the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote?

if not, on this vote, the ayes are 71, the nays are 26. under the previous order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to. order. order in the senate. order. there are now two minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the carper amendment. mr. carper: madam president? madam president? madam president? the presiding officer: the senator -- mr. carper: may we have order? the presiding officer: order. senators, please take your conversations out of the chamber.

the senator from delaware. mr. carper: madam president, let me say to our republican colleagues, this bill is going back to the house. this bill is going back to the house. we can send it back to the house correcting what i think is a misguided approach on pension smoothing. we can knot knock out that $3 billion pension smoothing. we can set a dynamic that will ensthiewr we do our jobs this year and get it done. across the country, aaa, bicycles, all kinds -- goafns, senators want us to do our job. let's vote "yes" on the carper-corker-boxer amendment and do our job this year. mr. corker: to my colleagues -- the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: we are now on the senate finance committee bill.

there is one major flaw in this bill. it has $2.8 billion worth of pension smoothing. this amendment does away with that, and what it means is, it would be a better bill but we would also have to solve this problem. we've had 11 short-term reauthorizations of the highway bill. its unbelievable. we've had five general transfers like this, which is nothing but generational theft. so what this amendment would do would cause us to do our job by year-end. i think urge a "yes." i thaipg our cosponsors and hope this amendment will pass. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senator wishing to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 66, the nays are 31. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.

there are now two minutes of debate, equally divided on the lee amendment. order. the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, the amendment we're about to consider would empower states and localities to collect and spend the transportation infrastructure that they need. we have a desperate need within our trappings infrastructure system. that need is not being satisfied by our current federal system. one that has been bloated over the years and has centralized too much power within washington, d.c. the presiding officer: order in the senate. senators, please take your conversation outside.

the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, over the years we've centralized far too much revenue and far too much power in washington, d.c. this has resulted in gridlock within our transportation infrastructure projects. we increased the federal gasoline tax by 460% between 1982 and 1994. instead of using that to back up and secure the federal highway trust fund we instead overreached, we instead expanded dramatically the power of the federal government and the expenses that we incur. i urge my colleagues to support this measure which would reempower states and move us into the 21st century. thank you. the presiding officer: order. the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, can we have order. the presiding officer: order. please, senators, please take your conversations out of the

chamber. mrs. boxer: senators, i want to speak to you for a minute and i want to tell you thatthis amendment is the end of the federal highway system. the states oppose it. my friend from utah gave a very impassioned speech earlier in which he said essentially free the states, let them be free. but the states oppose his amendment. the american association of state highway and transportation officials strongly opposes, so does the u.s. chamber of commerce, the american trucking association, civil engineers, the national stone, sand and gravel association. the fact is, it would result in an immediate 80% cut to our states at a time when we still have 700,000 unemployed construction workers and thousands of businesses who are just waiting, just waiting to rebuild the infrastructure. i hope you will vote no on this

radical amendment. thank you. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 28, the nays are 69. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. there will now be two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the toomey amendment.

order in the senate. order in the senate. order. the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: madam president, in 2011, the federal highway administration estimated that the average transportation project in america takes 79 months to go through the national environmental policy act review process. six and a half years to get permission to build a road or a bridge. ben nelson, democrat from nebraska, recognized the problem and suggested an amendment. the presiding officer: order in the senate. senators, please take your conversations out of the senate. mr. toomey: and the amendment simply says if a bridge or a road is damaged or destroyed by a declared natural disaster or emergency, then you -- and you rebuild the bridge or road in the exact same place, the same

footprint, the same dimensions, everything's the same, then you don't have to go through the entire environmental permitting process all over again. this would save a lot of time and money and allow us to maintain our roads and bridges. i know, madam president, my friends on the other side think this problem was solved. it was not solved. the department of transportation can, can exclude certain projects but can choose not to and does not have the discretion to provide an exclusion from the army corps of engineers or the fish and wildlife service the very reviews that take the most time and cost the most money, so i urge my colleagues to vote yes. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: madam president, this -- this issue was dealt with in map-21 in the committee. my friend from pennsylvania talks about using regular order.

we did. and we had a very serious debate and we had many different views and we compromised and there is an expedited process to deal with replacement facilities. it's in map-21. it deals with a way to get this done. the problem with the amendment from the gentleman from pennsylvania is that it totally eliminates all of the protections that are in the law. it eliminates all the protections under the clean water act under the nepa process. we handled this in the committee, it was bipartisan, it was done. there is no need for this amendment. i urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. the presiding officer: is there 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 wishing to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 47, the nays are 50. under the previous order requiring 60 vote for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on passage of h.r. 5021, as amended. [inaudible] the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will read the title of the bill. the clerk: calendar number -- calendar number 468, h.r. 5021, an act to provide an extension of federal aid highway and so forth and for other purposes.

a senator: nays and nays. the presiding officer a senator: yeas and nays.the pre a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any other senators wishing to

vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 79, the nays are 18. the 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the bill is passed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of h. con. res. 108, which the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 108, concurrent resolution providing for the correction of the enrollment of h.r. 5021. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 526. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 526, snoring israel's right to defend itself against hamas, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: this resolution has been passed, is that right? the presiding officer: the resolution is pending. mr. reid: okay. i'm sorry. mr. president, i ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there okay? without objection. mr. reid: sorry. i was distracted, mr. president. this resolution is sponsored by me and the republican leader and senators menendez and corker and others. i want the record to reflect here that senator mcconnell and i have talked about this personally and we agreed without any hesitation what this legislation did. mr. president, i have always been a supporter of the united

nations. my whole career. mr. president, what i saw last week disgusted me. as a u.n. human rights council in geneva voted to adopt a resolution accusing israel of human rights violations on the ongoing gaza conflict, the resolution was so incredibly one-sided in its anti-israel bias that it makes zero, none mention of hamas and the atrocities hamas has committed by indiscriminately barraging israel with rockets and using palestinian civilians as human shields. hamas perpetrated this conflict, mr. president. they wantonly fired rockets, and they don't care where the rockets go. hamas has fired almost 3,000

missiles during a three-week conflict. in fact, the very day that the united nations human rights council exonerated hamas, they fired dozens of rockets into israel the same day. now, mr. president, these aren't firecrackers. these are very violent, powerful weapons. they have a number of rockets. it's estimated they have 10,000 of them. they have something called ws- ws-18. it's a chinese rocket, but they got the blueprints, iran did, from the chinese, and of course they shipped these surreptitious ly in to gaza. they will travel some 30 miles.

they carry about 40 pounds of explosives. they have another one called a fajr-5. this is an iranian rocket. it's their most prestigious weapon. of hamas. the iranian revolutionary guard gave hamas the technology to manufacture those. they carry a warhead of 400 pounds. 400 pounds. they will travel about 55 miles. mr. president, i repeat -- these aren't firecrackers. they have another missile in their arsenal. it's called a khaibar-m-302. it's a syrian-made missile.

a range of some 12 miles. they carry a 300-pound warhead. and, of course, it goes far enough that they believe that with the fajr and this one, tel aviv is within their -- within their sights. the one they have most of is called a kasam number one manufactured in gaza. no guidance system. about a three-mile distance, 10-mile warhead. kasam two, nine-mile distance. something called grads. they have lots of weaponry, lots of them, and they indiscriminately fire into israel, and they have been doing this for some time. these aren't grenade launchers. these are missiles, huge

weapons. these rockets are professionally engineered from iran, syria, other countries. they are smuggled into gaza. they manufacture few of their arms, as i have indicated. these are serious weapons of war. hamas also continues to try to construct and use its sophisticated tunnels into israel, which as one member of hamas recently bragged allows hamas fighters to invade israel and kill israelis. hamas responsibility in the gaza clash is a fact, but the united states human rights council didn't make a single mention of this terrorist organization. how many of these nations like

venezuela, china, vietnam, other nations, what if they -- i wonder how this organization feels about their human rights. how many of these nations who condemned israel would allow their own citizens to suffer through endless rocket fire, endless rocket fire? i talked to one american who went to israel, as he does often, and all night long, one air raid siren after another. it's been going on there for weeks. this resolution that was passed does not mention a single word, nothing.

what is israel supposed to do? we all lament the loss of life. it's heart wrenching. but what else is israel to do as rocket after rocket after rocket plunges into its territory? mr. president, i met with a man today who owns an oil company, oil exploration. they are doing some exploration in nevada now. it's called noble energy. they are the ones that helped develop gas and oil fields in israel. it's relatively new. but they say there are rockets dropping all over. as i mentioned this morning earlier, iron dome doesn't protect all of israel. they need more iron domes. everyone in israel, whether they are -- no matter what they're

doing. they can be out in gaza working in the oil fields, missiles are flying all over from hamas. mr. president, i condemn hamas terrorism. we should. this is not only -- their terrorism is not only against israel, it's against their own people. as i heard the republican conservative columnist in "the new york times," david brooks, say on "the news hour," he said this is the first -- i'm paraphrasing but this is what he said, it's the conflict i have ever known where the enemy says kill more of us. i join my friend, the republican leader, in doing what other nations refuse to do -- condemning the united nations

human rights council's biased resolution, and we in this resolution condemn hamas. countries that voted for this, venezuela, cuba, china. i repeat, how would they like to look at their human rights violations? this resolution we as a country support in this con afflict alaskan peace which can only be realized for the demilitarization of gaza. they talk about tunnels. mr. president, these are not tunnels. these are major operations costing millions of dollars to dig a hole in the ground. why? going to israeli settlements, kill innocent people. now, offering the resolution

before the senate, we stand with israel and its right to defend itself, its security and most importantly its people. i, mr. president, said earlier i was disgusted with someone who has been a supporter of the united nations forever since i have been in government, but the united nations better take a look at this organization. this is disgusting, i use for the third time, because i mean it. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my intern be granted privileges of the floor for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to address a topic that is vital to seniors in oregon and to seniors across our nation, and that is our medicare program. i know how important medicare is because i grew up in a blue-collar working family. my dad was a millright and a mechanic. a millwright is the individual that does all the mechanical work to keep the mill running. he said if he did his job right, the mill was open. workers had a payday, and the company made money and everyone was happy. meanwhile, my mother managed the finances, and she stretched a dollar as far as anyone possibly could. she shopped for bargains. she used coupons. she collected green stamps. and they were able to save and to buy a home and have a

foundation for raising their children. and i benefited from that enormously. but despite that foundation, they -- that foundation they had, their prospects in retirement were dependent upon two critical programs -- social security and medicare. social security and medicare, basic pension and affordable health care, are simply essential for millions of working families in retirement. they're the difference between poverty and stability. now, the way i see it, medicare is a covenant with our seniors. it's a covenant with the 650,000 oregonians who are on medicare now. it's a covenant with the hundreds of thousands who will

utilize medicare in the years to come. it's certainly a covenant with the millions across america who depend on this essential working family. those families across america are families like my parents who worked hard their whole lives, they paid in to medicare and they expect medicare to be there for them when they retire. we cannot break that covenant. and the first step in keeping faith with our seniors is thi this -- protecting what works. pretty simple. you would think that that is a no-brainer but, in fact, in washington, a simple proposition like this, a no-brainer, is sometimes enormously controversial. for several years now, many in oregon -- excuse me, many in washington here and including this chamber, they have been pushing to privatize, to

voucherrize or to just plain weaken medicare. they don't understand how important this program is for the secure retirement of our seniors. they don't understand how important this covenant is between each working generation and our retirees. in fact, the house of representatives has repeatedly voted to effectively end the medicare program that americans know and love and to stick our seniors with an enormous financial burden in their retirement years. there's just a simple way to describe that and that is to say it is simply wrong. now, others have said, let's raise the medicare retirement age to age 67 or perhaps 70.

now, i think when i hear that about my town halls. in my town halls -- and i hold one in every county every year -- people come and talk about whatever they would like. i'll tell you, i recall this woman come to my town hall and she said, "senator, i'm in my early 60's. i have several major health problems," and she went on to describe them. and she said, "i'm just trying to stay alive until i can make it to age 65 and have access to medicare." and that theme of just trying to make it until they can reach that medicare age i've heard in town hall after town hall. sometimes those who work in offices in comfy circumstances don't realize how much actual

physical labor takes a toll on the body. if you're working in the post office and you're moving bags of mail day in and day out, as one good friend of mine has done throughout his career, it's very likely you're going to have a bad back and so on and so forth. and then there are, of course, the diseases that strike like lightning. and, yes, those who happen to have jobs with corporations that provide a wonderful health care program, well, they're in a little better shape. but for our seniors, medicare is a gem, a gem they've contributed into their entire life and it needs to be there for them. so for some who see the difference between 65 and 67 as some modest administrative change, for working america, it's a monumental chasm and they fear falling into it. the good news is that there's a

very simple action the u.s. senate could take right now to protect our covenant with our seniors. the medicare protection act, which i have cosponsored along with senator prior and others, makes -- along with senator pryor and others, makes three modest but important changes to our law. it expresses a sense of the senate that the medicare eligibility age should not be increased. it expresses the sense of the senate that the medicare program should not be privatized or voucherized. and, third, it amends the congressional budget act so that any attempt to reduce or eliminate guaranteed benefits or to restrict eligibility criteria, like raising the eligibility age, cannot be passed through the budget reconciliation process. this is particularly important since the house has made repeated attempts to end medicare as we know it and to do so using the budget process, the ryan budget, rather than through

stand-alone legislation. mr. president, it's time to ensure that we keep our covenant with our seniors. it's time to bring this bill to the floor, to debate it and to pass it. now, tomorrow happens to be the anniversary on which medicare was signed into law. 49 years ago of the maybe a great way to celebrate the 49th birthday of medicare would be for this chamber to debate this bill tomorrow and pass it. if not tomorrow, i'd like to see it done in this work period. and if not in this work period, let's come back and address this in september. the days that are left in this two-year cycle of the u.s. senate are rapidly disappearing. and our seniors are concerned about this constant attack, this constant effort to undermine these programs like social security and medicare o medicary

have paid in their whole life and that they expect to be honored when they retire. mr. president, let's bring this bill to the floor. let's ensure that american seniors can stop worrying about these assaults on their retirement, the retirement security that they so much deserve. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. from flake: thank you, mr. president. mr. flake: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, today, my colleague, senator leahy, the chairman of the judiciary committee, introduced legislation that would amend the patriot act. this new legislation reflects a bicameral and bipartisan

compromise that ends the bulk data collection practice that's currently being used. it also gives our intelligence officials specific rules to follow so that they can keep the operational capabilities necessary to protect the united states from a terrorist attack without compromising the 4th amendment of the constitution. i'd like to thank senator leahy for his work and i'm grateful for his partnership. this important step is necessary for restoring americans' privacy rights which was taken by an overreaching federal government in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. mr. president, the expanded authority given to the national security agency through executive action and the patriot act was intended to prevent another attack on america. while i was not a member of congress on 9/11, i share the horror of all nevadans watching the murder of thousands of innocent americans and the profound sadness as buildings in

new york city and washington, d.c., sat smoldering. i understand as well as anyone here the reasoning behind the actions of our nation's leaders that they took to ensure that another attack on america never materialized and why our leaders felt that no limits should be imposed no matter what the cost. americans had to be protected against another attack. viewing the situation from that lens, it's easy to understand how the 4th amendment was brushed aside as the united states senate expanded law enforcement's surveillance capabilities with just one dissenting vote. the federal bureau of investigation then used section 215 of the patriot act to expand the scope of surveillance far beyond even with some of the authors -- when some of the authors believed what they were authorizing. the f.b.i. argued that section 15 provided authority to collect photo data -- phone data of law-abiding citizens without their knowledge.

specifically, they could use business record provisions to force phone companies to turn over millions of phone calls when there is a reasonable ground for relevance to believe that the information sought is relevant to an authorized investigation of international terrorism. as a result, we now have a bulk collection program in existence where telephone companies hand over millions of records to the n.s.a. as part of a massive precollection database. as someone who voted against the patriot act time and time again, i believe such data collection practice is a massive intrusion of our privacy, which is why i partnered with the senior senator from vermont to end these programs. our legislation tightens the definitions of specific selection term of -- for section 215 of the patriot act and the fisa pen register trap and trace devices so that the information requested is limited specifically in identifying a

person or an account or an address or a personal device. with this legislation, bulk collection will be eliminated and the records will stay with the telephone companies. the massive information grabs from the federal government based on geography or e-mail service will no longer be permissible, and the information that is collected, the legislation imposes new restriction on the use and the retention of it. these reforms will help shift the balance of privacy away from the federal government and back to the american people. mr. hel heller: i am also proudt the this bill includes the franken-heller transparency act of 2013. i was pleased to join senator franken on this legislation because at the very least, the american people deserve to know the number of people whose information is housed by the n.s.a. for the first time in american history, the government is forced to disclose to the american people roughly how many

of them have had their collections collected. their communications collected, excuse me. our provisions call for reports by the director of national intelligence detailing the requests for information authorized under the patriot act and the fisa amendment act. the reports would specify the total number of people whose information has been collected under these programs and how many people living in the united states have had their information collected. they would also permit the intelligence community to report on how many americans actually had their information looked at by the n.s.a. or any other intelligence agency. furthermore, these provisions would allow telephone and internet companies to tell customer -- consumer-based information regarding fisa court orders they received and the number of users whose information is turned over. the principles outlined in this bill to increase transparency

for americans and private companies would clear up a tremendous amount of confusion that exists within these programs. and our private companies need the added disclosure. the information technology and innovation foundation estimates that american cloud computing companies would lose $22 billion to $25 billion in the next three years because of concerns about their involvement with surveillance programs. the analytics firm forester put potential losses much higher, at $180 billion. i want to be clear -- i share the concerns of all americans that we must protect ourselves against threats to the homeland. i believe that terrorism is very real and that the united states is the target of those looking to undermine the freedoms we hold as our core -- as the core of our national identity. and if the bulk collection program in existence were bearing so much information to protect the homeland, i would change my opinion on the need

for the u.s.a. freedom act. however, the bulk collection program i has simply not providd the tangible results that justify a privacy intrusion of this level. we know this because on october 2, 2013, the chairman of the senate judiciary committee, senator leahy, asked n.s.a. director keith alexander the following question -- and i quote -- "at our last hearing, the deputy director, mr. englis, stated that there's only really one example of a case where for the use of section 215, both phone and records collection, terrorist activity was stopped. was mr. englis right?" to which director alexander responded -- "he is right. i believe he said two, chairman." mr. president, congress has authorized the collection of millions of law-abiding citizens' telephone and data for years and has only saw two

ongoing f.b.i. investigations. of those two investigations, the n.s.a. has publicly identified one. and, in fact, that case could have easily been handled by obtaining a warrant and going to that telephone company. it mr. heller: it is the case of an individual convicted in san diego convicted of sending 8,500 to somalia supporting the terrorist organization claiming responsibility for the kenya mall attack. it alois the n.s.a. to determine that a u.s. phone was used to contact an individual associated with this terrorist organization. i'm appreciative that the n.s.a. was able to apprehend this individual but it does not provide overwhelming evidence that this program is necessary. mr. president, the obama administration has come to the same conclusion. so has the intelligence community. the operational capabilities, the intelligence community relies on to conduct their mission, to keep us safe, will

not be impacted by the u.s.a. freedom act. if it were, the intelligence community and the administration would not have brokered this compromise legislation. ending the bulk collection program and giving americans more transparency so they can determine for themselves whether they believe these programs should exist is an obligation we have to all of our constituents. we have a bill introduced today that would give our law enforcement authorities the tools they need to keep us safe. also staying true to the fourth amendment. i encourage my colleagues to support these important reforms and i hope we can -- it can quickly be considered by this chamber. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, let me express my thanks to senator grassley for letting me slip ahead of him and thank him it is a well for a number of i thought courageous votes today. i express migrated gratitude to him and the presiding officer, i understand earlier today on the vote on final passage of the transportation funding legislation, 79 senators voted for the bill as amended. 79. that's a majority, resounding majority of democrats and republicans. mr. president, to you and senator grassley and senator grassley for longer than and i combined, the idea for democrats and republicans to

work together, to find principle compromises and it's been a while since the senate actually did that. and i feel like today we were the senate again. and it's gratifying to me and i just want to say everyone who voted for the corker corker-boxer-carper amendment, senator wyden's support, for everybody who helped to make that amendment part of the bill and then supported it on final passage, i hope it sends a message to our friends in the house that will not be lost on them, and i hope before they reject it out of order, i hope they'll sleep on it and wake up in the morning and maybe we can have a good conversation. mr. president, that's not why i rose tonight but i wanted to get that off my chest and i appreciate the chance to do that. mr. president, i rise this evening in support of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill that was introduced i believe last week by senator mikulski. this bill as you'll recall would

provide some $2.7 billion to address the humanitarian challenge playing out in recent weeks on our southern border with mexico. this money will ensure that the agencies charged with securing our borders don't run out of money this summer. more importantly it will address some of the underlying root causes of the problems we face along our southern border. as we all know, we are facing an unprecedented surge in migration really from three countries. they are el salvador, honduras, and guatemala. a large number of the migrants from these countries are families. some of them are unaccompanied children. some of those unaccompanied children are as young as 4 and 5 or 6 years old. let me be clear, these children and these families are not slipping past our borders undetected. they are being apprehended in large numbers by the border

patrol. almost as soon as they touch u.s. soil. some of them, many of them actually turn themselves in voluntarily to our border patrol. although the influx has slowed in recent weeks the sheer number of children and families coming across our southern border in south texas earlier this summer overwhelmed the border patrol, overwhelmed health and human services, and other federal agencies. the administration and secretary jeh johnson, secretary of homeland security have responded to this situation with what i would call an all-hands-on-deck approach. the federal emergency management administration in coordination with -- is coordinating the d. h.s. ride response to this problem. the department of defense has provided space on some of its military installations to house unaccompanied minors until health and human services can find placement for them.

immigration and customs enforcement has greatly expanded its ability to detain and remove families and we have surged border patrol agents, immigration judges, and other personnel to the border to help process these people. these measures have been working. for example, the amount of time people are detained before they're removed has decreased significantly in recent weeks, but these emergency measures are expensive and none of the federal agencies involved have the money they need to sustain the aggressive steps that they're taking to deal with this situation. the consequences of not moving forward with this legislation are severe. let me give you some examples of what failing to do -- failing to act will mean. without this emergency funding, immigration and customs enformat could be forced to release thousands of people currently being detained and to stop operating repatriation flights.

health and human services could be forced to cut back on the number of children it can care for. children would be forced to stap stay longer at border patrol stations and points would spend more of their time -- border patrol agents would spend more time taking care of children and less time pursuing smuggling networks operating along our borders. some of my colleagues are suggesting that we won't be able to pass this supplemental until september and that the administration can just move money around until then to make up for the shortfall. well, that may have been more feasible earlier in the fiscal year, but doing so now will likely have significant unintend ed consequences. for example, it would impair our bart border security because d.h.s. may have to reduce aerial support for the border patrol or stop replacing x-ray machines out of ports of entry. our ability to respond to natural disasters could be harmed. i understand my colleagues in the house introduced a bill that

that would provide just $659 million to deal with this crisis, 659, roughly one quarter of what senator mikulski has introduced. $659 million is just a drop in the duct from what is needed. in-- the bucket from what is needed. incredibly they are raiding the department of homeland security's other critical operations which is what senator mikulski's bill is trying to avoid. failing to move an emergency supplemental this week would be in my view unconscionable. i urge all of my colleagues to do the right thing here and to make sure we deal with this before we leave for five weeks. dealing with the challenge we are facing on the border is rightly our main focus right now. however, we cannot lose sightth root causes that are driving this surge in migration in the first place. in this country all too often we focus so much of our attention on dealing with symptoms of

problems, and not enough attention on addressing the underlying causes. this is particularly true on our borders. since -- listen to this -- since 2003, we have spent $223 billion, that's almost a quarter of a trillion dollars, enforcing our immigration customs law, strengthening the security of our borders. almost a quarter of a trillion dollars. we have spent a small fraction of this total, a very small fraction, actually, less than 1%, helping el salvador, guatemala and honduras improve conditions for their families. i want to commend the president and chairwoman mikulski for including $300 million in this supplemental request aimed at addressing what i'm convinced are the root causes of this problem. what are they? the lack of economic hope. lack of jobs. in central america. combining with increasing violence and insecurity in the

region. i know, i've been there, to two of those three countries, guatemala and el salvador this year, down to mexico and colombia, which 20 years ago was a failed nation. remember in colombia, mr. president, roughly 20 years ago, a bunch of gunmen rounded up the supreme court justices for that country, took them to death. that was colombia roughly 20 years ago. they are no longer a failed nation, they came back from the brink and they're a strong, vibrant nation and with a willing partner along with mexico and the u.s. to turn around the situation in these central american countries which are the source of this migration to our country. based on my conversation with central american leaders with the ambassadors from all three countries as well as the ambassador from mexico, the first critical need is to foster economic growth and create jobs.

how might we do that? one, by helping restore the rule of law. we have in those countries we have police that don't police. we have prosecutors that don't prosecute. we have judges that don't adjudicate. we have prisons that don't either rehabilitate or punish. and people, we have kidnappings, extortions, people scared to stay there and live there and they're voting with their feet. we need to help them restore the rule of law like we and other countries helped colombia over the last two decades. there are energy costs are roughly three times what they ought to be. three times. most of their energy for their electricity grid comes from petroleum. they could use natural gas and reduce by half what they spend for energy. they need to improve their education, their work force skills and access to capital. those are just some of the ways to strengthen their economies. i'm not suggesting any of this will be quick or easy to do and it will require a sustained investment and focus on the region by the u.s. and also by a

number of others. this is not our job alone. this is a shared responsibility. and we need to keep that in mind. but it can be done. in fact, we've already done it with two of our most important allies in latin america, as i mentioned colombia and more recently with mexico where the economic situation was so bad -- listen to this -- more than a million mexicans were apprehended trying to cross our borders every year. today most countries have vibrant democracies and their citizens have hope for the future. ironically more mexicans are leaching the country this country now to go back to mexico than coming the other way. i'll say again what i just said. we cannot and should not do this alone. this is not all on america. this needs to be a shared responsibility with the governments of these through three countries with all of our partners in the region including mexico and colombia. other with other stakeholders including the development

banks, private sector, nonprofits and institutions of faith. $300 million, mr. president, in this emergency supplement is a down payment on what will need to be a long-term commitment to our neighbors in the region. this cannot be one and done. if we're serious about addressing the surge we'll need to do more and, frankly, so will others and i would underline so will others. finally based on what i have seen and heard, mr. president, solving this crisis requires a holistic approach and the factors pulling them to our borders. we turn our backs on these countries i'm convinced we will be back here 10 years dealing with another expensive humanitarian crisis on our border. we don't need that and neither do those countries. i urge my colleagues to put aside politics to pass this emergency supplemental supplemental and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. thank you so much.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: the distinguished senior senator from delaware and i came to washington together and i'm so proud of the work he's doing. what he's done, a member of congress, governor, now in the senate and chairman of the homeland security committee. he's done a really remarkably good job and i'm very, very proud of the work he does. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business, senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. 2577. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 474, s. 2577, a bill to require the secretary of state to offer rewards totaling up to $5 million for the information on the kidnapping and murder of naftali franco, the dual united

states-israeli citizen that began on june 12, 2014. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time, passed the motion to reconsider considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate proceed to h. con. res. 103. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 103, concurrent resolution authorizing the use of the capitol grounds for the district of columbia special olympics law enforcement torch run. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table and there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to h. con. res. 106. the clerk: the clerk will report. the clerk: concurrent resolution authorizing the use of