mccain was just talking about a few minutes ago. iraq, ukraine, afghanistan, and that's why we need to have the ndaa bill tended to as soon as -- hopefully as soon as we get back from this recess. the later we put it into the year to act, the more likely it will be rolled into a big bill. we all know how that would play out. it would be rammed through the senate without amendments and open gaivment so we want transparency, we want people to have an opportunity to bring their amendments out and the more we can get between now and when we go into this recess, the more quarterbac can be worked oe staff because they're going to be working all during the recess to get this done. we've got all of these people risking their lives on our behalf. we certainly -- they deserve to have this bill in a well-thought-out manner. right before we came on, senator casey was talking about the

afghan women's and girls, some of the real tragedies that are taking place right now over there. these are things that languish -- where we could correct a throoft in this bill -- a lot of that in this bill. so there's no reason to put it off. we don't want to go through what we went through last time. now is the time to prepare thoor that. all we have to do is get amendments down. no one should complain later on in november or december about not being able to have their amendments heard if they're not out there right now bringing their amendments down. with that, it's my understanding that senator mccain wanted to participate in this plea that we're making but he has a statement he'll be submitting for the record. with that, i would yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak about an amendment i filed to the highway and transportation funding act. while my amendment did not get a vote, the issue it addresses is very important to my home state and so i want to take a minute

today to talk about the issue and the need to address a situation that was created when we passed the map-21 highway conference report in 2012. the conference report undid a carefully constructed compromise on the abandoned mine land program that was put together in 2006. it took apart the work that we had done by limiting the total annual payments of a.m.l. funds to $15 million per year. that's a change that only affected the state of wyoming. we usually don't do legislation that only affects one state when a number of them receive funds. what was worse, the provision was not in the house or senate highway bill. it was added in the dead of night without consulting anyone from the wyoming congressional delegation. i was extremely disappointed the provision was included in the conference report because senators from other coal producing states -- and i spent year and i spentyears working o.

when the surface mining and control reclamation act was passed in 1977, a tax was levied against each pound of coal that was produced. the purpose of the tax was to reclaim the coal mines that had been enacted before the reclamation laws. half of that tax was promised to the states where the coal was mined. that was known as the state share. the other half went to the federal government to administer the reclamation program and to provide additional funding to the states with the most abandoned mine lands. it was a simple enough concept. unfortunately, like many things in washington, while the concept was good, clear and well-intentioned, its implementation was a nightmare and the program did not work as congress intended. for years, states were shortchanged and the reclamation work was not done or the states did it themselves at their own

expense, expecting to get reimbursed. that's the case in wyoming. at one point, the federal government owed the states more than $1.2 billion. while more than $3 billion in reclamation programs remained incomplete and unfinished. the issue pitted the east against the west and the debate was always the same. when members from the east would argue that we should send more money to the states to support reclamation efforts, my colleagues from the west were just as certain that we needed to keep the federal government's promise to the states to provide the revenue they were entitled to under the provisions of the surface mining control and reclamation act. in 2006, a bipartisan coalition of senators, including me, fixed the broken a.m.l. structure. it started with senator santorum approaching me with a proposal that had the support of a number of local coal companies, also the united mine workers of

america, several other environmental groups and other businesses. after listening to the proposal, i laid out a set of principles that had to be included in their proposal if they were going to gain my support. first, i wanted to see the return of the money owed to states which included $550 million owed to my state. because wyoming is a certified state, i also wanted to see that the money that came from the federal government wouldn't have any strings attached. the legislation accomplished that goal by guaranteeing that wyoming was to receive the money we were owed from the federal government over a seven-year period. this is money in a trust fund. now, trust funds are kind of interesting with the federal government because we put money in the drawer and then we take the money out and we put bonds in the drawer. and so there's really no money in the drawer. think about that with social security. it's another one of our trust funds. i'm one of the protectors of trust funds. but this was a trust fund. it only had bonds in there so it was difficult for us to get any

money. now, second, i wanted to guarantee that future moneys would be paid to the states like wyoming where significant amounts of coal are produced. we're almost federal half of the tax. that's where it comes from. third, it was important that more money be directed toward reclamation in the states where it was needed. more money where it was needed. and, fourth, there had to be a provision for orphan mine miner' health. sometimes that's kind of overlooked in this. but senator byrd and senator rockefeller was very adamant onn that and then we promised to take care of it. what's an orphan miner? their mine went out of business and they didn't get their health care. so we made a provision to take care of that. the legislation that we put together accomplished all four of those goals. we continued our efforts as a bipartisan group and in december

2006, we passed the a.m.l. reauthorization as a part of the tax relief and health care act of 2006. the coal industry and the united mine workers of america supported the bill. members from certified states like wyoming supported the compromise, as did members from uncertified states, like pennsylvania and west virginia. as a senator, president obama voted in favor of the legislation that included this compromise. from all the available signs, it appeared that we had finally fixed the problem and helped to strengthen our state economies at the same time. unfortunately, appearances are often deceiving. by limited a.m.l. payments in the map-21 conference report, congress once again made clear that taxpayers could not count on a federal trust fund to meet its obligations, to administer the tax dollars it collects each year in a proper and legislatively mandated manner.

this has been contested and successfully defended year after year to preserve this money, and it was supported by a supermajority in this body until -- until -- it was included in this highway bill. and included in the highway bill in the conference report, not when we had an amendment on the floor that we could once again successfully defeat with a supermajority. it came out in the middle of the night and the next day we had an opportunity to vote for the highway bill. now, the highway bill is probably one of the most crucial bills to any state in the nati nation. and if all you get to do is vote "yes" or "no" you're not going to take a look at a little portion of the bill where we steal a trust fund from one state, wyoming. and that's exactly what happened and it passed. now, my amendment to the highway bill this time will address the

problem and put things back together the way they were meant to be. simply put, it will ensure that when a state has been promised it will receive a.m.l. funds, it will receive them. fortunately, i have the intent of congress and the support of many of my colleagues on this matter of such great concern to wyoming and to all the coal producing states. i want to particularly thank senators hatch and wyden for their commitment to address this issue created by the map-21 conference report. this isn't just a problem for wyoming because the next time a conference committee goes looking for some money, they could steal it from the other a.m.l. states. my amendment would also encourage the production of energy right here at home by opening up the arctic national wildlife refuge to drilling. the congressional budget office estimates such an effort will increase gross federal seat recs by $5 billion over 10 years. that's a lot more than we need

to make this payment. there are other possibilities for offsets as well but that's one that's rather meaty and that is more than enough to pay the funds that were stolen from wyoming over 10 years and to pay for two years' worl worth of transportation projects. not just a short-term fix on the transportation. i know my colleagues will see the importance of this matter to wyoming and to all the coal producing states. it's important that we take a look at this and protect the -- the validity of trust funds that we set up and not redo them without adequate debate or an actual vote on the trust fund that we're violating. and we've done that on a couple of other trust funds as well. one of the ones that we also did was to impose an additional tax on those companies that have private pension funds. because we have a pension benefit guaranty trust fund

that's designed so that if a company goes out of business, a worker that works for one of those businesses will get at least 60% of what they were supposed to get in their retirement. that's why it's a pension benefit guaranty trust fund. and we u upped the amount that had to be put in by $80 per employee for each of the companies involved in that. and that was to go into the trust fund to make sure those funds would be available. but we diverted those before they got to the trust fund because the actual money could be replaced by bonds in the drawer in the trust fund, and so that money went to highways. and that's just another example of how we're taking money from trust funds and using it -- ten years' worth of trust funds and using it for two-year projects. we've got to change that and my amendment would be one of the ways of making that change.

i thank the chair and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: does the distinguished senator from utah seek recognition? mr. hatch: yes, i was told at 6:15. mr. whitehouse: why don't you proceed, then. i'll follow you. mr. hatch: how long will the senator take? mr. whitehouse: probably about 20 minutes. why don't you go first. mr. -- i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized at the conclusion of the remarks of senator hatch. mr. hatch: i appreciate his remarks. i rise to speak about the importance of our patent system, how it continues to be abused by patent trolls. most members in this body are

fully aware of the crippling effect patent trolls are having on innovation and growth upon all areas of our economy ranging from main estate businesses to america's largest technology companies. through abusive and meritless litigation, patent trolls extort intercepts from innovators throughout the country. how do they do it? take for example the coffee shop down the treat that provides wi-fi service to its customers. the shop owners are using a technology exactly as it is intended to be used, but thousands of miles away the patent troll purchases broad patents you previously issued to someone else else. then they send vague demand letters to the coffee shop and thousands of similar businesses accusing them often improperly of inflinchinging their questionable patents.

many target small businesses that they hope will agree to settle even though they have done nothing wrong simply because they do not have the resources to defend themselves in court. these settlements divert capital that could otherwise be used for research and development or to create jobs. and in many cases, it costs around $2 million. to fight one of these cases. so they're forced into settling with whatever they can pay rather than doing what they really would hope to do and that is prove that there was an unmeritorious claim. the sad reality many businesses have little choice other than to settle other than spend the resources are required to fight in court and those who do fight back are forced to spend unless in litigation costs often with no chance of an award against a

judgmentproof payment. james benson writing in the harvard business review confirms the economic burden of patent lawsuits is historically unprecedented. research shows that patent trolls cost defendant firms $29 billion per year in direct out-of-pocket costs. in aggregate, patent litigation destroys over $60 billion in firm wealth each year. he further cites three studies on patent lawsuits currently in the works by researchers from the massachusetts institute of technology, rutgers, harvard and the university of texas. based upon preliminary findings he states -- quote -- "a consistent picture is emerging about the effects of patent litigation. it costs innovators money, many innovators and venture capitalists report it significantly impacts their businesses.

they respond by investing less in r&d and less in start-ups" -- unquote. i agree with mr. bessen. the evidence from these studies cannot be ignored. patent trolls do hurt innovation and it is passes time for congress to do something about it. for the better part of a year, congress worked toward a legislative solution to combat patent trolls. in december we overcame the first legislative hurdle when the house of representatives passed the innovation act by a vote of 325-91. the white house endorsed the bipartisan legislation by stating -- quote -- "the bill would improve incentives for future innovation while protecting the overall integrity of the patent system" -- unquote. here in the senate i worked closely with a bipartisan group of senators to craft a compromise bill that could pass the senate. countless hours of negotiation yielded encouraging results on

key litigation reform, including fee shifting, heightened pleadened and discovery standards and a mechanism to ensure recovery of fees will be possible against shell companies. in the spirit of bipartisanship my republican colleagues and i were willing albeit very reluctantly to lower the bar on fee shifting if we maintained strong litigation reforms elsewhere. but i continue to believe that mandatory fee shifting is the best way to discourage patent litigation. in cases where a plaintiff's or defendant's case is so weak it should have never been brought or defended in the first instance. that is why i included mandatory fee shifting in the hatch-leahy reform act of 2006 and why i will insist on its inclusion in future legislation. fee shifting alone gives a prevailing party little relief against patent trolls who litigate in the name of shell companies while their financial backers or interested parties

remain beyond the court's jurisdiction. thus there must be a mechanism to ensure that recovery of fees will be possible even against judgmentproof shell companies. the recovery of a word provision that our draft is intended to ensure that shell companies primarily in the business of enforcing patents in litigation cannot escape potential liability for attorneys' fees if they are found to have pursued an unreasonable case. those deemed interested parties may either voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction and become liable for any unsatisfied fees awarded in the case or opt out by renouncing sufficient interest related to the litigation or do nothing. in my view fee shifting without such a recovery provision is like writing a check on an empty account. you're purchase supporting to convey something that isn't there. fee shifting coupled with this recovery provision would stop patent trolls from litigating

and dashing. dashing away, i might say. mr. president, there is no question that america's ingenuity fuels our economy. we must ensure that our patent system is a strong and vibrant as possible. not only to protect our country's premier position as the leader in innovation but to secure our own economic future. patents encourage technological advancement by providing incentives to invest and develop new technology. it bears repeating that the governance of patents and copyrights is one of the essentials specifically enumerated powers given to the federal government at our nation's founding. in my view it is one of the most visionary forward-looking provisions in the entire u.s. constitution. unfortunately, at least in the 10 -- 113th congress it is unlikely that this body will act to end the abuses by patent

trolls. it is shameful that even intellectual property bills are now the latest casualties of our current partisan gridlock. mr. president, as senators prepare to return to their home states for the august recess, i hope they will hear from people who represent the hotel, restaurant retail, real estate, financial services and high-tech industries just to mention a few about the urgent need to pass patent troll legislation. i hope senators will be reminded about the opportunity the senate abandoned to pass this important legislation and to pass bipartisan, bicameral legislation that was supported by the white house but pulled from the senate's agenda by the majority leader. i hope senators will recognize we must end the multibillion-dollar assault on the american businesses and workers because that's what it is. through commonsense reforms to our patent laws, we can ensure that american resources are used

to innovate and create jobs, not wasted to settle or litigate frivolous claims. i am disappointed that during the 113th congress the senate has failed to act to address this critical challenge. legislation to combat abusive litigation will be among my top priorities in the next congress and i intend to do everything in my power to get such legislation passed for the good of the economy and the good of this country. mr. president, i would ask that my final remarks be placed at an appropriate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, i rise today to speak out in strong support of israel's right to self-defense. this isn't a partisan issue. whether republican or democrat, we should all stand behind america's loyal ally as it faces hamas' cowardly terrorism. and in this time of frequent domestic political division, it is encouraging to witness the remarkable degree of unanimity among my colleagues on this

issue. the wide support for israel's self-defense here in congress reflects the unique bond between the united states and israel. it's an interesting interest we share for many reasons including our kinship with israel as a free society and a democracy. our close economic and cultural ties especially for those of us who consider support for israel a deeply spiritual matter. our respect for the many virtues of israeli society from its industrious us inness to its tolerance. our appreciation for israel's stability in a region full of failed and stressed states and our recognition that israel wants nothing more than to live in peace with its neighbors. so when hamas fires constant rocket barrages indiscriminately at israeli cities and seeks to infiltrate israel with teams of murderers and kidnappers, israel has every right to defend itself against this terrorist threat. and the realities of urban

warfare against a guerrilla opponent, some civilian casualties are unavoidable but in its military actions israel has acted with admirable and unprecedented concern for palestinian civilians many phone calls, sending text messages, prong leavelets to warn of impending attacks against military targets, aborting airstrikes and undertaking other measures to protect palestinian civilians even at the expense of israeli military objectives. while the israeli defense forces act with great courage not only to protect israeli civilians but also to avoid turning palestinian civilians -- or harming palestinian civilians, what does hamas do? like all terrorists they hide behind civilians building bunkers and tunnels to protect its fighters but refusing to shelter civilians using civilian

buildings including schools, hospitals, and places of worship to launch rockets and hide other weapons, and even ordering civilians to ignore israeli warnings and instead turning them into human shields. in the face of this barbarism, israel deserves our strongest support as it seeks to root out the infrastructure of terrorists -- terror that hamas has built in around gaza. the israeli people have a right to live free from fear of constant rocket attack and while we should applaud the success of the iron dome system in protecting israeli systems from the hamas rocket threat, israel is acting responsibly by seeking to eliminate the means by which hamas perpetuates that threat. above all else, we must recognize that supporting israel is really about supporting peace in the middle east. israel wants peace. not peace at any price, but a just, secure and enduring

peace. and as long as hamas terrorists hate israel more than they love their own children, to paraphrase golda mayer, -- golda meyer, israel must occasionally resort to arms in self-defense. in this endeavor our ally deserves our strong support. i thank my dear colleague from rhode island for allowing me to proceed on these two short but very important sets of remarks. i appreciate him for that and wish him well in every way. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, the the distinguished senator from utah is one of the most distinguished and ablest lawyers ever to serve in this senate, and his comments about the patent trolls and patent litigation are i think entitled to great weight.

i thoroughly agree with him that the use of these shell corporations is something that we could and should act quickly to get rid of. i think the protection of an end user like a coffee shop or a florist or somebody who is not a competitor with the manufacturer or the property holder, the patentholder, is something we could and should address. and i think policing these often eggs torsionate demand letters is something that we could and should do, and i look forward to working with the distinguished senator in those areas. i do think that when it comes to fee shifting, that is a very significant step. the principle in the american system of justice that a party pays his or her own lawyer is so deeply ingrained in our own system of justice that it is

known as the american rule. to depart from that is something i think we should do only with a very -- let's put it this way. it's a very grave step, and i'm not sure that it's justified in this case. but certainly, we could move on a bill that got rid of shell corporations, that protected end users and that went after these demand letters and get into conference and then with any luck something could be done there, but i very much appreciate senator hatch's long and sincere interest in this issue. mr. hatch: i want to thank my colleague for those kind words. thank you. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i rise today for the 76th time to urge my colleagues that it is time for us to wake up to the growing threats of climate change. not a single state remains unaffected by the unprecedented changes we are already seeing driven by the excessive carbon pollution that we continue to dump into our oceans and atmosphere. yet, in washington, our

republican colleagues either parrot the polluter line that climate change is just a hoax or stay silent. no one will step forward. mr. president, it was not always this way. environmental protection was once a top priority of the republican party. it seems remarkable now, but it's true. in the early 1970's, the clean air act, the clean water act and the endangered species act were all passed with broad bipartisan support and signed by a republican president. in the 1980's, in the 1990's, bipartisan majorities voted to strengthen those laws led by rhode island's republican senator john chafee who served as chairman of the environmental and public works committee and whose seat i now have the honor to hold.

conservation and stewardship were once fundamental principles of american conservativism. from seminal thinkers of the conservative movement to great republican leaders of the 20th century, the conservative ideal included a commitment to the interests of future generations. today, under a relentless barrage of unlimited corporate spending in our elections, much and perhaps most of it by polluters, the interests of future generations have taken a back seat to the interests of oil companies and coal barons. the disastrous citizens united supreme court decision let polluters cast their dark shadow over republicans in congress who might otherwise work with democrats on curbing their

carbon pollution. edwin burke, an irish-born member of the british parliament, is considered by many the father of modern conservatism. winston churchill called him a foremost apostle of liberty. burke was a staunch defender of our american colonies and his statue stands here in washington today. his 1790 conservative manifesto, reflections on the revolution in france, cautioned that we are but temporary possessors of our society. if individuals are unmindful of what is received from their ancestors or due to their posterity, he wrote, one generation could link with

another. men would become little better than flies of summer. in our case, flies of a carbon-fueled summer. russell kirk was a distinguished scholar at the heritage foundation who none other than president ronald reagan dubbed the prophet of american conservatism. he wrote a 1970 piece for "the baltimore sun". "conservation activism is a healthy sign." "nothing," kirk wrote, is more important than conservation. the essayist wendell burray, noted for his unshakable devotion to the land, to localism and to the dignity of traditional life, wrote in

1993 -- "our destruction of nature is not just bad stewardship or stupid economics or a betrayal of family responsibility. it is the most horrid blasphemy. barry would also remind us in this chamber that whether we as politicians knew that or not, she has more votes. no figure in american history embodied the conservative value of conservation more than president theodore roosevelt. roosevelt resented the malefactors of great wealth, as he called them, the timber and mining interests whose, and i quote, selfish and shortsighted

greed seeks to exploit our natural resources in such fashion as to ruin them, and thereby to leave our children and our children's children heirs only to an exhausted and impoverished inheritance." end quote. to roosevelt, this great land of ours was the birthright of all americans, past, present and future, to be used, to be sure, in achieving our destiny but not wasted. to waste, to destroy our natural resources, he wrote to congress in 1907 to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness will result in undermining in the days of our children the very

prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them. that is a sentiment echoed by republican presidents throughout our history, including president dwight eisenhower whose 1961 farewell address invoked this national legacy. here is what he said. "as we peer into society's future, we, you and i and our government, must avoid the impulse to live only for today plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. we cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage." republican president gerald ford, who once worked actually as a national park ranger, said

this in 1975 -- "we have too long treated the natural world as an adversary rather than as a life-sustaining gift from the almighty. if man has the genius to build, which he has, he must also have the ability and the responsibility to preserve." and of course, mr. president, no one is more revered by today's republican party than ronald reagan. his conservative credentials are unassailable, and g.o.p. candidates for elected office strive mightily to out-reagan each other at every turn. in 1984, reagan put this question to his fellow republicans -- "what is a conservative, after all, but one

who conserves? one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live, and we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live, our countryside, our rivers and mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. that is our patrimony. that is what we leave to our children. and our great moral responsibility, reagan said, is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it. president ronald reagan's words would make him a fringe liberal candidate in today's extremist republican party. and in congress, we have been boxed in by a barricade of

special interest propaganda, and we refuse to admit the plain evidence piling up before our eyes. we know with ever greater center what our carbon pollution is doing to the climate, what it's doing to our atmosphere, what it's doing to our oceans, and we know with ever greater center what that means for the planet and future generations. what do republicans in congress today have to say to our heirs, to our children and grandchildren. catastrophic global warming is a hoax, says one of my republican colleagues.

it's not proven by any stretch of the imagination, says another. a third dismisses the issue altogether, saying a lot of this is condescending elitism. that's the voice of today's republican party. but what does the next generation have to say back to these republican voices of denial? more than half of young republican voters said they would describe a politician who denies climate change is happening as ignorant, out of touch or crazy. not my boards. their words in the poll. ignorant, out of touch or crazy. that's what the next generation

says back to the republican voices of denial. unfortunately, if you are a republican in congress today, it is more likely than not that you either hold that view or are afraid to say otherwise. according to one analysis, 58% of congressional republicans in the 113th congress have denied or questioned the overwhelming scientific consensus that the earth's oceans and atmospheres -- atmosphere are changing in unprecedented ways, driven by our carbon pollution. this includes, i am sad to report, every single republican member of the senate committee on environment and public works. and where there is not denial, there is silence. outside these barricaded walls, it is different.

outside congress, more and more republicans acknowledge the threat of climate change and call for responsible solutions. former members of congress, free now from the polluters' thrall, implore their colleagues to return to their conservative principles. former representative bob inglis, for example, invokes the tenets of conservative economics. here's his quote -- "if you're a conservative, it is time to step forward and engage in the climate and energy debate, because we have the answer, free enterprise. conservatives understand that we must set the correct incentives, and this should include internalizing pollution and other environmental costs in our market system. we tax income, but we don't tax emissions. it makes sense to conservatives to take the tax off something you want more of, income, and

shift the tax to something you want less of, emissions. wayne gilchrist, former representative from virginia, argues for a market-based approach to reducing carbon pollution. here's what he said. "we could slash our debt by making power plants and oil refineries pay for the carbon emissions that endanger our health and environment." "this policy," they write, "would strengthen our economy, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, keep our skies clean, and raise a lot of revenue." top advisors to former republican presidents have joined the chorus. william d. ruckelshaus, liam

thomas, william k. reilly and christine todd whitman, all headed the environmental protection agency during republican administrations. they all recently testified before the environment and public works committee that it's time to get serious about climate change. here's how they put it in a "new york times" op-ed: "as administrators of the e.p.a. under presidents richard nixon, ronald reagan, george bush, and george w. bush, we held fast to commonsense conservative principles. protecting the health of the american people, working with the best technology available, and trusting in the innovation of american business and in the market to find the best solutions for the least cost." these formers officials recognize both the wisdom of

properly pricing carbon and the trucculence of opponents who stand in the way of progress." a market-based approach like a carbon tax would be the best path to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, they say -- the best path. but, they say, "that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in washingt washington." i would interject that that political gridlock is the product of big-spending polluters who profit from the gridlock that they create. but let me continue with what the e.p.a. administrators said. "we must continue efforts to reduce the climate-altering pollutants that threaten our planet. the only uncertainty about our warming world," they wrote, "is how bad the changes will get and

how soon. what is most clear is that there is no time to waste." four republican e.p.a. administrators one day, mr. president, folks are going to look back at this time, and we are all ghg to be judged very -- going to be judged very hardly with the dread power that history has to inflict on wrong. the polluters and their instruments will be judged har harshly, and the republican party will be judged harshly for letting itself be led astray by polluters from its most basic conservative values. unless they step up, republicans

will leave, to borrow language from russell kirk, the principle of real leadership ignored, the immortal objects of society forgotten, practical conservatism degenerated into mere laudation of private enterprise, economic policy almost wholly surrendered to special interests. that's about as good a description of where they are right now as i could muster, and it comes from the conservative ruvmenruvmentruvment ssell kirk. we can't leave this alone, not with the numbers we have. republicans and democrats alike must approach this climate problem head-on, with the full quisks ouconviction of our ideat

working torktworking together yn good faith, and working on a common platform of fact and common sense to protect the american people and our american economy from the looming effects of carbon pollution. we must rise to our duty here and place our own natural resources, our own american international reputation, and our legacy to future american generations first, ahead of the poisonous influence of the polluters that so dominates this debate now. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you very, very much, mr. president, for -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. blumenthal: for recognizing me. and i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: the quorum call is lifted, without objection. mr. blumenthal: i also wish to thank the presiding officer for his leadership on environmental issues which are so immensely pressing and important for our country and i am proud and honored to join with him in that cause which he has helped to lead so often on the floor but also privately amongst our colleagues and in so many ways across the country. and i hope to continue our work

together on that issue and i thank him for presiding now and for continuing that leadership. i am speaking today after listening to the people of my state on an issue that perplexes and challenges us in so many ways. the situation on our southern border perplexes us because it is a problem without easy or ready solutions. it is a challenge to america in the resources that it requires and the spirit that it evokes. our resources are scarce. on spirit and our inner strength are boundless. and many have expressed to me in

my state of connecticut concerns about those resources, about the limits on those resources in facing a seemingly endless challenge as children come to our borders and stretch the capacity of this nation to accept them. and i am sympathetic with folks who wonder whether we are capability, very simply, of caring for these children. but i know that we can. the children who are coming here because of the humanitarian crisis they face in their countries. and our supplemental

legislation, so ably guided by senator mikulski, provides a path for providing the resources that are necessary. this supplemental is a thoughtful and significant document that addresses this situation without either breaking the bank or sacrificing american values. and i am immensely impressed and inspired by the spirit that has been evoked, again, among citizens of connecticut in saying we must care for those individual children who need asylum because returning them to the countries of honduras and el salvador and guatemala would be

a death sentence for many of them. and we must respect our law which provides for individual consideration and assessment of those children, whether they deserve or need asylum. and that status of fleeing persecution and death that many of them, in fact, have faced in those lands. and we must place those individuals according to law with their families, if possible. many of them have parents here. and the vast majority of have some family. moms and dads, aunts and uncles. and they need to be screened

under the law, their placement has to be in a safe and secure home with people, in my view, who are here legally. that screening has to be, as the law requires, to assure their safety and security as children. the united states has a responsibility to follow the law and so do we as citizens and as lawmakers. and as torn as we may be, as con flictd as we may feel, as vehement as though conflicting feelings may be felt and expressed by our fellow citizens, let us uphold the law and afford due process and individual consideration to those children who urn the -- under the law deserve that individual assessment, individual treatment, individual consideration

for the status of asylum in this nation. people speak about these children as if they were a mass mass, indistinguishable. a single societal challenge or problem, a member of the house of representatives even referred to them as an invasion. what i saw at the border when i visited there with two of my colleagues, senator hirono and senator murkowski, joined by a third, senator cornyn, all friends and distinguished colleagues, hammered home for me that these children are individuals, and they should be treated as such. the vast outpouring of spirit and generosity in this country is mirrored by countless

organizations. we heard about them during our visit, that want to help these children, want to volunteer and give of themselves, their time time, money, goods and services, everything from blankets to furniture to pizza to you name it. america is pouring out its heart for these children. i want to ask permission to enter into the record a letter to secretary johnson and commissioner kerlikowski from save the children, a connecticut organization that has offered very generously its help and support in concrete ways along with a briefing note with what it perceives the children at the border to be, those needs. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president.

lest anyone doubt the need for and the urgent justification for individual due process consideration, and the full and adequate screening of these children and a fair judicial proceeding, i would describe just a few stories, and i will ask that my full statement be entered into the record because i know others of our colleagues want to speak tonight. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. girls are fleeing sexual violence at the hands of gangs in honduras and el salvador, just a few examples, ms. l. was raped by more than a dozen gang of eight members in honduras

after reporting the gang rape to police were family began to receive death threats. there are only three shelters in honduras for rape survivors but two of them actually operate as brothels. the one remaining shelter declined to take ms. l. because it could not protect her or the other shelter residents from gang violence. she had no choice but to flee honduras. carlita is a 13-year-old who fled gang violence in el salvador. she was kidnapped by the zetas in mexico, used for sex and forced to be a drug mule for them before escaping and ultimately reaching the united states. ms. h. survived multiple rapes in honduras. after she fled, she was kidnapped by a mexican gang and raped and tortured. she eventually reached the united states.

ms. m. and ms. o. at ages of 15 and 8 fled el salvador. their older female cousins have been forced to work as sex slaves for gang leaders. the gang threatened to kill ms. n. and her family. ms. n. and ms. o. fled to the united states and were placed in removal proceedings. ms. e. fled el salvador when she was 8 years old. gang members had kidnapped her and two older sisters. the girls' mother did not want her 8-year-old daughter to suffer the same fate so she arranged for her daughter to be brought to the united states. many gangs use sexual violence as part of the price or rent demanded of girls. ms. x. fled an area of el salvador controlled by gangs. her brother was killed for refusing to join a gang that forcibly tried to recruit him. she was raped by two men, became pregnant as a result, and then was required to pay

renta to the rapist which increased over time. she fled el salvador and was attacked by mexican robbers during her journey before arriving in the united states. many of these girls are victims of fraud, forced prostitution and human trafficking. i have other stories which will be included in the record. these stories come from the personal experiences of advocates and others who have interviewed them at length as well as our own officials. and many of these girls are sexually assaulted during the treacherous journey northwardward. these stories are not imagined or fictionalized. they are graphic and dramatic. rape is so prevalent that many girls begin the journey by

seeking birth control injections before they leave home in central america. as a precaution against pregnancy. i refer these stories because they illustrate and illuminate the need for a thoughtful, humanitarian approach, especially to these young girls whose stories are so real and so inspiring, not just in the treacherous journey they overcome, not just in the torture and abuse that they suffer, but in the dignity and self-worth and strength and resoluteness that they continue to have. a thoughtful humanitarian approach is what's required.

it is the approach that this supplemental exemplifies in providing resources. there is a oath that doctors take, "first, do no harm." let that be the approach of this body. in approving basic amounts of money produced by the chairman of the appropriations committee so that it meets appropriately and frugally the needs of these children to be placed in humane circumstances with families who are screened for their safety and security and their being here legally. i'll just close with one last experience. in one interview that i watched

at the border, i saw a 7-year-old girl crying quietly. as she tried to answer the questions of an armed border guard. the border guard did his best. he was obviously caring in his approach. but neither his training nor the experience of any border guard chemical weapons them -- equips them really to play this role with a 7-year-old girl. they are in uniform, a police uniform which for this whole girl's life has meant fear, potential rape, bodily harm. and these children have learned from hard experience that that fear is often justified. they are distrustful of adults generally and authority figures

in particular. nobody could watch this scene without feeling a sense of compassion for the guard and, of course, most especially the girl, separated from her family, sitting on a bench, her legs swinging free because she was not big enough to reach the floor. the look on her face revealed not just terror, but a fervent desire to please, inspired by fear. she could not communicate openly with the border guard. what sheenedded was -- she needed was someone trained and equipped to elicit the facts of her background, the reasons she had fled the motivation for her escape, the facts, and her feelings about them. that kind of individual

assessment is the reason we have the law passed by congress in 2008 unanimously, the trafficking victims protection act was designed for these girls and boys coming from noncontiguous countries facing those fears, those harsh and threatening conditions if they were to be returned. they face a near certain death, many of them, if they are returned without the individual assessment and consideration. call it due process, call it judicial, call it humane questioning. the title matters less than what happens. and i know that this nation cannot be expected to rescue all of the children of the world

from all of the harsh and inhumane conditions they may face. we are not limitless in our capacity to do good. but i know and i believe that we have the resources to do what's just and right under the law, considering every one of these children, and every one of the potential threats, the potential death that they face if they are returned to their countries. it is an american value that we follow the rule of law, that we grant asylum under the law to people who deserve it and need it. that that much we can do. i know we have the resources to do it. i believe we have the will to do it.

the hearts of america and its citizens are big. we are a big country. we are not limited in our resources, but -- limitless in our resources but we are boundless in our capacity for generosity and doing what is right. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, i first ask to consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i'm especially grateful to the senior senator from connecticut for his words tonight and for the challenge that those words present to us. we're grateful for his efforts to stand up for children. and i rise tonight to speak about children here in the united states. i spoke earlier about issues

that relate to women and girls and children generally in afghanistan, but i wanted to highlight a report that came out recently by one of the leading organizations in the country that charts the well-being of children over time and advocates on their behalf. the name of the organization that many here have heard of, i'm sure, is the annie e. casey foundation, no relation to me but a foundation that has made it its mission to advocate on behalf of children and you can't be an effective advocate, none of us can, unless we chart their progress and find out what's working. so i'm just going to briefly summarize tonight the findings of the 2014 kids count report by the casey foundation. i have here at the lectern kind of a color-coded chart which i

won't hold up because i don't have an enlarged version of it, i won't be able to enter it into the record but i wanted to summarize it. basically what is in front of me is a summary of various categories that the annie e. casey foundation has developed to chart the well-being of children. and they separate the comparisons into four sections, and then they -- they determine whether over time, whether it's over four or five years or a longer period of time whether or not children are the indicators have worsened or improved. so it's a very basic set of metrics. the categories that they track for children are the following four categories. first, economic well-being. i'll talk more about some of the indicators there. second, education. third, health. and fourth, a category they call family and community.

here's what the -- the basic indicators for the entire united states. of course they have a breakdown for every state, how every state -- the children in every state are doing on those indicators. just, for example, in terms of what's getting better, we should highlight and note when there are improvements made. i think the fact that we have improvements on these indicators for children over time indicates that public policy matters, what happens here in the united states congress matters, what happens in -- across the country in nonprofit organizations and advocacy organizations that fight every day for children and say over and over again as the advocates tell us that children are not small adults. we need specific strategies for children, whether it's for health care or for early education or to make sure they get enough to eat or to protect them from predators. whatever the issue is, we have

to have specific strategies for children. so let's go through a couple of the areas where there has been improvement. not dramatic improvement. not enough improvement for us to say that we have achieved a measure of success on one metric and we can move on. but in the area of education, just by way of example, eighth grade children, eighth graders not proficient in math, so it's kind of a negative indicator of the way it's phrased. in 2005, across the united states, 72% of eighth graders had -- were not proficient in math, a very high number, 72%. when they looked at it again in 2013, it was down to 66%. so it's improved by six percentage points but thankfully it's moving in the right direction, but we can't be satisfied with 66% of eighth

graders not, not proficient in math. but it's good news that it's moving in the right direction. another bit of good news, maybe a more urgent issue in terms of what happens to very young children, in this case babies, low birthweight babies, there is an improvement there from 2005-2012, so over seven years the percent of low birth weight babies according to this data has gotten better. but the unfortunate part is it only went from 8.2% to 8%. not much of an improvement but an improvement. but we have got a long way to go in the greatest country in the world when we -- we say that there has been an improvement but still 8% of babies are low birth weight. so an improvement but a lot more work to do. maybe the best indicator of improvement, and then i will move on to the areas where there has been worsening, children

without health insurance. you hear a lot of discussion about health insurance and health care in the affordable care act here, but in 2008, when that measurement was -- was taken, 18% of children did not have health care. so in 2008, -- i'm sorry, 2008, 10%. as of 2012, it's down to 7%. so a substantial diminution or reduction in the number of children without health insurance. but if you do the math, 7% of the children of the country don't have health insurance, that's a big number. so getting better, substantially better, better than new mexico any other metric in terms of -- than almost any other metric in terms of growth and progress, but we have to do a lot more to make sure that not 7%, but that number should be zero, that every child has health insurance. that has to be the goal and that has to be what we're determined to achieve here in the senate. i'll just go through a couple of

areas that have worsened, but thankfully of the -- of what is 16 categories here, there are more improvement categories than worsening categories, but unfortunately we have to go through some of the -- the areas where it's worse. one that's particularly disturbing is children in poverty. that's worsened between the years 2005 and 2012. 19% in 2005 were children, a percentage of children in poverty. as of 2012, that went up to 23%. so prior to the -- the great recession and then sometime after the recession ended, the 2012 number was 23%. so that's a worsening number and it should give us not just pause but should be an impetus to action to reduce that number. 23% of children in the country

in poverty as of 2012. children whose parents lack secure employment, that number, too, got worse. children living in households with high housing -- high housing cost burden, that number got worse, unfortunately. and then two more and then i will -- i will conclude my remarks. children in single parent families, that number got worse between 2005 and 2012. and then finally, children living in high poverty areas. that was measured over a different time period, 2000 versus a time period between 2008 and 2012. that number got worse as well. so what this report indicates -- and i won't go through the state numbers, but what this report indicates is that first and foremost we have to keep records and we have to track progress, but it also indicates that even when there is an improving

metric when the numbers are getting better, say, for example, on low birth weight babies, that improvement is in many cases very slight and not nearly adequate or acceptable. so we -- i think both on the worsening numbers and on the improvement numbers, it should be a call to action. i believe that if we're doing the right thing for our children, if we're living up to what the scriptures tell us about justice where the scriptures talk about blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice for they shall be satisfied. well, if you think of how we treat children as a measure or an indicator of justice and our commitment to justice, we cannot say that these numbers are in any way acceptable, that our hunger and our thirst for that kind of justice cannot be satisfied with these numbers. so we should -- we should be

committed to not just tracking and making marginal or incremental progress. we should be committed to the full measure of justice for our children. hubert humphrey said -- he may have said it on this floor when he represented minnesota. he said the moral test of a government is how it treats those in the dawn of life, our children. that part i'm paraphrasing. probably he added some words to that. those in the twilight of life and those in the shadows of life. he said that was the moral test of a government. so if we're talking about what humphrey said about children in the dawn of their life, we have to reflect upon and be motivated by the findings of this report, the annie e. casey foundation report. so it's one of those reports that reminds us how we can improve when it comes to the well-being of our children, but it also reminds us and i think

alarms us about areas where we have not improved, and we have got a ways to go. so, mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i understand that s. 2709, introduced earlier today by senator manchin, is at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk

will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 2709, a bill to extend and reauthorize the export-import bank of the united states, and for other purposes. mr. casey: i now ask for its second reading and object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on thursday, july 31, 2014. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2648, the emergency supplemental appropriation bill postcloture, with the time until 10:00 a.m. equally divided between the two

leaders or their designees and with senator sessions controlling the time from 10:00 until 11:00 a.m. and the majority controlling the time from 11:00 until 12:00 noon, and finally that the time during the adjournment count postcloture. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, senators will be notified when any votes are scheduled. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until r.

the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: madam president, i rise to speak on the pending business before the united states senate. the senate's just achieved cloture on the motion to proceed to the emergency supplemental funding bill, so let me explain to the people who are watching this either in the gallery or on c-span. the senate has creaky rules. these creaky rules were to make sure that we would cool the passions that would be raging in the nation on any given time so that we could duly give consideration, that debate would be diligent and we wouldn't be gripped by the fire of the

moment or the passion of the moment. and i appreciate that. but instead, what these rules now do is they take a lot of time for us to get to the meat of the matter, because what we're debating now is the motion to proceed to a legislation related to and supplementing existing funding to meet new emerging crises. the senate votes on a motion to proceed not only on the bill itself, but should we even go to the bill. so what we're debating now is should we go to the should we go to the bill when the emergency supplemental funding president and i will say yes, vote on the motion to proceed and let's get on it with it. let's have a real debate with real issues. there is 30 hours that have been set aside to debate on whether we should proceed. i am hear to say let's proceed,

let's yield back our time and get on the bill. we have a lot of things we need do get done in the next 48 hours. i want to see this emergency supplemental bill be debated on and voted on. we have three evidences tat makes needs for neighbors in their own country, need for the state of israel and a need for the crisis at the border where children are marching across central america in search of refugee status. we need to deal with all three of these issues. this emergency funding bill is about neighbor helping neighbor. it is about our own country first of all. wild fires are raging in the west. over the last year 39 states have faced wild fire.

eight western states at this very minute with coping with unbelievable wild fires. some of the largest fires in their history. and what happens? vast amounts of territory are going up in smoke. we are loosing towns. businesses and homes and our firefighters are being warn out. our first responders and they need help. this legislation will provide $615 million to these states facing an armageddon like emergency. this legislation includes $225 million to replenish the rockets being used by israel deploying technology called the iron dome. the iron dome is a missile defense system that is rejecting

and destroying the rockets that are being sent into israel by hamas. the technology is working. but they are using up the rockets and they need to be replenished. then there is the humanitarian crisis at the border. we have $2.7 billion to meet the needs of children seeking wreckage in order to place them while we determine their legal status. and also being able to fight the crime of the narco traffics and the human traffickers that are creating the surge of the children. this is a total emergency funding for $3.57 billion. why do we call it an emergency? it is because under the law you cannot just say this is an emergency.

in order to get emergency funding you have to meet the needs of the people. it has to be to prevent the loss of life or into the interest of national security and all three of these areas of funding meet this need. now under emergency funding it means that there are no offsets. it means we don't take from another important program being funded by the united states government to meet that need. in order to meet the needs of iron dome we don't take from other national defense money. when we go to help the wild fires we don't take from

agriculture or interior or in other bills. this will help meet the needs but also not place additional burdens on other communities. when you listen to the senators from the western straights and you see the photographs literally you feel the smoke. the flourish agency that is in charge of doing this will run out money in august. last year the wild fires burned in 39 states. when you look at iron dome, hamas, this violent terrorist organization that actually rejects israel's right to even exist from their tunnels are

showering israels with rockets and iron dome, arrow head and david sling are a missile defense system designed to help them. the short up close missile system is iron dome. it will make sure that we replace the interceptor rockes r that are being used to protect them against the showering of rockets. we have over 200 hamas rockets just fired in the last week. so israel needs to replenish itself. then there is the issue of the surge of unaccompanied children presenting themselves at our border asking for refugee status. in order to be able to meet this crisis and they are coming in the thousands -- 59,000 kids have come this year.

what we know is the immigration and custom services, if we don't meet this emergency funding will run out of money in august. border patrol will round out of money in early september. that doesn't mean the border patrol agents or immigration custom enforcement agents will stop working but it means the department of homeland will take money out of existing funds to fund this. they could take money from federal emergency management just as we go into hurricane and tornado season. we could take it from fema for border patrol unless we do this funding. health and human services runs out of money in august.

it will help accelerate the determination of their legal status. my legislation and this supplemental spending provides more immigration judges, legal representation for the children. that said so we can quickly determine do they have a right to asylum while we are also taking care of them. we need to be able to do that. but madam president, i would hope that others would get the

briefings that i have, visit the border the way i did to find this out. the reason we have a crisis at the border is because we have a crisis in central america. and this legislation provides the money to do this. oh, yes, people say you know, root causes like poverty have been going on for years senator mik mikulski. this doesn't just deal with poverty. we want to go work with the governments of central america to go after the narco traffics, the human traffics and the coyetes engaged in smuggling. why do we want to do that? madam president, if you ask these children where are the home towns you are from they'll give us the names of little cities and towns and if you look at their poverty rate in this

communities have been consistent for a number of years. that is a sad circumstances. but if you look at the crime rate, the murder rate, the recruitm into violent gangs, the recruitment into human trafficking with the threat of death or torture -- that is where these kids are coming from. we have to go after the criminals in central america and not treat these children like they are criminals. we cannot treat children in this country like they are the criminals. go after the real criminals in central america using our assets and working with the assets in central america to do this. they have programs and they have plans. honduras is a great example of what they are trying to do. they need our help. if you don't want the crisis at our border deal with the crisis in central america and that

deals with our unending appetite for drugs. the drugs have created the narco terrorist. once you start selling drugs you are willing to sell women and children like commodities. if you are willing to sell women and children like commodities that is where the human trafficking and smuggling and a new form of slavery, sexual slavery, begins. these children are brave, and g gutsy. they want to get out of the gangs. they start this long march from their home country to mexico to make it to the rio grande on rafts and swimming and so on they make it to our border. you talk to the girls. they want to go to school.

the girls want to get an education. they don't want to be recruited into these vile, vile circumstances. these are earnest hard working children who want to have safety and want to have a future and we want to be able to see by interviewing them do they qualify for refugee status. if they don't, they will have to go back home. but if they do, they get to stay here. they deserve the protection under the law. we need to pass this legislation. this bill is a funding bill. it isn't immigration legislation. we say those things can be brought up in another way, another method here, but this is a clean funding bill. when i say clean it means it has

no legislative on it related to immigration. so madam president, i hope that we can pass this legislation. i have listened to my voters and many are saying to me, hey barb, we are not against the kids. 69% of the american people say if they are refugees we should take care of them and they have a right to determine their legal status. but many say what about us? you will spend more money? what about my schools? when do we get help? mew kids need school and health care. you talk to families and they are getting ready to go back to school. many parents can't wait for sales tax-free day in maryland where you can get your backpack,

school supplies, clothes and shoes and the cost of kids' shoes are a small fortune and they will outgrow them by thanksgiving. parents are not hostile but they wonder about them. i want to say to them i hear you. i was touched by a poignant story over the weekend about we have a food bank at steel workers hall in baltimore. back when it closed it will never, ever ever come back. the steel workers of america who contributed to united way were always the first in line if a blood bank was necessary. now many of those who lost their jobs are using the very food bank they once donated to. that story was so moving because we have lost our manufacturing. we have just lost a bill on

bringing jobs back home. something i know the gentlelady is presiding wharf officers and i am for. i know american families are hurting. yes, they are. but the cost of this bill, i want to bring out, is the same amount of money as we are going to spend training the afghan security forces. so we are going to spend $4 billion -- billion like in barb not million like in mikulski. i am not going to debate the merits of that but we can spend money all over like that and we cannot spend money at our border and also threats to our border because of narco terrorism that brings other vile, repugant

behavior. i think we have to get real here. and the reason i want a supplemental that is urgent and meets that criteria is we don't have to take the money from other important programs that do help america's family in education, in health, in job retraining in order to bring our jobs back home. so madam president, i really do hope we pass this bill. not spending money won't save money. it means we will just take out of existing programs and the american people will pay for it doublely. they will pay through it through inaction which cost more. they will pay for it because they will lose the programs they thought they would have access to or there will be limited availability. we have a chance here now to help our neighbors in our

western states. i know wisconsin has been hit by it terribly and we are so sorry for the loss of property and the danger to that community. tfrt hull >> fighting in central america and also show what we stand for. the children are applying for refugee status and should have their day in court and under the law proceed. we are on this motion to proceed and let's get on it with. let's get to the bill. let's get to the job done and i hope at the end of the day the vote will be yes. i yield the floor. >> i want to talk for the next few minutes about the bill that senator boxer and i filled this

week on israel and talk about what is going on in israel. but on the work that is in the bill before us right now i am always hesitant to disagree with the chairman of the appropation committee and my good friend chairman mikulski but i think we are headed in the wrong direction. providing money but not trying to solve the problem i think is a mistake. people are leaving these dangerous countries which if they are dangerous to be in they are dangerous to travel through and leave. one of the concerns i have had during the debate is how many kids leave their home country and never get to the american border? what happens to those kids? we have heard stories in briefings that were not classified about gets that don't get here because they are sold

into a terrible situation. kids with their organs being harvested. if you qualify for asylum in the united states there is a way to do that. that is why we have embassies. surely it is safer to go the the guatemala embassy than it is to leave and come through their country, other countries, and mexico to get here. under the control of people who tried make the post of the president's announcement that if you get here you can stay here. it isn't the red cross bringing kids. these are people who are taking advantage of misinformation in their country about what happens if you get here and some of the kids don't get here. doing this in this way, money without policy, acting like it doesn't cost anything if it is

an emergency so we can continue to do everything that the chairman mentioned that needs to be done but we can do this because it is an emergency and more money we borrow from somebody else. the government has choices and things need to be done right now to send a message do not leave your home country, the door is not wide open no matter what the president's announcement is. the law needs to be changed so that immigrants from all countries coming to our borders are treated like immigrants from mexico and canada. they have an immediate hearing

we need to send a message to every other country that the door is not open, getting here isn't enough, this isn't a safe disney land type ride. this is a very, very dangerous thing for you to try to do and you should not try to do it. when you get here, it isn't going to be successful. let me tell you this again, if you have a case that is asylum in this country, there is a way to do that that is safer than showing up at the border. we should not encourage the danger that these kids go through. the case is very dramatic on the side that cares for the lives of

the kids. we should send the message strongly and now do not come the way you are coming now. the kids that get to the border are concerned about what happened to them and because of who we are we should be equally concerned about the kids that never get to the border because of the false message we have set. >> in a few moments a senate hearing on ways to reduce gun violence against women. and in two hours a public hearing on the epa's proposal to sut carbon emissions from fossil fuel power plants. and then a pentagon briefing on airforce operations. >> this week's q and a. >> she was beautiful, smart and witty and also irresistable to men. in her old age, at her 80th

birthday party, richard cohen and her sat together having coffee and at one point she stroked his beard. and he said heavens i never met an 80-year-old i wanted to leap into bed it. she had a seductive quality. >> the life and career of claire booth wilkes. now a hearing addressing gun violence against women. the senate judiciary committee heard from representatives of law enforcement, the courts and acadamia to add protections to the woman's against violence act. this is a little more than two hours. >> good morning, everyone. the hearing will come to order.

i am delighted to see you here and welcome the witnesses. thank them for coming. welcome my ranking member, the members from iowa and senators bloomberg and klobuchar. and i have one proceduannouncem. we have a vote at 10:25 so at the end of the vote -- and the senator from hawaii, nice to see you. i will let us go over catch the ending of one vote and the beginning of the next and reconvene. that will take about 15 minutes total you know. on june 18th, 1999 carmine was

watching television with her son when her ex-boyfriend broke into her apartment and walked toward her with a pillow. he pulled a gun from the pillow and pulled out a gun and pulled the trigger. her son watched his mother collapse. she spent hours in surgery wile they removed the bullet from her abdomen. she was hospitalized for two weeks and wore a colostomy bag for two years after the shooting. her scars serve as a reminder that as a survivor she is one of the lucky ones. american women are 11 times more likely to be killed with guns than women in any other industrialized country as this

chart shows. the red line, which you may not be able to see, stands far beyond any other industrialized country. put another way, women in the united states account for 84% of all female firearm victims in the developed world. let me repeat that. women in the united states account for 84% of all female firearm victims in the developed world. all of all the women murdered in this country more than half are killed by family members or intimatt partners. when a gone is involved it increases the danger by 80%.

congress passed important laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by individuals convicted of misdemeanor violence or protective orders. this compliments the prohibition on convicted felons and passed congress with broad bipartisan support. these laws have saved lives. in states with rigorous background check, 38% fewer women are shot to death by inti mate partners. current lie prohibits them from posesing guns only if they were married, lived with the victim or have a child in common. dating victims are not covered even though data shows more domestic abuse is committed by dating partners than spouses.

closing the dating partner loop hole would save lives plain and simple. there are other steps we can take. these are universal background checks and helping states share the data that those who agree should be prohibited under in existing law are in practice and fact prohibited when they try to purchase fires. i am willing to work anyone to ensure the operation works like congress intended. senators bloomberg and klobuchar have been working hard to shine light on the domestic violence and address the loop holes that allow those to kill, injure and threaten their victims. i want to thank them at the

outset for their commitment and efforts. and i would like to thank chairman lay he for his long standing take against guns in domestic violence. this isn't a hearing about the second amendment or the right of law-abiding from holding firearms. no body on the committee wants to prevent men or women from legally owning guns and none of the solutions involve doing that. we are here to consider now guns in domestic violence situations threaten american women and how best to ensure those who should not poses guns do not poses guns. i understand there are a number of domestic violence survivors and advocates with us. i would be honored to recognize them right now if they would not mind standing up.

[ applause ] >> thank you. i would like to submit the statements of chrisy martten, bonnie campbell, larrya pawns, katie roy jones, every town for gun safety, and the national center for victims of crime into the record. without objection they will be added to the record and thank you for your support and courage. i would like to thank the witnesses and turn to it my member. >> bonnie campbell is a former attorney general from the state of iowa.

we are hear to discuss an important subject. thanks to our experts who have agreed to be panelist for us. all of us want to see the federal government take appropriate action to assist in fighting domestic violence and especially domestic homicides. i have met with many victims of domestic violence over the years. i feel compassion for the physical, meanting and emotional injuries they have suffered and you particular feel that when you talk to people that have experienced that. they have told me of the fear they confront. and i want to take effective action against perpetrators of violence again women. i am one of the lead republicans in a group of bipartisan senators who have come together on a bill to address sexual assault on our nation's college campuses. but to me, all domestic homicides are a tragedy. it doesn't matter how the victim

died. 45% of the domestic homicides now do not involve guns. a figure considerable higher than in the 1980's. in 1996, i had the pleasure of voting for the leighton berg amendment and those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors were permitted from owning firearms and same with those who had permanent restraining orders. obviously records of the convictions and restraining orders must be entered in the national check background system and the chairman spoke about the interest in that for that to be effe effective. it distresss that me that all of these lateers according to the center of american progress quote only 36 states