didn't cheat, because there was a lot of cheating going on in the 50% rate. then on the corporate tax in he estonia, they said we're not going to tax your profits as long as you reinvest those profits in jobs or research and development. the rest of the it will be taxed. they incentivized research and development, incentivized deployment. they made estonia feel like they had fairer taxes and what happened. you fly into town in estonia today and it is like flying into dallas or atlanta. there are cranes everywhere, economic improvement everywhere. they have what people perceive to be a fair code and incentivize people to do business and make money. you raise revenue in america by raising prosperity, not by raising rates of taxation. we prove that every time we lower the capital gains tax. every year following the lowering of the capital gains tax, revenues from capital gains went up and not down. why? because people who had a mature

investment were incentivized to pay the lower tax rate, sell the investment and reinvest in a maturing developing investment rather than that hold on because they didn't want to pay a confiscatory tax. there is not one of us in this room that doesn't make decisions every single day on our personal financing where we don't consider in some part, in whole or in part the tax consequence of it. that is why you have a tax code. but we ought to look at fair and equitable corporate tax relief. we ought to do it for s corps and c corps. c corps tax rate are 35%. s corps are corporations where they file as partners and frosts flow through on what is known as a k-1 statement and flows through as ordinary income. today the ordinary income tax rate for people making more than $450,000 can go up to 39%. it is higher than the 35% c corps have. if we lower the c corporate from

35, there will be a big disparity. the s corps is 72% of the jobs created in america. so we ought to take the whole enchiladas, reform the corporate tax rate at the c corporate and s corps rate and make them fair, equitable and more productive. if we incentivize american business to invest and to grow, we will raise revenues, raise prosperity and raise hope. if we continue to pass bills that say if you do something, we're going to tax you. or if you do something, we're going to give awe benefit and think that's going to cause people to bring jobs back to the united states of america, we're dead wrong. what will cause them to bring jobs back to america is a fair tax code and take our strong investments and strong assets like petroleum and like liquefied natural gas and use them to our advantage through the soft power of economic power. so my message today is very simple. you want to create jobs, build

the keystone pipeline and give the president trade promotion authority. if you want to stop modern inventions, modernize the tax code like every other country in the world has done. there are a lot people that talk about offshore profits stranded in the cayman islands. we created the cayman islands secret bank accounts when we passed a tax code confiscatory in nature. when it is better off for your company and stockholders to keep the money somewhere else offshore so it is not subject to a second time in taxes, you created those cayman islands tax havens and we'll do it again if we don't get our tax code fixed. build keystone, give the president trade promotion authority and make a fair, equitable chang in our s corps and c corps and let's not punish americans for doing business. i yield the floor and yield to the senator from tennessee.

the presiding officer: the senior senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: i thank the chair, and i congratulate the senator from georgia on his remarks. they were, as usual, eloquent and elucidate the issue beautifully. i'm glad i got a chance to hear them. mr. president, i come to the floor today to speak about an effort to expand regulations that will have a damaging effect on thousands of americans. for those who are concerned that this administration is trying to take away our guns, well, this regulation could actually do that. if this regulation is approved, when you decide to sell a gun, to sell a guitar, or anything else that contains an african

elephant ivory, the government would actually take them away, even if you inherited the item or bought the item at a time when the sale of ivory was not illegal. in february the u.s. fish and wildlife service announced a plan to prohibit the interstate commerce of african elephant ivory. this was part of president obama's national strategy for combatting wildlife trade. now the plan is intended to stop the poaching of african elephants and help preserve that spee seekers but the impact -- species, but the impact will be different. the impact will be to change a policy that has been in place since 1990, which prevents the importation of ivory for commercial purposes with the exception of antiques. but it did not restrict interstate or intra state

commerce of legal ivory. now let me be clear. i support stopping poachers. i support preserving these magnificent, regal animals: the elephant. and i strongly support stopping the trade of illegal ivory. but what i don't support is treating tennessee musicians, tennessee antique shops, tennessee firearms sellers like illegal ivory smugglers for selling legal ivory products, many of which are decades old, if not over 100 years old. banning the buying and selling of products of ivory found in legally produced guitars, legally produced pianos, legally produced firearms could prohibit musicians from buying or selling instruments that contain ivory, prevent firearms and family heirlooms containing ivory from being sold and pose a significant threat to antique

businesses. even though the ban hasn't yet gone into effect, the confusion and uncertainty created by the fish and wildlife services action to ban the interstate commerce of ivory and any item that contains ivory are already having a significant impact on businesses and families alike. let me give you the example of john case, who owns and operates a small family antique business with four employees in knoxville, tennessee, near my home. he says he could see his business devastated by this proposed regulation. this is what john case says -- quote -- "the impact of president obama's executive order expanding the buying and selling of antique ivory and other endangered species has been significant on our auction and appraisal business. if one looks at the number of antique objects we have sold" said john case" and are selling at auction just for 2014, that

total exceeds $156,000. the amount is more than 11% of our revenues for 2013 and does not include the number of antique objects we turned away from selling because of these new regulations and the loss of appraisals of those objects." john case continues, "this would easily total an additional $25,000 in revenues. this total loss of revenues of $181,000 equates to one full-time salaried employee in addition to hours for part-time employees." here's one more example of a new regulation that on a small business will equate to the loss of a job of one full-time salaried employee in addition to hours for part-time employees, and we wonder why the economic recovery has been worse than the great recession. you can't be projobs if you're antibusiness. if you keep dumping this big wet blanket of regulations on every effort that an entrepreneur has

to create a new job. americans who create jobs, one told me the other day in tennessee, said i'm sorry to say i'm beginning to look at a new employee as a liability instead of an asset. he said, i hate that. i want the employee to be an asset. but when i look at the employee, i think about what new costs does that employee bring to my business because of government regulations about obamacare, about business, about this, about that. and now in john case's case, about legal ivory. mr. case goes on to say, "further, the loss of revenues for our business is significant, as it encompasses a wide range of antique objects, including 18th and 19th century american portraits on ivory, music boxes and furniture with ivory inlay, silver tea services with ivory insulators, weapons with ivory grips and inlay. if these new regulations go into

full effect i anticipate reductions in staff and intern programs, fewer jobs. the impact of these new regulations has a significant impact on our customers as well." according to mr. case -- quote -- "i just fielded calls this past week of two local consignors who have hold eggs of antique ivory with values exceeding $200,000. one of these con sirens -- consign ors said the ivory had been inherited from his grandfather. for many of my consignors they will see a complete devaluing of one of their greatest personal assets." mr. case isn't alone. the music industry, we have a lot of that in tennessee, nashville, memphis and east tennessee. the national association of music manufacturers whose mission is to promote the pleasures and benefits of music, says of the proposed regulation,

"the problem with the fish and wildlife service's plan" say the music association, "is many post-1914 instruments containing ivory are still in use. for example, many guitarists play with vintage guitars which contain small amounts of ivory. it is worth noting the music products industry generally stopped using ivory by the mid-1970's. a ban on the interstate sale of instruments containing ivory would prohibit musicians from buying or selling their instruments. replacing ivory with other materials could adversely affect the tonal quality of those instruments. instruments are not bought because they contain ivory but because of their playing characteristics. the proposed ban has already resulted in anecdotal reports of fish and wildlife service agents

investigating piano transactions, piano transportation companies to see if any instruments containing ivory, even though these companies do not own the instruments." here's another example from the national rifle association about the proposed ban of legal ivory. "the effects of the ivory ban would be disastrous for american firearms owners and sportsmen as well as anyone else who currently owns ivory. this means that shotguns that have an ivory bead or inlay, handguns with ivory grips, or even cleaning tools containing ivory would be illegal to sell." my office has heard from businesses and individuals from all different sectors of our economy and examples go on and on about this misguided policy. let me repeat, i support stopping poachers. i support preserving these magnificent, regal animals, the elephant. and i strongly support stopping the trade of illegal ivory.

but i don't support treating tennessee musicians, antique owners and gun owners like illegal ivory smugglers if they sell products that contain legal ivory. i call on the fish and wildlife service to abandon their current efforts and take a more commonsense approach, an approach that will preserve elephants while not turning law-abiding citizens and businesses into criminals. in the absence of a more commonsense approach, i've introduced legislation, s. 2587, the lawful ivory protection act of 2014, to stop this misguided policy from going forward. my bill simply stops the fish and wildlife service from continuing down this unwise path. it keeps in place the same regulation that prohibited the illegal ivory trade regulation before february 25, which is the date the fish and wildlife service began rolling out new regulations to ban interstate

commerce of ivory and any item that contains ivory. i urge my colleagues to take a look at this issue and to cosponsor my bill, s. 2587, the lawful ivory protection act of 2014, to stop the administration from taking away our legal guns, from taking away our legal guitars, and from taking away our legal items that contain legal ivory if we try to sell them. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. heinrich: mr. president, when congress unanimously passed the bipartisan trafficking

victims protection act back in 2008 to strengthen federal trafficking laws and ensure unaccompanied and undocumented children receive humane treatment, it was welcomed by the bush administration as a prior priority issue in preventing the trafficking of persons around the world. at the time, southern baptist ethics commission president richard lamb said it shows a broad coalition all the way from the left to the right and in between when it comes to significant human rights issues" -- unquote. the law itself was named for william wilberforce an evangelical christian who led the effort in britain's parliament to end the slave trade-trade in britain in the 19th century. now, six years later, too many of my republican colleagues are calling to roll back the very protections that just a few

years ago were rightfully lauded as a tremendous victory for human rights. many of us believe that the current central american refugee crisis requires an immediate and compassionate response. yet the proposals put forth by senate republicans have been to reverse critical child refugee protections and deport dreamers who have absolutely nothing to do with this current crisis. the proposal introduced by my colleague from texas, senator cornyn, and similar proposals from my republican colleagues would weaken the 2008 trafficking law and implement expedited deportation that denies children the chance to go through an orderly process, to determine if they need protection, and it applies to all unaccompanied children who cross the border. i believe, mr. president, that we are a better nation than that now, my republican colleagues keep saying that they want a

humane process, but these proposals would trade the safety of children for expediency and eliminate the very protections unanimously set forth by congress back in 2008. as a father i have to say i believe this debate can't just be about the efficiency with which we can deport refugees. it should take into account the situation that these boys and girls are seeking to escape in the first place. both the united nations high commission on refugees and the refugee and immigrant center for education and legal services in two separate reviews recently found that approximately 60% of unaccompanied children from central america suffered or faced harms that indicated a potential or actual need for international protection. to understand just how these proposals could adversely harm the children involved, one can read a recent article in "the

new york times" by julia preston. it tells the story of andrea, a young woman from honduras who was forced by her own family, associates with the mexican drug cartel, into prostitution at age 13, if you can imagine that, mr. president. after two years, she ran away, hoping to seek safety in the united states. she tried twice to flee abuse, crossing the rio grande and was apprehended by border patrol on both attempts. when agents questioned her, andrea did not tell them why she fled. she said i was just trying to protect myself, just afraid of everything after all those things those guys had been doing to my body. andrea, a victim of sex trafficking, was sent back into harm's way to live with relatives in mexico.

andrea is not alone. many more children could also be sent back into a dangerous environment if proposals to overturn the 2008 trafficking victims protection reauthorization act are passed. unaccompanied children like andrea need a safe place to talk about violence and abuse. a border patrol station holding cell is no place for an interview that literally will impact the rest of their lives. especially while they're still recovering from a dangerous journey. subjecting central american children to this screening process would be a retreat from our nation's commitment as a humanitarian leader and frankly undercuts our american values of putting children ahead of politics. a coalition of more than a hundred nongovernmental organizations such as first focus, women's refugee commission, and the american immigration lawyers

association, all wrote a letter to president obama earlier this month to share their thoughts on this humanitarian crisis. they wrote, congress gave consideration to the unique circumstances of children when it enacted the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act. undermining due process and protection under the law is not the right answer. and certainly will not appease the criticisms of those who have been calling for more punitive and aggressive enforcement. and just yesterday, mr. president, in an open letter to congress, the evangelical immigration table warned against weakening the protections afforded by the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act. stating that -- quote -- "the law ensures that victims of trafficking not only identified and screened properly but that traffickers are penalized and brought to justice" -- end quote.

i've also heard from the southern baptist convention, the u.s. conference of bishops, and children's lawyers who have sent the same message to us -- don't weaken this anti-trafficking law. congress should focus on strengthening safeguards for children, rather than weakening their protections. last week, mr. president, one of my colleagues from texas proposed that the only way to stop the rise of unaccompanied children is to punish dreamers and introduced legislation to defund the deferred action for childhood arrivals program or daca, as it's called. daca has helped more than 550,000 undocumented students across the country who came to the u.s. as children to have an opportunity to pursue a higher education. dreamers in the daca program are not the cause of the current central american refuge crisis and the notion any legislation to address this issue must also

end daca is frankly out of touch. dreamers are bright, they're hardworking and most of them don't know how to be anything but an american. i've met many dreamers from new mexico, i've heard their stories, i've read their letters. they have never given up on this country. and, frankly, mr. president, i'm not giving up on them. last year i had the pleasure of meeting a young woman named laura in las cruces, new mexico. she arrived in the united states from mexico when she was 7 years old. she learned english, earned good grades in school and it wasn't actually until she was 13 years old that she even found out that she was undocumented. she said i couldn't believe it. all my dreams, all my hard work, it felt like it was all for nothing. don't leave anyone behind on the

american dream, she said. lara wants to be a doctor, and there's the story from a young woman named uri. her family emigrated to the united states from mexico when she was two years old back in 1996. in high school in albuquerque, she volunteered in her community, graduated in the top 10% of her class. she send eastward the 2013 national sandia laboratories scholarship. recently she was approved for daca and is currently a student at the university of new mexico. there are literally countless stories like these from young people who love this country and have only known it as their home, and we are not going to let republicans use this current humanitarian crisis as an opportunity to punish dreamers. i am happy, mr. president, to

end president obama's deferred action program, but we will do that by passing the dream act as part of comprehensive immigration reform. if you really want to help solve this crisis and make our policies crystal clear, all the more reason to pass the senate's bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. the reality is our nation is facing a refugee crisis at our southern border. children from honduras, el salvador, guatemala have fled to the u.s. and to other neighboring central american countries. to escape unimaginable violence, corruption, extreme poverty and instability in their home countries. in some cases these children are literally fleeing for their lives. and many of these children are turning themselves in to border patrol agents. this little boy's name is

alejandro. he's 8 years old. he traveled alone from lon doors -- honduras with nothing but his birth certificate in his pocket. i thought about that. i can't imagine my 7-year-old traveling across washington, d.c. or albuquerque, new mexico, or any major metropolitan city in the united states by himself. it took him three weeks to make that dangerous journey from central america to the banks of the rio grande. after being asked where his parents were, alejandro said they were instone. he came to the united states -- in san antonio. he came to the united states because he wanted to reunite. he didn't run or hide. alejandro wanted to turn himself in just like many mothers and children have done in the course of the last year. yet we've heard this week calls from some who would militarize our border and send in the

national guard. now, we may -- and i would say we need more resources to our border patrol agents. they have been taxed, they have certainly been putting in long hours since these numbers started to crest. but i don't think sending soldiers to meet people like alejandro is the right solution to this crisis. the notion that lax border policies are somehow responsible for this crisis is not just a myth, it's a willful misrepresentation driven by politicians who would rather create a political issue than solve a real problem. you know, there was a recent interview -- in a recent interview when asked to discuss whether sending in the national guard would be an appropriate response to these problems, at the core of the current crisis, steven blum, who was the former

chief of the national guard bureau under president george w. bush, mr. blum told "the washington post" -- quote -- "there may be many other organizations that might be more appropriately called upon. if you're talking about search and rescue, maintaining the rule of law, or restoring conditions back to normal after a natural disaster or catastrophe, the guard is superbly suited to do that. i'm not so sure that what we're dealing with in scope and causation right now would make it the ideal choice." it's a very polite statement, mr. president. the fact is there are more border patrol agents today, more technology and resources at the border than any time in our nation's entire history. and our border patrol are better prepared to deal with this issue than the national guard. border patrol apprehensions are

today less than one-third of what they were at their peak, and this is because we've worked so hard and so effectively to secure the border. those of us who represent border communities understand the challenges that we face, but there are solutions before us that are pragmatic and bipartisan that uphold our american values that don't compromise them. republican leaders should demand that their colleagues in the house of representatives act to fix our broken immigration system. the senate passed a bipartisan bill more than a year ago now and passing believe that would make -- that bill would make our immigration policies crystal clear to the world. additionally, passing the senate's supplemental funding bill to address this crisis sends a clear signal that we are aggressively stemming the flow of children and families from central america while continuing

to treat those refugee children humanely and under the law. this situation is an emergency and we frankly need emergency funding. passing the emergency supplemental would allow the departments of homeland security and justice to deploy additional resources including immigration judges, immigration and couples attorneys, asylum officers, as well as expand he use of the alternatives to detention programs. we're not arguing that every child should stay. many, in fact, will be returned. but it will be after a department of justice judge has evaluated his or her case for asylum. the supplemental would also help governments in central america better control their borders and address the root causes of migration, including criminal gangs causing and profiting from this refugee crisis.

a number of us today, mr. president, met with the ambassadors from honduras and guatemala, el salvador and it was very clear what was driving these issues, and without getting to those root causes, we won't be able to solve this crisis permanently. the supplemental would provide much-needed resources for u.s. health and human services to ensure that these children receive medical screening, housing, counseling. yet instead of supporting this funding which seeks to meet this challenge head on and protects these children, republicans want to use the crisis to eliminate crucial child protections, punish some of our nation's brightest students and promote their border enforcement only agenda. now, before i close and hand the floor off to some of my colleagues, i'd like to highlight some of the humanitarian work that's being done in my home state of new

mexico to address this crisis by telling the story of project oak tree volunteer orlando antonio jimenez. oak tree is a short-term stay shelter for undocumented immigrants in las cruces. run by the catholic diocese of las cruces. the shelter opened earlier this month after d.h.s. establishes a temporary facility for undocumented parents and their children at the federal law enforcement training center campus in artesia, new mexico. orlando signed up to volunteer for project oak tree on day one. he said he saw the immediate need to assist families facing this humanitarian crisis and he didn't think twice. he said his christian values and belief in doing the right thing drove him to volunteer. orlando gets the opportunity to

speak to almost every single person that arrives at project oak tree. and said almost all of the stories that he hears from mothers has some element of fear for their safety if they were to go back home. orlando said that he'll never again say the words "i'm starving" when he's just hungry. becau -- because he knows now what starving really means. he says this experience has changed his life forever and that he'll continue to help as much as he can. i'm grateful for alondo's work in our community and for the many, many others in new mexico who have stepped up and shown compassion and done all they can to help. mr. president, now it's congress' turn to help. it's our turn to be part of the solution to this refugee crisis. thank you, mr. president.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia is recognized. mr. kaine: mr. president, i also rise on the floor, together with my colleagues from new mexico and florida, to talk about the refugee crisis at our nation's border. i appreciate senator heinrich's leadership on this issue and his comments and i'm looking forward to hearing senator nelson as well. but i want to share just a little bit of a personal story and then amplify a few comments i made on the floor last thursday about this challenge. i feel very personally connected to this issue and to the children who are coming to the border, children like alejandro, whose picture was such a stark reminder that we're dealing with little kids. in 1980 and 1981, i was a student in law school and i decided i didn't know what i wanted to do with my life and i needed to figure it out. and so what i did was took a year off of law school and went to work with jesuit missionaries in the town of el progresso,

honduras. el progresso at that point was a taketiny community a large agril community. and i worked as a principal in a school that told kids to be welders and carpenters. i was dealing with youngsters in this neighborhood. well, today el progresso is the epicenter of this problem. there have been hundreds of kids from here who have come to the border this year. san pedro sula is thought to be the murder capital of the world. when i was in honduras in 1981 and 1981, it wasn't an overly violent place. it was under a military dictat dictatorship. there was poverty. but refugees were coming into honduras back then from el salvador and guatemala. they weren't leaving because there wasn't the everyday violence we see today. honduras was a great ally of the united states, a great partner. honduras was one of the original countries where we sent peace

corps volunteers and i could see their influence all around the country. but honduras is a very different nation today. honduras is now the murder capital of the world. highest homicide rate in the united states, about 40 times the homicide rate of the united states. this area, el progresso is really sort of the epicenter of that. the united states had to pull peace corps volunteers out of honduras a few years ago because it got too violent. and the friends that i've stayed in touch with over the years have -- have informed me about what's been happening in their neighborhoods as the violence has increased. we had a hearing last week where we had witnesses before us in the foreign relations committee. we asked, why are the kids leaving honduras? is it because their parents don't love them? i mean, you think about family members. what would it take for a family to let a child take a trip of the kind that alejandro took? it would have to be -- i can tell you from living in

honduras, parents love their kids just like they do love them in the united states. they're no different. to send your child thousands of miles, you would only do it for the most extreme reasons and living in the murder capital of the world is that extreme reason. these kids are fleeing to the border because they're not safe. what's the cause of the violence? i talked a little bit about this last week. the violence in honduras, the murder capital of the world, el salvador, fourth highest homicide rate in the world, guatemala, fifth highest homicide rate in the world. the violence is driven overwhelmingly by the drug trade. that was the evidence before our committee hearing last week as well. drug cartels have moved in to honduras in these central american countries. they get drugs from south america. they're shipping them to the united states because of the u.s. demand for legal drugs, especially cocaine -- illegal drugs, especially cocaine. the drug trade is not about hondurans using drugs.

they don't use drugs to any significant degree at all. but it is the illegal demand for drugs by people in the united states largely and the dollars that we are sending essentially down to buy drugs that has turned honduras, that has turned san pedro sula and el progresso into a massive drug cartel area, where the combination of dollars and violence and fights between drug cartels put little kids in harm's way. and then the gangs want them to join. we want to be the most powerful gang because we want the money. and the way we do that is we recruit more kids in. and so the roots of this problem, the roots of these refugees, these little kids who are coming to our nation, is violence in their neighborhoods that is created by a drug trade that is driven by, sadly, united states demand for illegal drugs. that's -- that's what's happening. that's what's happening. and it's just been heartbreaking to see a country that i care about and love and people that i care about and love live in a place that is now the murder capital of the world largely

because of the demand from illegal drugs that's coming from this nation. so what, we're going to blame these kids? we're going to call them name or stand out and protest against them? why? because they live in a violent neighborhood? why? because they want a better future? why? because they look at the united states and think we may be a better and safer place for them? we shouldn't be blaming them. we shouldn't be blaming them. because they're doing what any of us would do if we lived in a neighborhood where the violence was this extreme. if you have no other way to protect yourself, you're going to leave. and we'd leave neighborhoods and we'd leave situations that are this bad. now, mr. president, the good news is -- and senator heinrich has laid this out -- we don't have to stand by and say there's nothing we can do. there are solutions. and so we had a meeting with the three ambassadors today i and te foreign relations committee is going to have a meeting with the three presidents tomorrow and

we're going to talk about solutions. let me just run through six things we can do and i'll just talk briefly about some because my other colleagues have already dealt them or senator nelson will. but first, let's start out, how about just not blaming the kids for number one? let's just not blame the kids. let's not pretend that they're crooks or criminals. might there be some who are coming across the border that have criminal records? sure. we could do criminal record check and we can figure that out and if that's the case, then we can deal with that. but these kids who are leaving to stay alive -- my wife was a jewel court judge. she used to say, i sometimes put a kid in jail to keep him alive. the need to -- the need to remain alive sometimes leads you to do extreme things, even travel thousands of miles to come to a country where you think you might be more safe. let's begin by not blaming these kids. that's number one. second, we do need to implement the law. senator heinrich talked about this law that was passed by a unanimous congress, that was signed by president bush that was named after william

wilburforce. do you know who that is? william wilburforce was a great aabolitionist, inning glesh preacher who had interaction with the slave trade when he was in england and then came to realize that the slave trade was wrong and that religions had promoted the slave trade. and he turned his life around and became a crusader against human trafficking, a crusader against the slave trade. that's what this law is that is put in place. let's not willy-nilly change the law. let's implement the law. the law was a good law. in order to implement the law, we do need funding. and so senator ien rick talked about the supplemental request that will be before the senate. we've had some good discussions about it. i think we've put it in a place where it's now solid. we do need to support that supplemental request so that there are ample services where these children can be evaluated. if they qualify for asylum, then they should be able to stay, just like other refugees can

stay. if they have committed criminal activities, they can be sent back in order to enforce the l law. and it seems like that's what folks are always saying around here, we should enforce the immigration laws. let's enforce the wilburforce law and make sure there's funds in place to do it. the third thing, mr. president, we should do is we should get our priorities right about how we spend money. we're spending money the wrong way in central america. i mean, it's just kind of amazing what we are doing. we -- you would think -- you would think that we ought to be investing a little bit in the security of central america, just like we invest in rebuilding infrastructure in afghanistan, just like we invest in things all around the world. and we should especially be doing it in central america because it's the u.s. demand for illegal drugs that's creating the conditions of violence there. so doesn't that create some obligation to take a little bit of responsibility for helping central american nations with

security? well, we do spend money on the security in central american nations but the money has been dwindling every year, dropping, dropping, dropping. in 2015, the president's budget submission for central american regional security initiative, $130 million, about $40 million each between the three countries. compared to -- here's what we spent on the border, on border security in 2015, $17 billion. $130 million for regional security in the nations where these refugees are coming from and we're spending $17 billion on the border. wouldn't it be better, instead of having to just catch all these kids as they're coming across the border and then spend time in an expensive legal process. wouldn't it be a little better to try to take some of that money and spend more in central america to help these three nations have stronger police force, stronger judiciary systems? if we could deal with and reduce

violence in the neighborhoods -- and we have to do it in partnership with these nations; they have responsibilities as well -- but if we could do that, we could dramatically reduce the number of kids that are coming to the border. but we're spending money the wrong way. and i'm happy that this supplemental has some significant funding to increase our security efforts in central america. that's very critical. we've got to work with the central american governments to prosecute the coyotes. the coyotes are the smugglers that bring these kids to the border. and they often perpetrate lies. they tell these kids, hey, look, you know, if we can get to you the border, you can stay forever. they will spread false mess anlz about -- messages about american law and they do it because they're making money off these poor families. honduras is one of the poorest countries in the western hemisphere. for a parent to pay $4,000 or $5,000 to one of these smugglers for their kids to come, that -- that is usually more than their combined assets. they have to gather up money from all kinds of places to be able to do it. we need to prosecute the coyot

coyotes, these smugglers in central america, and our efforts can help the countries do that. we need to make sure that the countries spread the message that once the kids get here, they're not going to just be able to come in and stay automatically. that work is being done but more can be done. but die think, mr. president, that probably the most important thing we could do here is -- is this. it is to spend more money helping solve the cause, the violence, the drug cartels in central america. if we do that, we're going to see the numbers of kids who are having to flee neighborhoods like the ones i lived in, dramatically reduced. a fourth thing we can do and senator nelson's going to talk about this so i don't want to get into it. but it's interdict more drugs. you know, if you want to be tough, if you want to do something tough here, why send national guard to the border? these kids aren't sneaking across the border. they're coming and turning themselves in to the first person they see. you have a u.s. uniform on, i know you won't kill me. i feel safe now. we don't need to send more

national guard to the border. the kids are already turning themselves in. if you want to be tough, how about more funds for the military. senator necessarily slon go into that. we do need to do immigration reform. fifth, senator heinrich mentioned this, we passed immigration reform in this chamber 13 months ago. there was all kinds of stories about it. in the house this is he's been no action, not even bills out of committee, much less the house floor on immigration reform. is there going to be immigration real estate form or isn't there? maybe it is not tbg to pass in the other house. when there's uncertainty, that enables these coyotes to go in and kind of market, oh, yeah, somebody is about to happen. this is going to havment we can get you to the united states. the sooner we create immigration reform, the easier it will be to deliver a message that all in central america will understand

about what our rules are and when they aren't, who is allowed to come in and who isn't. and finally, mr. president, and this is the hardest one of all, we've got to figure out strategies, better strategies to reduce illegal use of drugs, especially cocaine in the united states. because as long as there is this massive, massive demand for illegal drugs like cocaine, in countries like montana that have -- like honduras that have really poor budgets, there's going to be threes drug cartels that are going to use them as stage grounds to supply u.s. drug demand. sometimes people talk about drug use as a victimless crime. i'm not hurting anybody. i may use drugs. i'm not hurting anybody. this is not a victimless crime. somebody who's using recreationally illegal drugs that are transited through the americas to get to them, they're creating victims, they're creating the murder capital of

the world, they're creating kids who are having to leave their homes and flee thousands of miles to try to find safety in the arms of a border patrol agent on the border of the united states. and so we have to come up with new strategies to tackle what is a huge and overwhelming demand for illegal drugs in the united states. two weeks ago the president's drug control policy administrator, key administrator michael botticelli went to roanoke, virginia, to roll out the national drug control strategy. chose roanoke because virginia has had significant problems, whether with heroin or prescription drugs. but also because it's been a place where there have been strong efforts to work together to tackle drug use. i spoke at a -- people who worked to bake the bonds of addiction. the bonds that just as they addict them also put people in

chains in countries like honduras by turning their neighborhoods into violent drug-controlled shooting galleries. we have to be creative and strategic about dealing with this demand for illegal drugs because it is sad that these kids are fleeing here because of violence that in some ways has its root here. that drug demand right here in this country is at the origin of the violence that is chasing these kids out of their neighborhood. that gives us a moral responsibility to try to tackle this problem and solve it. so, mr. president, i now yield the floor. i thank my colleagues for their strong support for the supplemental appropriation that we'll take up. i look forward to working together. we can solve this problem. we can solve it if we do the right things. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the sphoer from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i want to say to my colleagues here on the floor that this is a

very substantive discussion. this senator is enormously impressed with the commentary, the quality of the commentary from the two that have preceded me and those that will follow, and it is a treatment of this issue in a comprehensive way. i was so glad that the senator from virginia mentioned that the initial legislation from years ago protecting children once they reached the border, it's named after william which whic , a parliamentarian in england in the late-1700's and early 1800's whose sole mission and when he succeeded it took him 20 years as a politician, a as a member f

parliament. after 20 years he changed the course of history because he single-handedly through his legislative efforts abolished the english slave trade. and it changed the course of history of the world. and when we think of that kind of quality of parliamentary endeavor, it is time for the united states senate to the rise to this occasion in what is considered a humanitarian crisis but which is so complicated in the reasons that it's causing hundreds and thousands of children to appear at our border. now, right after the bat, this law says that we're going to treat these children in a

humanitarian way, and they're going to get medical treatment, and they're going to get a safe place to stay. and what senator heinrich showed, that little boy alejandro, doesn't your heart go out and say, that's -- that's -- that's the heart of america, to take care of a little boy like that. we don't want all of these children coming to our border, begging for entrance. so listen to these senators as they dissect the problem of what we should do to eliminate the problem in the first place. now, i just want to take one snippet, as senator kaine said. why is honduras the murder

capital of the world? why are the other two central american countries, el solv el r and guatemala, ranked so highly as murder capitals of the world? why is next-door in nicaragua and belize -- children aren't coming from there in great numbers to our border. the same thing with costa rica, the same thing with panama. why those three countries? because the drug lords producing the drugs in south america are sending huge shipments by boat two and three tons of cocaine per boat that are coming through the caribbean to the east or the

pacific to the west. and where are they coming? they're coming to those three countries. basically, most of those drug shipments are getting through. once they get to those central american countries, since now the economic power is among the drug dealers, the drug lords, they can buy off everybody else. and if you don't do what they say, you're dead. and so when a young man gets to be close to his teenage years, his parents are confronted with the situation that either he has

to join one of these criminal gangs, which is interrelated with the drug lords -- that's one choice, they have to accept that, or they have to accept the fact that they're going to be attending their child's funeral because he's going to be killed if he doesn't join up. or their third choice is they hear these coyotes say, oh, you're going to have free entrance into the u.s. what do you think a parent is going to do? so if because of the big shipments of drugs, primarily by boat, to the east and the west on the water has corrupted the whole system in those thee

central american countries, what should the united states be doing? well, we have had very successful drug interdiction programs in the past. we've been very successful at it. but now our four-star marine general, general kelly, the head of the united states southern command, through his task force in key west, the joint interagency task force south -- they have to watch their radars, they have to watch their aerial surveillance, and they don't have the assets to go after 75% of those drug shipments. if we would give general kelly and the joint task force the

additional navy assets -- that's navy boats with helicopters or coast guard cutters with helicopters -- to interdict those shipments instead of letting 75% of them go, you'd get to the root cause of the whole problem of why the children are showing up on our border. it's the big shipments of drugs that have completely corrupted the societies of those three countries that have led to all of the ramifications of the children and others going north. now, once those big shipments of two tons or thee tons of cocaine in a boat land in one of those central american countries, then they break them up into small

packages, and then they're transported by individuals, and it's very hard to interdict those drug shipments as they go north through the rest of the central america, through mexico, and to the border. the place to get 24e7 them is wn they are the large shipments. there are much more of these coming on boats than there are on airplanes. and, as a result, what we see is the crisis that we have. now, i just want to close by saying that my wife grace and i have been involved through a christian charity in traig to help some of the poor villagers have hope -- in this case, in

particular, in honduras. i'm not going to say the name of the village because i don't want to alert the bad guys that this is a little village where they are getting attention, and they're getting educationings and they're getting nourishment, and they're getting some health care. and, more than that, they're getting the love of americans. and so, it is a painful personal picture for us to see what has happened to that little country. finally i'll say that the president's request of over $3 billion does not have in the request, as we learned in an all-senators meeting last week with three or four cabinet secretaries and other agencies

represented, we learned that the request for additional coast guard cutters or navy ships or the movement of those coast guard cutters or navy ships with their helicopters from other places is not contemplated. i hope by the effort that senator heinrich has done today with many of us coming here and talking about this, that we're going to start to get this message through as to what needs to be done to address this crisis. mr. president, it's a privilege for me to share my heart. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. booker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: i want to thank my colleagues who are sitting here before me, especially senator

heinrich who invited me to be a part of this dialogue today. and i stand right now to express my frustration. we see on our television sets, we hear throughout the american landscape rhetoric, posturing and demagoguery that does not reflect the truth of who we are as a nation and obscures the facts of what's happening on our southern border right now as a country. we have thousands upon thousands of children in their most vulnerable and innocent stage of their lives showing up at our border, and i hear ugly rhetoric about just turning them around and sending them back, rhetoric that does not reflect who we are as a nation, the history of our community, or the laws of this land. and if i may for the brief time that i want to speak just reflect on the fact of why these

children are showing up, why are they coming to our borders. well, what my senior senator who is here now, senator menendez, said clearly this is not a case of ordinary people seeking better economic opportunities. if this was just about poverty, then we would see people coming from all the nations in that area. to be more specific, el salvador's poverty rate is 34.5% where belize's poverty rate is actually higher. it's 41.3%. to make a journey from a country with a lower poverty rate to a country with a higher poverty rate because that is where many of these refugees are going -- to belize -- begs a closer examination of the true drivers of this migration, because it is not poverty. it is not people simplistically

looking for economic opportunity. we're seeing countries, in addition to america, facing the same problem. children from these three nations escaping severe persecution, sexual assault, rape, violence, and murder. not just coming to the borders of the united states to escape this persecution, but going to other nations in that area. for example, combine mexico, panama, nicarauga, costa rica and belize documented a 435% increase in the number of asylum applications logged by individuals from el salvador, honduras and got mall la.

in -- guatamala. in this area of our nation, it is driving people out of not just the united states because some people allege because of the obama administration, these are people escaping persecution in all countries of the region. this is about violence. this is about heinous crimes. this is about a drug war. this is about cartels carrying out the most egregious of human acts evidencing the depravety and the evil that so cuts at the conscience of humanity that people are escaping to wherever they can go. we in the united states have a long and noble history that when there are places on our globe that face this level of crisis, we respond, and we are part of an international community where our peer nations have shown that history as well. here in north america, we know

our allies like canada have done incredible things when there is crisis and violence and war and persecution, mass rapes going on that there's been responses from our northern neighbor. in 1972 when ugandan president idi amin announced asians were to be expelled, by the end of 1973 more than 7,000 ugandan asians arrived from canada. as i speak jordan and lebanon are host to over two million syrian refugees and we as a nation are encouraging our allies in the middle east to be there for those refugees when they come to our border. that is the international community. in america, we set the standard. we are the leaders globally for

compassion, for humanity, for charity. and i am proud that this tradition which is two centuries old in america can continue under democrats and republicans. it has not been a partisan football. in 2008 under the bush administration in the face of burma's humanitarian crisis, this country, with the courage of its compassion, rose up and resettled thousands of burmese refugees, admitting as many as 18,000 of them. president bush signed the legislation to ease the restrictions that prevented ethnic minorities involved in that struggle against the burmese regime, eased restrictions from them entering the united states. president bush spoke eloquently during that time about american compassion, spoke about american heritage and american tradition.

he said quite poignantly, i thank those of you americans and those around the country, all of us who have opened up our arms and said welcome to america, how can we help you settle in? this is who we are as a nation. and when we have children, innocents escaping violence and terror and crimes against humanity where we as a nation are not even fully relieved of culpability for what is going on, when the drugs that our nation consumes is helping to drive that violence, we have a responsibility. that is who we are. that is our truth. we know this. we are a nation of people who came from persecution, who came

from famine, who came from religious wars. we are a nation settled by those who are yearning to be free. i know the statue of liberty well because new jersey has its back. when i travel around the state, i often get a great view of her noble torch, and i know that it's not down along our southern border, but the ideals of the statue of liberty still hold true. give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free, the wretched masses of your teeming shore. send the homeless, temptest toss to me. i am grateful and support the senator's leadership and by following the letter of the law and providing due process for those young people that have come to our border so that we

can evaluate them and see those who have a justifiable claim for asylum to see that we honor our tradition and our law and give them a place in our country that is safe and secure from the terror and the violence that is going on in those three countries. i cannot -- it cannot be acceptable that we use our resources now simply to expedite the return of thousands of children into that conflict zone that is more dangerous now than at the height of civilian dangers at the iraq war. we must as americans follow that great tradition. we must as americans now do the right thing by innocent children, evaluate them with our resources, exe indict -- expedite the judicial process to understand clearly who is meritorious of asylum. and we should invest our resources in making sure the conflicts in those nations are

abated so that this crisis ends. mr. president, i say clearly america we stand for something. now as we have time and time again, we must garner our resources. and most importantly, our compassion and the truth of who we say we are, and make sure we take care of these vulnerable children and make sure we don't turn them around into a dangerous situation. it is time that we show internationally that when there is crisis, america stands up and shows leadership and does the right thing. with that, i yield the floor to my senior senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: first of all, let me say i'm really moved by

senator booker's passion, senator nelson's clarity of thought and my colleagues who have joined here. and i'm compelled to join them because we do have a crisis, but we also have, from my mind, a clear moral and legal compass that we need to follow. we have a refugee crisis on our southern border which i would argue requires an emergency response domestically and the urgent recalibration of our foreign policy. why do i say that? because as i have argued for several years in the foreign relations committee that the continuous cuts that we have had in the programs that are in our national interest, in our

national security was going to bring us a day in which we would rue the consequences of those cuts. and so here we are with honduras having the number-one murder rate per capita in the world and the other two central american countries from which these children are fleeing in the top five in the world. and as senator nelson so well spoke about, the whole question of the narcotics trafficking that is taking place using this as a ticket to the united states where the demand is and the total inability of these countries to deal with entities that have more money and very often have more firepower than any of the national governments that are engaged. and then add to that the dynamic and explosive growth of gangs --

and i'm talking about gangs that are armed and fueled with money in a sim -- symbiotic relationship with the drug traffickers. in one of these countries it went to 40,000 members of a gang. now, this isn't about some far-off place. this is right here in our own front yard, in our hemisphere in a very relative short distance. so unless we deal with the root causes of these problems, there will be no resources or any change in law that is going to ultimately meet the challenge of those who flee because to stay is to die. so, that's the challenge we have before us. but we have to deal with that challenge in our southern border, and our distinguished chairman of the appropriations committee has fashioned a

package that i think is balanced and seeks to do that. but just as important as we deal with this refugee crisis, in my view, is equally important that we don't rush to change our laws in ways that strips children of the very rights for which we have been known as a country, and not even talking about the 2008 law. i'm talking about the very essence of our immigration law for decades that has asylum as a fundamental pillar. it's imperative to understand that this is a desperate effort by desperate parents to do what any parent would do to protect their child from violence and the threat of death. imagine the circumstances that a parent must be in to send an 8-year-old 2,000 miles on a treacherous journey where all

things can happen to them, in the hope, in the hope that they can arrive and make a claim for asylum but not knowing whether their child will actually be able to arrive alive. that's some dramatic choice, but that's the choices facing these parents. these children are facing tremendous threats. towns and schools controlled by narcotic traffickers, gangs threatening to kill them, rapes and murders. in the foreign relations committee recently, we held a hearing, and i noted a piece that was written in "the new york times" by pulitzer prize winning author sonia nasannio who testified before the committee. and this is to give the senate the sense of what we're talking about here. a young boy named christian

amoreas, a sixth grader. his father was murdered by gangs while working as a security guard. three people he knows have been murdered this year. four others were gunned down on a corner near his house in the first two weeks of this year. a girl his age was beaten, had a hole cut in her throat, her body left in a ravine across from his house. he said it's time to flee. or carlos bacaranno, a 14-year-old who worked in a dump picking scrap metal when he was a boy, making a dollar or two a day. when he was 9 years old, he barely escaped two drug traffickers who were trying to rape him. when he was 10, the drug traffickers pressured him to try drugs and join the gang or die. he has known eight people who were murdered, three killed in

front of him. in one case, he watches two hitmen brazenly shot two young brothers execution style. going to school is even too dangerous for him now. these stories are not, unfortunately, unique. they are tragic stories of life-changing experiences that too many children face in central america every day, children like christian and carlos whose stories are unknown but no less tragic. mr. president, let me take a moment to repeat that i strongly oppose changing existing law. the answer is not to repeal the law that keeps these children safe and gives them an opportunity. that's all the law gives them, an opportunity to determine whether their status here can be adjusted under asylum. the answer is not to deny these children their day in court and

send them back to very probable death, but those who want to repeat the 2008 law would be doing exactly that. if we provide the funding the government needs, the administration has the authority to deal with the crisis in a safe and humane way, without turning our back on the rule of law that we pride as a nation. antitrafficing organizations have explained to me that this trafficking law was designed by both republicans and democrats in broad bipartisan efforts to give special protections to children who cannot adequately represent themselves and who often do not self-identify as victims of abuse, crime or human trafficking. congress sought to provide special protections for those who have fled thousands of miles in recognition of the fact that a larger percentage of these

children may have very compelling and legitimate claims. unfortunately, the border patrol's cursory review of mexican children claims often results in a failure to identify children who are at risk of persecution or trafficking according to the u.n. commissioner for refugees. extending this type of superficial screening to central american children would certainly mean serious abuse or death upon their return. we can keep this important antitrafficking law and at the same time address the situation on the border. now, let me explain how the administration already, already has the authority to control this crisis. critics have complained that the 2008 trafficking law requires children to be released into the community, but what the law actually says is that children need to be held in a manner that

is in -- quote -- the best interests of the child. if this situation, when we are dealing with an influx of thousands of children, it is clearly in the best interests of these children to hold them in a safe and clean shelter rather than returning them to face possible death or quickly releasing them into the hands of a sponsor who may not be properly vetted. failure to properly screen these children could result in children being returned to their very traffickers. critics have also complained that deportation hearings don't take place for years after the children arrive and that this creates an incentive for children to come to the united states, but the law allows the justice department to hold hearings much more quickly, without denying due process, by moving recently arriving children and families to the front of the line for hearings before a judge. as the justice department testified last week before the appropriation committee hearing,

that's exactly what they're doing, surging resources and expediting full hearings. these expedited processes that still protects due process would send a signal to parents in central america that children without valid claims -- and there will be a significant universe that will not have a valid claim and will be deported -- will not be able to stay in the united states, but at the same time it would protect the rights of legitimate refugees and trafficking victims. so while not every single child apprehended at the border will have a valid claim to stay in the country and many will be deported, we have a moral and a legal obligation to keep them safe until their status is resolved. the answer is not to repeal the law that protects them, but to enforce it and to provide the administration with the resources it requested to address both the domestic and international aspects of this

crisis. now, this problem wasn't created overnight and it won't be solved overnight, but the solution is not to abandon our values and the rule of law that we uphold as an example to other nations so that every child will be safe wherever they may live. if we do this now, i can tell you i don't know how we will have any authority to look at any other country in the world and say to them that you must accept refugees from syria, you must accept refugees from the congo, the dominican republic, you must accept refugees from haiti, and the list goes on and on. there is a reason why this law was passed. it was passed to save your fleeing 2,000 miles to try to come to the united states. there may be a greater probability that you have a real case to be made for asylum because you have a credible fear for the loss of your life. which under our law, as i hear

those who advocate for the rule of law, i say you're right. the rule of law means you just don't undermine the law or change it when you don't want to ultimately live under it. you obey it. you obey it. now, if you flee 2,000 miles and you were told by the gangs join or die or if you were raped and you flee 2,000 miles never to experience that tragic and dramatic -- those tragic and dramatic circumstances again, you have a really compelling case. so let me close boy saying the fact of the matter is that there are some who are exploiting this issue for political gain. some who could not even see their way to cast a vote or to allow a vote on the type of checks immigration reform the senate passed on a broad bipartisan basis in which both border patrol and human trafficking and all of these other issues that we are now

facing would have had the resources and would be addressed. i also find it incredible to see the governor of texas saying he is going to send the national guard to the border. what does the national guard -- what is the national guard going to do in what is otherwise a federal law enforcement obligation with border patrol agents who ultimately are obviously interdicting these young people, they are actually turning themselves over to them. what is the national guard with rifles going to do at the texas border that border patrol can't do themselves? this supplemental bill is almost entirely for enforcement of the law, and i know that republicans have been saying for years they want more money for enforcement of immigration law. well, folks, here it is. here it is. and i -- i just cannot believe that the resources that are going to the very states that say they face a challenge, that there will be those who vote against it. i can't believe that just because the president is

proposing it, they can't ultimately find their way to vote for the money that's going to go largely to the states that face the most critical challenge at this time. so that's what our immigration debate has come to. we began this congress with an overwhelming bipartisan vote in favor of commonsense immigration reform, and here we are, unwilling to even provide something that i have never voted for but will, strictly enforcement funding. and we have republicans calling for dreamers to be deported as part of this bill in the house of representatives and a rollback of legislation to protect small children from human trafficking. that's what we have come to. now, those who want to roll back this law which passed with broad bipartisan support in both houses of the congress and signed by a republican president is not something i can personally accept, and i will use the procedures of the senate, i hope with others who feel the same if that is the choice that has to come before us not to permit that to happen.

the president has the authority to control this crisis already. let's give them the resources to do the job and let us in the process of doing that not create a dark day in our nation's history which we will regret for years to come. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i rise today as the chair of the appropriation 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 about what's going on in our own country. second, it will help israel be able to continue to man its iron dome antiballistic missile system as it's been under siege

by hamas rockets. and third, it will help be a down payment 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 over -- four or more states. second, it will strengthen israel's iron dome and add $225 million to replenish the antimissile defense rockets, saving the lives by shooting down hamas rockets, helping our central ally israel. and 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, drug traffickers and the smugglers. the total for all three of those will be $3.57 billion. now, i agree with president obama, this is an emergency supplemental. these funds are designated as emergency spending because they meet the criteria of the budget control act of 2011. the needs must be urgent, temporary, unforeseen and prevent loss of life. that's exactly what we're facing. what does it mean to designate

the funds as emergency spending? it means no offsets, so we don't take existing funds where we're 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 in oregon, washington, 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. it will replace iron dome artillery it's already used -- israel has already used a great deal of its assets dealing with the more than 2,000 hamas

rockets aimed at itself. israel has the right to self-defense, and we are helping them have what they need to intercept 90% of the rockets. funds to deal with unaccompanied children crossing our border are needed now. if we do not do this, the department of homeland, immigration and customs enforcement will run out of funds in august and the department of homeland security border patrol will run out in early september. it doesn't mean our border patrol agents or i.c.e. 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 job. also, health and human services will run out of money to house children in august, and it means the children will stay longer at the border.

they will be in inappropriate holding cells and also means that border patrol agents will be taking care of them rather than child welfare social workers. i think not to fund this, if you want to use border patrol agents to take care of children, that's 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 and 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, and the need be validated.

we hope by 2015 the surge will have diminished because of the prevention and intervention issues that we're dealing. but make no mistake, the funds that we say we need, we really do need. now, this bill defers funds until next year because i'm deeply concerned that if we don't 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're going to go after our ability to go after the smugglers and the coyotes. we don't want to go after the children, we want to go after those trying to exploit them. we also don't want radical riders that will weaken our trafficking laws or accelerate deportation of children without due process under existing law. we don't want a back-door

version of bad immigration reform. now, this bill, mr. president, 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. the changes -- but we've made changes to the president's request. we've 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're 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 scum, which is these drug dealers that recruit these children, murder children before other children's eyes. and you know what? we also know when we work in a crisis and we do urgent supplemental effort we sometimes waste money. we can only look at some of the other agencies where we've done this. this bill includes strong oversight from the inspector generals 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's by making it harder on these crooks and criminals. i'm 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've been down to the border, mr. president. i've talked to these children. listen to children who face sexual assault. the recruitment into human trafficking. gang examination. persecution, threats of grisly physical action directed against them. what is happening in these countries, mr. president, when you listen to the cries of the children, i can tell you in those countries there is a war on children. we cannot turn our back 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 don't deal with it there, it's not that the children will come to our borders, it's that the violence and the gangs will come to our borders. so, mr. president, i hope that when the leader introduces the bill later on this evening we can proceed and debate this with due diligence and i look forward to chairing the committee as we go through this process. i now yield the floor. mr. corker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: mr. president, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into a presentation colloquy with my fellow republican colleagues for up to 25 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. corker: mr. president, in order to set the context i'm going to say a few words on the opening and then enter into discussion with senator graham, senator rubio, and senator mccain, but let me just say that i think all of us -- and i know certainly myself want to

start by saying that i strongly support the negotiations regarding iran's nuclear programs. i also strongly support the president's stated goal that we must prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. congress, in fact, has led the way on this point. senator graham, senator menendez, many others, senator kirk, by building a broad -- by building broad multilateral sanctions regime that has forced iran 0 the negotiating table. that is why today we are introducing the bill the iran nuclear negotiations act with a simple message -- allow congress to weigh in on behalf of the american people on what is one of the most important national security issues facing our nation. we open the administration reaches a good agreement over the next four months that will prevent a nuclear armed iran from becoming a reality. but if and when they reach an agreement, let's bring all the details out in the open. let's examine the agreement in

its entirety and let's determine if it's in our national security interest. to help ensure that that is the case senators graham, senator mccain, senator rubio and myself are offering this bill that will do three things. first of all, have a congressional review, first it allows congress to weigh in on any final deal the president reaches with iran. the bill requires the president to submit any final deal to congress for review and then allows congress to introduce a joint resolution of disapproval should it choose to do so. second, it ensures iran does not cheat on any final agreement. the bill requires the director of national intelligence to report on any violation by iran to congress. if determined, there is a credible and accurate -- there is credible and accurate evidence that iran violated the agreement all sanctions that have been taxpayer lifted should be reimpose.

thirdly and finally, in order to ensure the interim deal doesn't become the final deal, the bill puts a clock on negotiations. this clock is consistent with the timeline the administration itself has outlined. if the president does not submit a comprehensive final agreement to congress, all sanctions relieved under the interim agreement would be restored on november 28, 2014, four days after the end of the extension period. let me be clear. nothing in this bill talks about imposing new sanctions of any kind and nothing in this bill would prohibit congress from seeking further sanctions if it chooses to do so. this bill does not dictate the terms of what a final deal should look like. rather, it helps to ensure the iranians do not use the negotiations as a delaying tactic or cover for advancing their program. this bill is all about transparency. the administration can get the

best deal process. they simply have to show congress and the american people the result, letting the deal fail and succeed on its own merits. this should be an area of broad support and broad bipartisan agreement. even secretary kerry in testimony before the senate foreign relations committee committee said that any final deal will have to pass muster with congress. so i want to stop here. i have some additional comments that i might make. i know there's numbers of people who that would like to speak. i just want to close with this -- this bill represents a constructive, responsible role for congress to play on this important national security issue to try to prevent a nuclear armed iran and hope that members on both sides of the aisle will agree as secretary kerry has stated that any final deal should have to pass muster with congress and the american people. i know senator graham from south carolina, no one has played a bigger role in trying to ensure that iran does not become a

nuclear armed country and with that i'd love to hear his thoughts and his reason for wanting to be a part with five senators in creating this piece of legislation. mr. graham: thank you very much senator corker. senators mccain, rubio and corker on the foreign relations have revived the committee along with senator menendez. the committee is probably the most effective it's been in a very long time. you're doing a lot of things in the bipartisan fashion. i hope one day this becomes a bipartisan piece of legislation. but credit to the three of you all for coming up with this idea, i'm glad to be part of it and i'd just like to hear from senator rubio about his view of why this nation -- this legislation is necessary. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the opportunity to speak for a few moments and i want to thank both the senators from tennessee, south carolina and arizona for allowing me to join them in this effort. for those watching at home i know so many other issues are

going on around the world, we see things are going on with regards to israel over the last few days, certainly the shootdown of that airplane by ukranian separatists armed by the russians are of great concern but what should not be lost is another urgent matter before the world and that is the ambitions of a radical regime in iran to acquire a nuclear weapon they will hold the world hostage and destroy israel and wipe it off the face of the earth. what's happening over the lass few months is the white house has engaged in negotiations with other countries to get them to walk away from this. i've never been very optimistic about it although we hope to wake up to the news that the ayatollah and the supreme leader in iran and those who surround them have somehow decided to walk away from this ambition and change their direction. these negotiations are not going very well and that's why they've now been extended another four

months. and the administration claims that there's been great progress being made though it's not clear what that progress is towards. for example, iran's right to enrich which they don't have one but but this right to enrich uranium has been recognized as part of these negotiations meaning there will be no guarantee iran cannot in the future exploit this agreement to develop nuclear weapons if they keep the machines and if they keep the process in place to enrich uranium, if they decide at 10 point in the future to go from a symbolic nuclear program or a nascent one into a full-fledged weapon one they can do it rather quickly. that's what we've agreed 20 do, allow them to retain the right to enrich. in my opinion, that's the reason to pull the plug on these negotiations. it's not even clear in this instance the administration is still insisting iran dismantle all of its facilities. according to some press reports they want to keep all of their

centrifuges and the united states is supposedly open to allowing iran to retain thousands of them. the smear supreme leader said they need a largeer enrichment capability than they currently have. another thing is that they and the p-5 plus one countries are going to allow iran to get $2.8 billion in sanctions relief. they've forced the hand of the extension and get more relief as a result of it. i'm worried the administration seems willing to allow iran to have even more than four months to provide simple answers about its past work on nuclear weapons. if they're not willing to come clean on what they've done in the past how can we possibly treat them as a reliable and responsible actor? beyond that, there seems to be no need to address iran's ballistic missile program, its icbm's. these are long-range rockets capable of one day reaching the united ste