to talk about what we can do. what should we do? first, we have to stop blaming the kids or assuming that they are bad people. they are not. we need to show the same compassion for refugees fleeing violence and coming to the united states as nations like lebanon and turkey and jordan show to refugees fleeing violence and coming to their nations. secondly, we need to work on our legal process, the resources that the president asked for. i have some criticisms of exactly how those dollars will be spent and the particular protections that these refugees need when they arrive. remember, it's a 2008 law that we're dealing with that was passed nearly unanimously by congress and signed by president bush. we need to do immigration reform. the fact that we haven't done it for so long creates a sense of confusion if we can clearly elaborate what our immigration policy is, it will dispel myths. more support for security in central america is critical. we need to interdict more drugs.

general kelly, the head of southcom, says we let 70% of the drugs that come into the states go by us. we know where they are, but we haven't put the military resources in place to interdict them. and finally, we have to tackle the u.s. demand for drugs because that is what is driving the violence in the neighborhoods that are causing kids to flee. as i conclude, madam president, this year is the 75th anniversary of a very shameful event. the voyage of the st. louis. st. louis was a ship that left germany in 1939 with hundreds of jews on board. it was coming -- these jews were fleeing violence and antisemitism to come to the new world. they were not allowed to disembark in cuba. they were not allowed to disembark in the united states. they were not allowed to disembark in canada. and eventually the ship had to be routed back to europe where research shows that hundreds of those jews who had to get back off in europe died in the holocaust. the testimony this morning is if

we without due process send these children home, many will die as a result. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. kaine: that lesson of the st. louis should stick with us, and there are many things we can do to avert this crisis to show our good hearts as americans. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the sniped undersigned, 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 julie e. carnes of georgia to be united states circuit judge for the 11th 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 julie e. carnes of georgia to be united states circuit judge for the 11th circuit shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory

under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: