or some other relief. but the truth srk the vast majority of these children, like the adults, will not have a claim to stay under existing law, and our bill doesn't change that existing law. but for those who do, they'd have a speedy opportunity to appear in front of a judge and knack claim. but for those who do not have a valid claim, they will simply be returned to their home country, to their family. this morning i was invited along with members of the house and the senate to visit with the president about national security matters, and he talked about the ukraine, talked about syria, talked about gaza, and all of the hot spots around the world. and i used the opportunity to ask the president what he proposed that we do when this bill goes down this afternoon, this emergency supplemental. and the reason this bill will fail is because the majority

leader simply is asking us to appropriate money and do nothing to fix the problem that we've attempted to address in the humane act with congressman cuellar that i mention add moment ago. -- that i mentioned a moment ago. so, in essence, the president has asked for a blank check, when he himself acknowledged this morning in my presence that he knows we need to address this problem and it will just get worse if we don't. so it's quite remark to believe me that the president of the united states acknowledges we have a problem we need to address when the secretary of homeland security, who is trying to use the tools available to him to solv solve this crisis bt knows he needs more tools and more authority. at the same time the president makes that acknowledgment, at

the same time his own secretary of homeland security identifies more authority, the president, it's reported, that he actually wanted to expand this deferred action executive order that he issued in 2012 and say to more people who have come to the country oud o outside of our immigration laws, it's okay; you can stay here, no consequences associated with that. so the problem with that is that the message that is sent to the cartels who traffic in human beings and make a lot of money off of it -- like i said a moment ago, this is part of their business model; they're getting rich exploiting this loophole in the law -- and it also says to the families who would send their children on this horrific journey from central america through mexico on the back of a train they call "the beast" only to be injured, be sexually assaulted, kidnapp kidnapped, held for ra ransom, d

we don't know how many don't make it because of the who are rifhorrificconditions in the hae criminals, and not to mention the weather and difficult environmental circumstances, what we're saying by failing to address the root cause of the problem is, that's okay; keep coming. and, indeed, that's why it's projected that of the 57,000 unaccompanied children that have made it here so far and been detained -- and by the way, they're not trying to avoid detection. they're turnin turning themselv. they eventually by and large will be able to stay u so that's what we need to address. well, unfortunately, the house tried to work together today to pass a bill that would, i believe, have provided more money, as the president requested -- not as much as he requested but an emergency

appropriation together with the reforms to the 2008 law that would addressed this problem. unfortunately, because the house of representatives could not get any democratic support, that bill failed, and so the speaker of the house pulled the bill from the floor and they will not be able to pass any legislation and send it over to the senate. that shouldn't cause any of our colleagues here in the senate much joy because the fact of the matter is, the house has its independent duty to act, and we have our own duty to act, and we can and we should do that this afternoon. to do what the house attempted to do, which is to pass a slimmed-down appropriation bill on an emergency basis to help surge resources to the border but at the same time find a way to come together and plug the hole in this 2008 law that's necessarily to continue -- or, to stop the problem. at least on this surgical basis.

what is so confusing is to listen to the president talk in his conference room at the white house about this and acknowledge the nature of the problem and then to see that the white house threatened to veto the legislation that the house was considering. so there are a lot of mixed messages, to say the least, with regard to what the president's commitment to actually enforcing the law -- and we know that in too many instances he's simply refused to enforce the law, and our immigration law is just one of those -- but to hear such mixed messages out of the white house and the administration that, yes, we need to act, we shouldn't just write a blank check, we ought to do the policy reforms with it that would solve the problem. i would just say that in talking to secretary johnson -- i don't think i'm disclosing any confidence that he himself wouldn't repeat -- things a actually an -- there's actually an earlier speerps that we had

in -- experience that we had in 2005 and 2006 that we discussed. secretary chertoff, who was secretary of homeland security when president bush was in the white house, we had a surge of people coming from countries other than mexico, so-called o.t.m.'s, in this case brazilians. in 2005 we saw a surge of 30,000 brazilian immigrants at the southwestern border. what they realized upon investigation is the reason we saw a surge in these numbers is because of a policy known as "catch and release," colloquially. people came to the country, they were adequate, they were given a notice to appear at a future court hearing, and they simply disappeared and melted into the great american landscape knowing that they would be successful in immigrating illegally to the united states. it is the same policy of catch and release that's causing this surge of unaccompanied minors, not to mention single adults

with young children. because we don't have adequate detention facilities for them, and so they're released, given a bus ticket, and said, come back for your court hearing a year or more later, and they simply never show up. well, we've all been noticing with great concern this humanitarian crisis at the border and the conflicting and contradictory messages and actions coming out of washington, d.c., and so it wasn't really all that surprising to me this morning to see a new poll that was reported where 68% of the respondents disapproved of the president's handling of the immigration issue -- 68%. according to "the washington post" this morning, no other single issue trumps immigration in terms of presidential disapproval. that's a shocking, shocking number.

well, unfortunately, when i asked the president today, what happens, mr. president, when we leave for the august recess and nothing is -- happens to address this problem? well, he said, well, one thing we're going to have to do is reprogram money from other programs and to use that money to address this hole and this surge needed at the southwestern border. but i was disappointed that the president didn't say what i was hoping he would say, and that is, i'm going to call majority leader harry reid, and i'm going to tell him, he needs to allow a vote on some of the amendments that we are going to offer, like the humane act on this emergency supplemental, and give the senate an opportunity to vote for a solution and not just another blank check. but, unfortunately, i didn't hear that commitment from the president.

so, as a result, this afternoon we're going to leave this city, go back home, without doing anything to address what the president himself has called a humanitarian crisis. and the problem is just going to get worse. as long as the magnet exists, as long as this business model that the cartels have figured out continues to be lucrative and they continue to make money exploiting it and we don't do anything to fix it, the numbers are going to get worse and worse and worse, and as we see children being placed in literally warehouse-type settings around the country, we're going to continue to see more and more backlash from the american people as they realize that the federal government is failing in its most basic function, which is to secure our borders and enforce our laws. unfortunately, this is what presidential abdication of duty looks like. the president has identified a

national emergency but done virtually nothing to address it. indeed, he said, we got a problem. we need to fix it. then he's threatened to veto the very legislation the house has proposed that would fix it. this is what happens when a president openly and proudly is contemptuous of his obligation to faithfullien force the law of the land -- faithfully enforce the law of the land by not only issue an executive order that is beyond his authority to do so in 2012, but to say, because congress hasn't done what i want them to do in reforming our immigration larks i' laws, i'm o further expand my executive law and refuse to enforce the law with regard to more and more people. this is not a secret. this is well-reported in the newspapers and on television,

and it's not lost on the people who make money exploiting the system nor the people who want to come to the united states outside of our immigration laws. and, sadly, i can only conclude that, as the president plainly knows what we need to do and his cabinet members and prominent democrats plainly have identified what we need to do to fix the problem, when he doesn't demand that the majority leader allow a vote and a solution to that problem, i can only conclude that he's listening to his political advisors and not making good judgments in the best interests of the american people. i can't explain it any other way. so in one last attempt this afternoon to address this crisis, i, along with cephal of my colleagues, are -- with several of my clerks are introducing an alternative to this blank check that the

president has requested and that majority leader reid will set for a vote. it will include many of the reforms that i mentioned earlier in the humane afnlg afnlgt but specifically, our legislation would treat anal accompanied minors the -- treat all unaccompanied minors the same under the law. it would get federal, state, and local authorities the resources they need in order to manage the crisis and it would improve our detention capacity so we would end this catch and release, which is being exploited. and it would ensure safe repatriation following protective custody for all those children who don't qualify for an immigration benefit under current law. our bill would prevent the obama administration also from unilaterally creating yet another deferred action program

that would further add gasoline onto this fire and cause these numbers to continue to grow and the humanitarian crisis to expand. in other words, our bill would help resolve the current crisis and would help prevent a similar crisis from occurring in the future. under the senate procedures, the only person who can make the decision whether the united states senate will have an opportunity to vote on such a reform is the majority leader, and he's already announced that he intends not to allow us to offer that reform. and so i expect we will end up leaving her today having done nothing, in spite of the fact there's bipartisan, bicameral recognition that we are experiencing a crisis and the president and his own cabinet have identified the causes but refuse to do anything about it. to me, that's the very

definition of "dysfunction." the very reason that the american people are absolutely disgusted with the refusal of congress and the executive branch to do what we ourselves know needs to be done. and it's a tragedy. i hope the majority leader will reconsider, give us a chance to vote on this reform to help solve the problem, and then we can move on and address other important problems that face our country. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i rise today in strong support of the v.a. conference committee report, which i expect are and hope will be on the floor here within a couple of hours. that conference committee report was passed yesterday by the house by an overwhelming vote of 420-5, and i hope very much that

our vote here in the senate will be as strong as the vote in the house. mr. president, the conference committee legislation that we will be voting on frankly is certainly not the legislation that i would have written. i think it is fair to say it is not the legislation that the chairman of the house veterans' affairs committee, jeff miller, would have written. it is, in fact, a compromise, but it is a compromise that i can strongly support, and i hope that all of my senate colleagues will support it as well. this bill, mr. president, does a number of very important things to address the problems facing the veterans of our

country. right now, veterans in many parts of this country are on very long waiting lists before they get v.a. health care. i think in the last month or so the v.a. has made a concerted effort to reach out to those veterans and to get them care when necessary in the private sector and i think acting secretary sloan gibson did a good job in jump-starting that process and saying to veterans we're going to do everything that we can to get you quality care in a timely manner. but, obviously, this is an expensive proposition, but it is one that we have got to address. and what this legislation that we'll be voting on in a few hours does, is provide $10 billion -- $10 billion -- to make sure that every eligible

veteran in this country will get timely health care, quality health care, and they will do that through the private sector sector, through community health centers, through department of defense bases, indian health service, when those facilities work for a veteran. if there is a community health center in a community, they can go there and the v.a. will pay that bill and that is the effort that we are making to significantly reduce these long waiting lines. this bill also does something that many of us consider to be terribly important, and that is it gets to the root of why it is that we have long waiting periods in many v.a. facilities around the country. and the reality is that in the last four or five years we have seen as a result of the wars in iraq and afghanistan, some two

million more veterans coming into the v.a. with a net increase of about 1.5 million patients. that is a lot of people. and there is not the slightest doubt in my mind or in the mind of the v.a. that if we are going to do justice to our veterans, we are going to need more doctors, more mental health counselors, more nurses, more medical personnel in general so that when a veteran walks into a v.a. facility, that veteran will get quality care in a timely manner. i have heard testimony in the senate veterans' committee which is very clear and when virtually every major veterans organization has said, which is when veterans get into the system, the quality of care they receive is good, is good, and that's not just what

veterans are saying, what veterans organizations are saying, that is what a number of independent surveys and studies show us. the problem is access, and if we're going to in a long-term basis address that access problem, it is important, it is important that we make sure that we have the doctors, the nurses, and the medical personnel that we should have. and this bill provides $5 billion to make sure that we get that personnel, and in addition to that there are many facilities all over the country where there are really serious space problems. there are not the examination rooms that doctors need in order to work efficiently. and this legislation addresses that with a $5 billion appropriation. in addition to that there has been legislation passed in the house overwhelmingly that says quite correctly that we need to fund 27 major medical facilities

all over this country in 18 states and in puerto rico, and this legislation does that as well. and in addition to that, what this legislation says -- and this is mostly applicable to our rural states -- is that if you are a veteran living hundreds of miles away from a v.a. facility, you're no longer when you're sick in the middle of the winter, in the middle of the summer, you're not going to have to travel hundreds of miles to get your physical or to get the health care that you need. you will be able to go, if you're living 40 miles or more away from a v.a. facility, you will be able to get your care in your community, again through a private doctor, through a community health center, through an indian health service facility, through a department of defense facility. so this is a big step forward for many veterans in rural

communities who will now be able to get care in their area where they live rather than having to travel long distances to get health care. mr. president, this legislation also addresses some other very important issues that not have gotten a whole lot of attention, but they are important and i want to mention what they are. all of us know that one of the outrages that we have seen in recent years within the military is the very high level of sexual assault against women and against men as well. what this legislation does is provide funding for the v.a. to increase their capability so that women and men who are sexually assaulted will be able to come into the v.a. and get the care they need to address the problems associated with that assault and i think that is a very important step forward.

this legislation also does something that we should have done some years ago. the post-9/11 g.i. bill has been enormously successful in providing educational opportunities for the men and women who have served in iraq and afghanistan and people who have served since 9/11. there was a gap in that legislation, and that gap was that a spouse of someone who died in iraq, in afghanistan, was not eligible for all of the benefits of the -- the educational benefits of that g.i. post-9/11 bill. and this legislation remedies that omission. what it does is expand the john david frye scholarship program to include surviving spouses of members of the armed services who died in the line of duty. and that will mean that many

young women out there who will now have the opportunity to get a college education, who otherwise would not have, and i think this is something that we owe the -- all of those people who have already suffered so much. this legislation also allows for veterans, all veterans, eligible for the post-9/11 g.i. bill to qualify for in-state tuition under that legislation, and this was part of a bill previously passed in the house and we're going to pass it here in the senate. and there's another provision in here which is very, very important, a program which provides housing for veterans with traumatic brain injury, was about to expire. this legislation extends that program for a number of years,

which will be a real relief for people who were worried they would be out on the street or not have adequate housing. mr. president, it has been from day one, from my first day as chairman of the veterans committee, my belief that the cost of war in terms of what it does to the men and women who fight our battles, is a lot greater than most americans fully understand. we all mourn the 6,700 plus men and women who died in iraq and afghanistan, but we should understand the cost of war is much greater than that tragedy. the cost of war are the men and women who came home without legs, came home without arms, without eyesight, loss of hearing. the cost of war are the 500,000 men and women who came home from

iraq and afghanistan with the signature -- the signature illnesses of this war, which is posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. those are the signature injuries of this war and we're talking about 500,000 men and women coming home with those very, very serious problems. in fact, today, just today, and every day, close to 50,000 veterans are going to get outpatient mental health care in v.a. facilities all over this country, close to 50,000. so, mr. president, it has also been my view that when we fully understand the cost of war and the needs of the veterans and their families, it is absolutely imperative that we do not make veterans into political

pawns. we do not say, well, yes we're going to fund veterans' needs but we're going to cut head start, we're cut the national institute of health, we're going to cut education, that is absolutely unfair to our veterans. a cost of war is the cost of planes and guns and tanks and aircraft carriers, those are a cost of war. and an equally significant cost of war is the needs of the men and women who fought our battles and used those weapons. and what this legislation says and what the house just passed by a 420-5 vote is that taking care of veterans is, in fact, a cost of war. the c.b.o. has come up with some recent estimates which lower the cost a little bit, but this will put -- close to, a little bit less than $17 billion into

v.a. health care over the next several years. there are $5 billion in offsets from within the v.a. that i was comfortable with that will bring the total cost of this package down to somewhere around perhaps $11 billion. is that a lot of money? it is a lot of money. but that is the cost of war, and that is what happens when millions of veterans come home and need the care that they are entitled to receive. so, mr. president, my hope is, as i mentioned a moment ago, the house passed this legislation by an overwhelming vote of 420-5 and i want to thank chairman miller in the house for the work that he has done in getting that result. my understanding is that in a few hours we will be voting on that bill and i hope that we can pass this legislation with a very, very strong bipartisan

vote. and i thank the president and with that i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, earlier this week i joined with senator boxer to introduce the u.s.-israel strategic partnership act of 2014. this is an updated version of bipartisan legislation we introduced in march of last year. it's designed to help the economic strength, the security cooperation between our two countries. as of right now senator boxer and i and 79 of our colleagues including the chairman of the foreign relations committee, senator menendez, are cosponsors, so 81 members have cosponsored this legislation. at a very important time, i think, it sends a message to the world and sends a message to israel that our partnership is strong, that the united states

congress, starting with the senate, is committed to that partnership, that not only do we want to have the kind of defensive understanding we've had so we have joint defense agreements so we have the kind of equipment and supplies stationed in israel that we could use in time of a crisis, or they could borrow from in times of crisis, but also the economic partners in water, in energy, in the other access to cybersecurity and other information, certainly looking at what's happening in gaza, looking at the unique relationship between our two countries where at least two of the members of the israeli defense forces that have been killed in the last few weeks have also been american citizens, where those two individuals along with a number of others serving in the defense forces for israel, backed up and supported by other americans

who go to israel to support the defense of their country, this is a particularly important time to send this message. it's a message that there is broad agreement on -- on a bipartisan way, virtually -- 81 senators agreeing. i'm going to turn to my friend, we've worked on this for two years now, senator boxer, to make the unanimous consent request so that our bill could be done and this message sent to israel and the world before we leave here this week. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: as israel faces a hundred rocket attacks a day from a terrorist organization called hamas, as israel tries to cope with getting rid of tunnels that have been built by this terrorist organization with one purpose -- to send terrorists

through those tunnels so that they can kidnap, torture and kid israeli citizens. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 492, s. 2673, that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. corker: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i just want to say that the partnership that senator blunt and senator boxer have on this issue is one that i think is spectacular. i have talked to both of them ad nauseam about this issue. senator blunt and i have had multiple conversations this we week. he's one of our great leaders in this body and is always trying

to find a way to come to a solution. senator boxer and i have worked on another issue this week and i cannot tell you how much i've enjoyed working with her office. this is an actual bill. this is not a resolution. and in order to try to expedite this being able to come to the floor before we go to august recess, we had scheduled a committee meeting here today, one, improomp few, but to go through the committee process. and i want to thank chairman menendez for his cooperation and willingness to do that. as it was scen scheduled, it's y understanding that a number of members had amendments to this bill. and i know that for that reaso reason -- and i understand this fully -- the business meeting to actually have a markup in committee was then canceled. i know that the chairman of e.p.w. has committee protocol and when committee members want to amend things, they try to go

through that protocol. i know senator blunt being the leader, he has been in the house and here understands that process. i'm going to over the next hour or so -- i know we've got a little time here -- check with committee members and see, you know, relative to the normal protocols, how they might feel about this coming directly to the floor. i just tried to do that a minute ago. but knowing that this is not the typical way of doing things and knowing that people actually had some amendments, i know there was some reservations about the visa waiver process and other things, i'm going to have to object. i do so with total respect for these two senators but also for respect for the committee process that we all try to work through together. so with that, i object. i don't know how long we're going to be in this evening. the presiding officer: objection was heard. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, if i sense some emotion and anger in

my voice, i have it. i am shocked and deeply saddened that my friend would come here and object when for days and days and days he told me -- he told me he would not do this. my friend told me he would not object. now, this bill has the support of 81 senators. to come here and object that your committee, which i am so proud to be -- as a matter of fact, i'm the senior person on that committee. my chairman is one of the great chairmen of the united states senate. we bent over backwards. i wanted to offer this on monday with senator blunt. he was disappointed. i said, i'm talking to senator corker. we're trying to work together. 81 senators support this and one

senator comes here and says, "oh, it's a little bit -- we need to go to the committee." there's a war going on. hamas has put on its channel proudly showing terrorists going through tunnels. this bill is absolutely critic critical. it's an updated version of the bipartisan legislation we introduced last march. we've worked for 16 months. we had issues with the visa waiver. we tried to take it through the committee in may. they tried to attach amendments on iran. mr. president, we need to work hard with the administration on the iran issue. it is critical. but there is a war going on and this bill is critical. and i am so grateful to senator blunt and all of my cosponsors.

in passing this bill today, the senate would send a clear and unequivocal message, let's be clear, we're leaving town. i don't want to leave town but we're leaving town. and we're not going to have a chance, with all due respect to my friend, to take a look at this for a long time. this is the time, on the way out the door, to send an unequivocal message to our ally. hamas continues to escalate through those tunnels. we all mourn every civilian life lost, every life lost on either side. but no country, mr. president -- think about it -- in our country, if we have rockets coming over here from canada or from mexico or from the sea into

our nation, what would we do? what would we do? concrete that was meant to build up gaza. and i stood at that line when israel gave back gaza, gave it up. i was proud that they did it, and i thought, what a chance for the palestinians. and i feel for them, because hamas has taken over. and they used that concrete that was meant to rebuild for tunne tunnels. i watched the video. i saw the terrorists go through, proudly bearing their weapons, sneaking up on a post and killing five israelis. they tried to kidnap their bodies but they were unable to do it. so if not now, when is the time?

when is the time to pass this legislation? to say it's bipartisan is an understatement. almost the entire senate is on it. we all know there's a lot of important issues. my goodness, i'm going to be staying here and talking about a lot of them. this is an emergency. that's why this u.s. strategi strategic-israel strategic partnership -- u.s.-israel strategic partnership act is so critical, increasing our assistance for the iron dome missile defense system. now, what is important in our bill is we increase $200 million in the value of u.s. weapons we hold, we stockpile in israel to a total of $1.8 billion. and at the rate that these rockets are coming over, at the rate that these tenls nee tunneo

be destroyed, we need to act. we need to act. we need to send a clear message to our friend, israel, and to send the message to what. and i have to say, yes, we have a visa waiver program in here and guess what it does? it treats israel the same way -- the same way that we treat other countries. and i'll read those countries. lithuania, latvia, hungary, slovakia, estonia, and the czech republic. why shouldn't israel have that same opportunity? and we worked on this provision. i know my friend has problems, but we fixed those provisions. we've given maximum flexibility on those provisions.

so i am sad -- that's an understatement -- i'm distress distressed, i'm shocked and stunned that this afternoon, before we go out the door, with 81 senators on a bill, a bill that we actually passed before a couple of years ago -- a similar bill -- and the house passed a similar bill, that i have a friend here -- who is my frien friend -- he is my friend -- treating this senator and the chairman in a way that i think is so unfair and to me betrays all the day that we talked about this, the weeks that we talked about this, the way we have fixed this legislation. most of all, i think it is a

dark moment, a dark moment when we would walk away from this opportunity to take a stand against terrorism. thank you. mr. corker: i would just like to say this. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: look, i don't know what happened. we had a committee meeting scheduled today, and the senator is right that i agreed not to object to this and also not to offer any amendments in committee. and if it came through committee, i was perfectly fine with it being a unanimous consent -- being unanimous consented to. for some reason, the senator calls the committee hearing to be called off. so she's exactly right. i would not be down here today objecting to something being discharged from committee had the committee meeting not been called off. and i want to say to the chairman, i talked to him late last night, i thank him for trying to make this process work in the right way. and i thank his staff for being

willing to set up a committee meeting today. but for some reason, the senator from california decided that she didn't want to have the committee meeting. so i'm sorry that she's sad. i'm a little emotional now that she would suggest that i would agree to u.c. something when i -- yeah, i will, if it comes through committee. i don't understand why the committee was called off. but apparently the committee -- the person sponsoring this bill apparently doesn't want to vote on amendments that other members want to offer. not me. i had no idea any members wanted to offer amendments, by the way. but they did. and i'm sorry that this hasn't worked out either. but that's the way it is. i have no idea why the committee meeting was called off. i'd love for the senator to tell me that. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i think my colleague knows absolutely the reason why. all this is just disingenuous. my friend knows.

we discussed it, that if you load down this bill with extraneous amendments on other subjects, it would never pass. we know that. i've been around here a long time. i know how a bill becomes a law. and thank god i learned it. and one thing i know, when you start loading down a very important piece of legislation that's emergency legislation with unrelated amendments, it's not going to be able to be done on the way out the door. and my friend knows it. mr. corker: well -- mrs. boxer: excuse me. i have the time. my friend can get emotional about process. be my guest. i'm not emotional about process. i'm emotional about results. how would you feel if you had a terrorist group digging tunnels under your cities?

that's an issue separate and apart from our agreement that we have to have a good agreement on iran. but you know when you start amending these bills like that, they're not going to go through on unanimous consent. so i am disheartened, disappointed, saddened and i think everybody knows what's happened here. mr. corker: mr. chairman -- mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: let me just say one more time, i have no amendments to offer to this bill. i was in no way going to load down this bill with any amendments. i just asked that it go through a committee process. and, by the way, if amendments should not be added to a bill, typically what happens is people will vote them down. and i would assume that had we had a committee meeting today, which i thought -- i know we had one scheduled earlier today, extraneous amendments would have

been voted down. but with that, i'm certainly, i can tell you at this point, ready to dismiss this issue. i have no desire to try to call members of the committee at this moment to try to resolve this. and i'm have disappointed that the -- the senator from california would take liberties to say such things that this senator would come down and agree to a unanimous consent without it going through committee. i want to thank the chairman again for agreeing to do that. but it was called off because there were amendments. i understand that. i really do, but that's a prerogative. i think the senator from wyoming standing in the well had an amendment that he wanted to have heard. i haven't even seen the amendment, but that's what people do in a committee process. again, if they don't want it attached to a bill, what they typically do is vote the amendment down. but i'm very disappointed in the senator from california's comments, and it looks like --

it looks like this won't be heard. i'm sorry. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i came to the floor in the first instance to support senator boxer's unanimous consent request on the u.s.-israel strategic partnership, which as she has pointed out has -- you know, we don't get in this institution very often 81 members to agree that there is a course of action that we want to take, but she and senator blunt have acquired 81 cosponsors, including myself, and a majority of the senate foreign relations committee to do exactly that. and given the current situation in the region, i think the legislation sends the right message at the right time. you know, israel clearly has a right to self-defense, and no country should stand by while thousands of rockets are being launched at it and a terrorist

organization next door digs tunnels to funnel fighters into its country to kill its citizens. that's what's happening. now, part of the effort of this legislation, the u.s.-israel cooperation, well, one example is the antimissile system called iron dome which is an example of what our two countries can do together -- save lives through technological advancement and defense cooperation. and i think these are incredibly important opportunities. now, beyond that, given the advances and shared achievements that have resulted from this u.s.-israel partnership, this bill authorizes the president to further enhance cooperation in the fields of water, energy, homeland security, agriculture, alternative fuel technologies. but the u.s.-israel partnership extends far beyond our excellent security partnership, and senator boxer's legislation does just that. it authorizes increased,

enhanced and enriched cooperation that reflects the critical importance of our bilateral relationships. it goes into israel's energy security. not long ago, israel was completely dependent on energy imports, but given recent discoveries, they may soon be energy independent, but they need help. and thanks in part to work by senator landrieu, this bill would help provide the technical knowhow on how to regulate a responsible natural gas extraction industry, how to charge and collect royalties, how to plan for distribution and export networks. in other words, this bill can help make israel an energy provider for the region and for europe greatly enhancing israel's energy security and forming important economic ties with his neighbors. so there is a lot of reasons for the senate to pass this legislation and particularly to do so now. let me address the process question here. the ranking member did ask me

late yesterday to have a markup. now, when we talk about process, we called for a markup in short order without the regular time frame, but also with what was for me an understanding that there was going to be no amendments. it was going to be an up-or-down vote on the legislation, because if i understood that there were going to be amendments offered, then we would have had to have a time frame to know what amendments they were going to be so that members could consider what those amendments are and to judge them not at the spur of the moment when we sat down and convened a meeting but they could make an informed judgment. now, because it was a truncated process which i was trying to accommodate the ranking member on and because i felt that we were going to go through basically an up-or-down vote, i

was all for the meeting, but then unbeknownst to us, all of a sudden we were told that there were going to be a series of amendments, amendments which weren't even filed and for which there was no time frame and therefore would come at the moment's notice when the meeting is convened with no one having the opportunity to understand the nature, substance or consequence of those amendments. that is not in my mind regular order. and so because maybe there was a misunderstanding but because there was a clear understanding from my perspective to do in an irregular fashion, very short notice with no amendment filing deadlines, but in order to accommodate the concern that legislation shouldn't come but through the committee and onto the floor, i agreed to a special session -- a special business meeting. unfortunately, i don't know whether there is a misunderstanding of agreements here, but that's the nature under which i agreed. now, when i found there were

going to be all types of amendments, including amendments that are extraneous to the subject matter, i decided that we could not do that in good order and in reasonable conscience, and so we pulled down the business meeting. let me just say that i understand we have two concurrent resolutions pending before the senate on the use of human shields by hamas and supporting israel security. now, i support the substance of both of those republican resolutions, however, i'm not willing to allow them to move and provide lip service to israel's security when members of the same party are preventing us from taking real action to support israel's security by objecting to this bill even though i don't question my distinguished colleague who has worked incredibly well with me over the last year and a half about what his concerns are about process, but we can have members who wanted to offer all

types of amendments, including extraneous amendments to this bill, and then say but we're asking the chairman to release the resolutions on human shields, which i in substance support, from the committee, but when we can really do something for israel, which is to pass this legislation to say no, we can't go through this process because it's not regular order. it's also not regular order to allow resolutions not to come to the committee as well. so i -- i hope that maybe in the time frame that there might be a way to consult with members on both sides of the aisle to see if there can be a resolution. i don't -- i don't judge anybody's purposes, but let me make it clear for the record that, yes, we did have a special business meeting, it was out of the regular order as to how we would call such a meeting and the procedures we would have for

such a meeting, but it was done in good faith in order to accommodate the ultimate goal, which is passing an incredible piece of legislation at an incredibly important period of time. with that, i see my colleague wants to say something. i want to say something that is unrelated to this, but i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: everything the senator has said is absolutely correct. the committee can meet if everybody is willing to do so, and i appreciate his willingness to do that. i will say one of the members -- i am actually speaking to the chair -- through the chair to the chairman, if i could. i just had one of the members on the floor walk by and share with me that he really wasn't going to ask for a vote on amendments. he just wanted to share some thoughts but was going to pull them. what i think would be good -- i think maybe because -- and i

understand how the chairman would want to pull down a committee meeting if there were going to be lots of amendments, and i assure you i had no idea there would be any amendments, but i know some people brought some forth. my sense is that there may not have been a desire to have a vote on those, especially based on one of the senators in committee just walking by and sharing that with me, so what i might do in the interim is get on the phone and see if the committee members who had amendments actually want to vote on those or just wanted to express concerns, and maybe it's possible within the time left to handle this in a way that works for all. but i very much do appreciate the chairman and his willingness, and again i want to say to him again i had no idea that people had amendments to offer at this late moment. mr. menendez: if i may through the chair, i appreciate that. let me just say we were told that they were amendments for

the purposes of votes. maybe that didn't end up being the ultimate intention of some, others may have wanted votes, but i would say to the distinguished ranking member that if there are colleagues who want to express a reservation but aren't seeking a vote, they would have the opportunity to come to the floor. i'm sure we could carve out some time under which we could talk about what those reservations are. they would be fully on the record, and we might find a pathway forward to being able to cast a vote on this bill. but i will leave that for my colleagues and his conversations with his colleagues on the republican side of the aisle. mr. corker: and i will just close by saying, mr. president, that i think it's perfectly fair for the chairman to say that if we can't have a bill like this discharged to the floor, then other resolutions which sometimes do come to the floor without going through committee because they don't have a binding effect, i can understand why he would take that position. but let's -- i really do appreciate the way the chairman has worked with me on so many

occasions. again, i'm disappointed in comments that were made earlier, but this is the understanding that -- that we've had, and i think had the committee process gone forward, we probably wouldn't have had votes, but we'll just see. and i thank you again. mr. chairman, i -- mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. boxer: before senator corker leaves the floor, i want to make sure i understand because i sense maybe there is a window of opportunity to revisit this, and i just want to make sure i heard what he said. it was my clear understanding, and you said you don't know why i thought this, that my friend would not object to this if it came to the floor, and i have staff conversations -- i know you're saying after it came out of committee, but there were other conversations that i'm privy to staff to staff. so let me say that. is it my friend's interest to go

and talk to senator barrasso in particular, a friend of mine, and see whether or not he just was going to use these amendments as talking points, and if, in fact, he was not going to do that, call for a vote, and he stands down, would my friend allow us to get this done tonight just given the moment in time in which we find ourselves at this late hour? mr. corker: i will say, mr. president, every time i get a sense i want to do that, the senator from california says something that challenges the integrity of another senator, so it makes me not wish to do that, so i don't know. i will just say that i'm going to leave here and take into account -- i have always understood that this went through the committee. even though, you know, there are some issues that i have with this legislation because of the fact that we have so many

cosponsors on this. i don't want to be one senator that holds up a piece of legislation. i want the will of the body to work, i always have, but i did want to go through the committee process. and it was called off, and i wish the senator from california would not quit saying things that i don't believe to be the case. we tried to make it go through the right way today, really did, and i appreciate so much the chairman and the way he works with me in that regard, but -- but we'll just see. i get disappointed every time another word is said about this. sort of characterizing not the way i understand that we were going to do this, but we'll see, and i appreciate everybody's time here. this is not a -- mr. menendez: would my colleague yield to me for a moment? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i would say to my dear friend and distinguished ranking member, i know how he feels about his integrity and the process, and i respect that. only because the stakes are so

high are the passions so strong with what is going on with israel right now. so i would urge my distinguished ranking colleague to maybe have that in-- infor mall survey with members and see if there is a way to have those reservations addressed and we might be able to move this legislation on the floor. as i have worked with him on other times and other issues and we have worked with each other, i hope this might be a moment in which we could actually achieve that as well. i have nothing but the greatest admiration for your work and your cooperation with us. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, i want to move to another equally important topic, and in part the response to my colleague from

texas, and that is the question of a supplemental. and the comments made that we are unwilling to do what the house has been incapable of doing so far, at least last time i checked. i don't know if something has happened since i came to the floor, but the house has been incapable of even sending what they viewed as their supplemental. why would -- i don't know exactly why we would be blamed for not voting on something that the house has not even passed, number one. number two is, yes, there are many of us who will oppose what the house is sending because, number one, it doesn't even provide the necessary resources that is necessary for an emergency, an emergency of unforeseen dimension, a refugee crisis, humanitarian crisis that needs to be dealt with. number two, when you look at the

proposals that are contemplated in the house, not only do they not fund appropriately to meet the challenge, they misappropriate how they're going to do funding to meet this crisis. i don't know that we need to militarize the border because no one is threatening the border insofar as the consequences of any violence. i don't know that a national guardsman with a rifle is necessary against an eight-year-old. i really don't. and we heard the colleague from texas say these children are actually submitting themselves to the border patrol, not trying to flee them. so part of what the house of representatives is, wants to spend millions of dollars for the national guard. well, i'd rather spend it on the border patrol, not the national guard. we don't need to militarize our

border. i'd like to make sure that when a child does come over having fled 2,000 miles because they were raped, or a child who was told by the gang, join us or die, or a child who saw their father or mother killed before them and thought they'd be the next one, that if that happens to be the case for that child, they'd have the opportunity to make their case, and you can't do that in 72 hours. i was at the same meeting earlier today with the president, which is really about national security. but the senator from texas raised this question. it's a legitimate question to raise. and i hear the same response of the senator from texas characterize that response. the president said there needs to be due process, but, yes, we need to find a way to try to

accelerate that process but within the context of due process. not to strip away the law that was passed in a bipartisan process and signed by a republican president, because he understood, as did the congress at the time, that if you flee 2,000 miles and actually get here, it must be a lot more than an economic refugee. it must be because incredible fear of the loss of your life or your safety. and so that's what's at stake here. now it, boggles my mind that we cannot get a successful vote. i don't know if we will or we won't, but i get a sense of what i hear from my republican colleagues is they won't cast a positive vote for the type of supplemental that would give the resources to meet the challenge to do what? to put more people on the border in terms of border patrol. to do what? to create more immigration judges, to create more

prosecutors. what are they going to all do? cuddle the child? no. they're going to be enforcing the bored. the border in states of some of my colleagues seems to be the biggest supplemental. i'm ready to do it because this is an emergency. i understand the gravity of the situation both on the human side as well as the national security question. but i can't fathom for the life of me the views that, no, let's vote against the money, create a crisis which basically is going to leave us in a situation in which if we do not solve the supplemental prior to leaving on this recess, moneys for the department of homeland security and the department of health and human services will run out. the crisis won't have been abated but the situation will continue to exist and the moneys will have run out, which means

that the president said i'm going to have to reallocate resources from within that department, those departments for other purposes, which means that other national security, homeland security issues and other health issues are not going to have the resources to meet the challenges that they are presently meeting. that is not in the collective interest of the country. and so i strongly am going to support a supplemental that i would have never voted for because of the emergent nature of what we have. but at the same token, you can't be about putting national guard at the border, you can't be about militarizing the border when there is no military threat, and it cannot be about stripping the law that was passed in a strong bipartisan vote, signed by a republican president because they understood the nature of the potential challenge and they understood the very essence of a child fleeing 2,000 miles and

having a shot, only a shot -- no guarantee -- that this in fact could make their case for asylum. that would send a message across the globe as we are telling other countries in the world, in africa, in jordan where we tell them handle the syrian refugees, in turkey where we tell them handle the syrian refugees, in the dominican republic when there was the hurricane and we said let the haitians come on over. but we can't handle the humanitarian needs of children who have a credible sense and a credible case about fear for their life? not every child will have that case, and those will be deported. but not every child should be automatically denied either. i'd be happy to yield to my colleague. mrs. boxer: i wanted to engage with my friend in a bit of a colloquy here. i listened to the senator from texas, senator cornyn, who is working to try and solve these

problems, lament the fact that democrats in the house would not go along with the republican version of this emergency appropriations. and so i went back and i asked my staff to detail -- and my friend did that. i want to make sure that he agrees with what i think basically was in there. first of all, a change in the 2008 law that president george w. bush signed, written by senator feinstein and others -- quite bipartisan -- to treat these children with human dignity and ascertain that they had a real problem and if they didn't have a real problem send them back home, and if they did have a real problem, make sure they were safe here. so that was in there. then as my friend said, the national guard piece was in there. what's really interesting is these children are coming over and they're saying like this to

the national guard. take me, they're saying to the border patrol. so, you know, i don't mind having the national guard at the border if we really have to defend, et cetera, et cetera. but it just seems to me -- and my friend made the point -- to's one thing to put border patrol on. it's another thing to send down the military to face off with these children. and the other thing is of course they stripped down the money dramatically so that these kids may well have to remain in some of the worst conditions in these customs facilities. now the question i really wanted to talk to my friend about is this. i researched this today and asked to find out every year how many foreign nationals become legal residents under current law, even without changing. we know the immigration bill didn't pass over there.

so it's a million a year. every year we take a million foreign nationals and they become legal residents in america. doesn't my friend believe that since we take a million people a year in legally, that we can deal with 56,000 children, that we can do that, that we have the capacity to do that? we know if it follows trends, that most of them will be placed with relatives or caring friends. and a few may not be, and some will be sent back. but doesn't my friend believe in this great nation of immigrants -- i'm a first-generation american on my mother's side. my mother was born in europe and her whole family escaped before the holocaust. so, you know, i think -- i don't think there's anyone in this chamber that could, unless they're native american that can say truly that they weren't at

one time their relatives weren't immigrants. so my friend, i know you're so eloquent on the point. we handle a million foreign nationals becoming permanent legal residents every year. don't you think america has the capacity to handle 56,000 children? mr. menendez: i appreciate my colleague's point, and i would say america certainly has the capacity to give the legal opportunity for those children to make the case that they have asylum. and when we fail to do so, we undermine our, i think our own principles. we undermine our own history. we undermine our own legal obligation under existing law, and we also undermine our standing in the world when we ask others to take in refugees, but we say that in our case we

cannot. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, before i get on to my remarks regarding immigration, i'd like to echo briefly the sentiments expressed by my friends senators ayotte and cruz who spoke on the floor earlier this afternoon. i believe the senate should immediately take up and pass the permanent internet tax freedom act, a bill that cleared the house with a bipartisan voice vote and 228 house cosponsors, instead of manufacturing a crisis with a short-term extension that will let this very popular, very bipartisan policy be taken hostage. madam president, the situation at the border is indeed heartbreaking. tens of thousands of single adults, families and children

have made an incredibly dangerous journey north from countries like guatamala, honduras and el salvador. they're leaving these countries because they offer too little opportunity and are mired in poverty and violence. no one begrudges them for wanting to find a better place to live. americans are compassionate and they're generous. the american people have always extended and always will extend a helping hand to every other corner of the world. and even as the number of illegal border crossings has exploded over the past year, we have treated these individuals with dignity and respect. today we have on our southern border a multifaceted crisis that faces the entire country, but president obama is not interested in solving the humanitarian problem or the security problem or the legal

problem or the fiscal problem. he's interested only in solving a personal political problem, avoiding blame for this crisis which he himself has created. for years the president's clear message to the world has been that he's not interested in enforcing or fixing america's immigration laws. he's unconcerned about strengthening our border and improving our entry-exit system or bolstering workplace verification. he's made no effort to fix our visas system so that we have an efficient process to serve immigrants trying in good faith to obey the law and he's ignored serious immigration reforms that would solve these problems. so what has the president been doing on immigration? systematically undermining the rule of law by ignoring the laws that are already on the books, taking action he has no authority to take, and blaming

others for the consequent failures. that's what has led us here today, considering what hypothetical actions congress can take to address the real crisis the president has created. but, madam president, the solutions to this immediate crisis and our longer-term immigration needs as well begin with the president finally enforcing the law. there is no amount of money, madam president, that congress can spend, there is no new law that can solve this crisis if the president and the leadership of this party continue down their current path. there are several steps the president can take immediately that do not require any action by congress or another dime from the american people. he can stop abusing what he refers to as prosecutorial discretion. he can end the daca program which provides administrative

amnesty and work permits to those who enter the united states illegally as minors. he can close the door to any further expansion of daca, to millions of additional adults. and he can signal his commitment to this solution by quickly returning those who enter the united states illegally to their home countries. but by announcing to the world, the entire world, that he will not enforce laws requiring d.h.s. to process and return those who come here unlawfully, the president is encouraging hundreds of thousands of children and adults to make this very dangerous journey to come to the united states illegally. he's encouraging families to pay coyotes controlled by drug cartels, thousands of dollars to smuggle their children into the united states. that is truly the humanitarian crisis. and the president's threats to

widen the scope of did daca ary going to make this crisis worse. that's why i agree with nigh colleagues that at the very least we must take steps to prevent the president from providing any more executive amnesty. now, i understand the desire for minimummembers of congress to wo pass some kind of legislation. members want to be able to go home to their constituents over the august recess armed with talking points that suggest they've done something about the border crisis. but i want argue that the bill before the senate today is just a distraction from the true cause of and the true solution to the crisis. congress should send the president a bill with billions of dollars in aid and multiple policy changes, but none of

these will work unless the president makes a commitment to enforce our laws and secure our southern border. congress could do that, but none of it will work unless congress does what needs to be done. as with so many bills congress takes up these days, this legislation does not solve the american people's problems. it only problems washington's problems. president obama already has the authority to correct these -- this failed policy, to restore the rule of law to our immigration system, and solve the crisis on the border. he just doesn't want to and the american people are paying the price. one of the reasons we have a constitution of separated powers is that when presidents try to be legislators, too, they tend to be bad at both jobs. the crisis on the border is of the president's own making, and its solution is already in his

own power. i stand ready to work with the president and mels o members ofs party to craft solutions to these problems. we all do. but until president obama enforces the laws that he's sworn to administer, those solutions will remain out of reach. for all the good intentions, all the good will, all the compromises in the world, congress cannot do its job until the president finally does his. thank you, madam president. mr. carper: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: thank you, madam president. i would ask unanimous consent that once i finish speaking, i'm going to talk less than ten minutes, but i would ask that the senator from utah, senator hatch, be recognized next. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thank you. madam president, i was just saying to the senator from utah, who is a dear friend and the ranking republican on the finance committee, that

something magical happened here about 48 hours ago, right here in this chamber, and what happened is we saw the senate evolve in a very good way. we saw senators bringing amendments to the floor, democrat and republican. we saw them having a chance to offer their amendments, debate their amendments, and get votes on their amendments. and it was not on an unimportant issue. the issue is how we're going to provide and fund transportation -- the transportation system for our country that includes roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, transit systems, and more. at the end of the day, 79 senators, democrat and republican, a majority of republicans and democrats, voted to say, we'd like to make sure we don't run out in a final highway transportation fund.

we'd like to extend that until the end of the year, until the end of december. why would we stop there? it's because we believe that if we keep on going -- say,,one of, for example, one of the proposals coming over from the house is let's extend it until next may, next june -- our fear, the near of the 79 senators who voted with their conscience, our fear is we'll get to next may 31 and, well, we can't make these -- let's just cobble together enough revenues from desperate sources that have nothing to do with transportation, do what my friend bob corker, the senator from tennessee, calls generational theft and steal ten years of generational revenues. that's what we've been doing for the last five years. we've done it 11 times. what we've done is we've said to governors and state departments of transportation and others

that are trying to build highways, bridges, and transportation systems, you can count on it for a couple mofntses. then it runs out. stop and go. it's hugely inefficient. i speak as an old governor -- not that old -- but as a former goafn, recovering governor, and i have some idea of all the work dough putting in these projects. in planning a highway, road, bridge, transit system, you have to plan the project. you have to fund the project. you have to contract for the project. you have to get permits for the project t takes years, and if we're providing will we have the revenues or won't we, it's just wasteful to the kind of system we have -- or at least the kind of system we've shown in recent years. so why don't we do our job? democrats and republicans, why don't we do our job and fully fund a six-year transportation program for our country? and for the most part for myself and for many, why don't we stop

using these sources of revenue that have absolutely nothing to do with transportation? why don't we just stop taking money from the general fund, which just borrows money from china and all kinds of other places around the world. why don't we fund -- if things are worth having, we ought to pay for them. well, two nights ago, this senate worked and it was a joy to behold. at the end of the day we passed and sent over not house of representatives legislation that said we're not going to let the transportation trust fund run out of money. we're going to keep us on a short leash and make sure when we come back after the election, it will be likely to actually fund a six-year transportation program. a smart approach, a principled approach. i just want to say a big "thank you" to a couple of people. i want to say to senator bob corker, republican from tennessee, senator barbara boxer, democrat from california who chairs the environment and public works committee on which

i serve as the chairman of the transportation and infrastructure subcommittee, i just want to say thank you for your leadership, thank you for stand up for doing the right thing. andrew jackson used to say, one man with courage makes a majority. mrs. jackson, i'd like to say, one woman with courage makes a majority. but in this case, we had a courageous republican from tennessee and a courageous democrat from california and they let me draft -- they let me draft with them and three of us put together this proposal. we worked with senator ron wyden who chairs the finance committee. i appreciate very much -- we appreciate very much his support for our proposal as well. and at the end of the day 79 senators said that's the right thing to do. the house, not to m my sprierks but to my disappointment says we're going to strip off what the senate said. and we're going to go back to what they said to us some time ago. which is not likely to get a

six-year transportation program funded anytime soon. not this year, probably not for anytime soon. they sent that to us. but there's good news here. there's good news here. 79 senators -- again, over half the republicans and almost all the democrats -- said we want to do our job, we want to do it this year. we want to fully fund a transportation plan for the next six years. that's what the people want us to do, state and local governments wonts to do, mayors and governors want us to do, people who work and build roads, highways, transit systems, that's what they want us to do. contractors, labor unions, that's what they want us to do -- do our job. and we're prepared to do t the good news out of all this is 9 are prepared to do that. i want to say not only thanks to bob corker and barbara box ertd and ron wyden and others and the leadership they provided, i want to say to my friend orrin hatch,

who i love and love working with and am please to serve with him on the finance committee, when we come back into session after the election, the lament-duck serks my hope and prayer is that we'll be able to work together and get this job dofnlgt i know he's the kind of person that will help make it get done. let me close with this thought if i could and then yield to the senator from utah. mr. hatch: to my pleasure -- not to my price but really to my pleasure, one of the things that happened during the last several weeks and months is a coalition, broad-based co--- business, labor, state and local governments, all kinds of organizations and people -- came together and said, do the right thing. told you do the right thing. they have been terrific supporters in encourage our colleagues, democrat and republican, to join in -- senators corker and boxer, wyden

and myself -- to do what we did tuesday night. that coalition is not going away. they're not going away. they worked the house of representatives really hard the last two day, the last 48 hours. they're not going away. when we come barks they'll come back strong and we will, too. we're not going to goway on this issue. one of the most important things we do as senators and representatives and all is to provide a transportation system that is worthy of this country, that helps the movement of people and goods that we need to be strong and efficient economy, a nation. i'll close with the words of mark twain. i used them the other night and senator hatch has heard these words b but the words of mark twain all those years ago, "when it doubt, do what's right." you will confound your enemies and astound your friends." 79 of us the other night did what we thought was right, what i'm sure was right.

and we're going to come back in a couple of months and we'll have a chance to get our colleagues to join us and really urealreallyas a whole body do oe sure that we have the roads, highways, bridges, and transit systems that we need in this country. again, my thanks to the sthor sr from you utah for letting me ramble on her a little bit and express my admiration and affection for him and looking lg forward to working with him in the years to come. with that, i yield the floor, madam president. are hatch madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i want to thank my dear friend for his kind remarks and i understand how much zeal he has for the things he does here on the floor. he's fine man and i really appreciate him. -- and i real li appreciate him. just a little while ago the house of representatives once again passed legislation extending funding for the federal highway trust fund.

this is the latest step in a process for which the final outcome has been known for sometime. the bill the house passed today is virtually identical to the one they passed last week. it is basically the very same bill. earlier this week the senate passed its own version of the highway bill and sent it back to the house. of course, we did so nothing full well that the house would not accept the senate bill. i don't think there was ever any real doubt in this chamber as to what was going to happen. but in my view, it's good that the senate acted. i was particularly pleased to see that the version of the highway bill reported by the senate finance committee received such strong bipartisan support when it came up for a vote. senator wyden and i worked hard on that bill. the effort was bipartisan from the outset and in the end, we produced a product that both parties could support. of course, i was a little less pleased that the senate on the very next vote opted to strike the finance committee's language and replace it with what is, in my view, a less viable vehicle for funding the highway trust

fund. but in the end that's the direction a majority of senators decided to go and i of course accepted it and am proud of everybody who participated. it is good that the senate acted but now the house has acted again. i think it was dpood that the senate had some amendments for a change and i think we all felt good about it that. i saw a renewed spirit in the senate because of that, since we've been a year without having real amendments and a real process. of course there were only four of them but that compared to what we've had over the last year was an amazing thing. but now the house has acted again and though there are likely a number of senators who do not like the house bill, there doesn't appear to be enough time for the senate to try once again to go in a different direction. as we all know, we are on the verge of a crisis with regard to funding for the highway trust fund. congress needs to act immediately to prevent a shortfall in the trust fund and to ensure that the states can

continue to plan and implement their highway projects. thousands of jobs are at stake here. and if congress doesn't as if a bill and get it to the president before we leave for recess, we'll be doing a great disservice to a utah lot of people. it is not a secret. it is not a surprise. as far as i can say, the only viable solution before the senate today is to tank the house bill and pass it as is. we've all know this was the most likely outcome for some time now. it's time we accept it and move on. that's not the to say i'm disappointed we have to pass the house's bill. as i've said a number of times, if you compare the house's bill with the one reported by the senate finance committee which once again received broad bipartisan support when it was voted on earlier this week you'll see the bills are not that far apart in terms of policy. the core funding mechanisms are the same. the principal difference is the senate bill raises some revenue

through some tax compliance provisions that are not in the house bill and the house bill goes a little further on pension smoothing than the finance committee bill does. and this has brought heartburn to a number of us who are in both bodies. these are not fundamental differences, madam president,. any senator that supported the finance committee's bill should be able to support the house bill which is a good thing because like i said, we don't have many other options if we want to get this done before the recess. i plan to support the house -passed highway bill. i urge my colleagues in the senate to do the same. finally, madam president, i want to take a moment to address a major setback we've encountered with regard to the temporary highway extension that passed in the senate earlier this week. as we learned yesterday, the senate-passed bill has a shortfall of about $2.4 billion due to a drafting error. some have suggested that this error originated in the finance committee's version of the

legislation. however, anyone who takes the time to compare our language with that of the subsequently passed substitute amendment will find this is not the case. i'm not here to point fingers or try to embarrass anyone but i will say these are the types of mistakes that happen when tax policy is written outside of the tax writing committee, and we should be careful of that. the finance committee has an open and transparent process that allows for all of our numbers to be scrutinized well in advance. the committee has all the necessary expertise at its disposal to prevent these types of mishaps. i'm well affair mistakes happen. i'd just like to suggest fewer of these types of mistakes will happen in the future if the finance committee is allowed to do its work when it comes to writing tax policy. that's all i have to say on that matter. once again, madam president, we're at a critical junkure here. we need to get a temporary highway bill over the finish

line. as far as i can see the only way to do that is for us to take up and pass the house's bill. as i stated earlier, this shouldn't be a difficult lift. i think we can get this done in short order. madam president, it was a lot of fun to be on the floor, really about the first time in about a year where anybody who wanted to at least had a shot at being able to bring up an amendment for a vote. and four you you have our colleagues did get amendments up and they were thrilled. isn't that amazing we were thrilled at something the senate ought to be doing every time we bring a bill up. and we can get both sides together on alimented number of amendments. we shouldn't have either side demanding to approve or disapprove the amendments in advance. and that's something that's happening all too often in the united states senate, the way it's being run today. so look, i love all my colleagues.

i love my friends on the other side. there's no use kidding about it, i care for everybody in this body and i've cared for everybody i'd served with -- after i've served with. occasionally there is somebody i care a little less than most of the others but the fact is this is a grade body and we've had some really great people here on both sides of the aisle over the 38 years that i've been in the united states senate. but let's allow our committees to work. let's allow our individual senators to work, too. that's understand -- let's understand we don't all come from the state state or the same jurisdiction, that each of us has a desire to represent his or her jurisdiction in the best possible manner. and, frankly, let's get this senate back where it's the greatest deliberative body in the world rather than something run just for the benefit of the majority. i don't want to run for the benefit of the minority, either.

i think we can get together just as we did on this bill and we can do much better around here than we've been doing and i just hope that as we go into the future that everybody in this body will want to work better together and quit playing the politics on everything like's going on right now. we understand this is a political body and we understand that there are going to be some politics played from time to time. it's kind of fun sometimes. but not on everything. and not when it prevents really what the senate is all about and that is wide-open debate, wide- open amendments, and certainly a bipartisan way of working together if we will. i have particularly enjoyed working with senator wyden. he has really made a distinguished effort to try to make things as bipartisan as he can. that's hard to do around here

anymore. in both the house and the senate. the house is supposed to be a body that fights over everything, i guess, because it's a majoritarian body. but even then, the house has many, many, many democrat amendments up that they could have stopped. they've had many, many amendments where we've been -- we've been basically stopped from being able to act like the senate really should act. and allow people the right to bring up their amendments and try to make points that maybe all of us would do well to consider from time to time. i'm grateful that i'm a member of this body and grateful for the people i've served with all these years on both sides of the floor. in all my time here there are only two people i thought had no redeeming value. i shouldn't have said that, i guess, but there were two that i felt really didn't have the senate at heart and really didn't do what i thought they

should do. all the rest i've really, really loved and appreciateed very, very much, and i appreciate the leadership on both sides, but i just hope we can get past all this bickering and start running the senate like it always has been and a lot of it starts when you break the rules to change the rules. this is what happens. and it was a real mistake on the part of the majority to do that. you might not think so because they're packing the federal courts with judges that most of whom would have gotten through anyway, 98% of the president's nominees were getting through. and very few were even contested. but the fact of the matter is that some have gotten through now who never should have gotten through to the federal bench and it's because of breaking the rules to change the rules. and that's not right if either side does that. but it's been done now, let's overcome it and let's start

becoming the most deliberative body in the world today. i think we can do it. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest -- i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. the quorum call is suspended. all postcloture time having expired, the question occurs on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. any opposed, no. the motion to proceed carries. the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 488, s. 2648, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i have an amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3750. mr. reid: ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk

will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3751 to amendment numbered 3750. mr. reid: i have a motion to commit s. 2348 with instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, moves to commit the bill to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment numbered 3752. mr. reid: on that, mr. president, 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. mr. reid: i have an amendment that is at the desk, amendment to the instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3753 to the instructions of the motion to commit. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas ask nays on that. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second amendment now at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. reid it's a second-degree.

the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3754 to amendment numbered 3753. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion which i ask the chair to order reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on s. 2648, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. signed by 18 senators as follows. mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? seeing no objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the call is waived. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 471, s. j. res. 19. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the mattered. the -- the clerk will report the matter.

the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 471, s. j. res. 19, joint resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution of the united states relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate resume consideration of s. 2648. the presiding officer: is there objection? no objection. mr. reid: i ask, mr. president, the time until 6:45 be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. and that at 6:45 this evening, it be in order for senator mcconnell or his designee to be recognized for the purpose of moving to table amendment number 3751. that if the motion to table is not agreed to, senator sessions or designee be recognized for the purpose of raising a budget point of order against the bill. that if a point of order is raised, then senator mikulski or designee be recognized for a motion to waive. if that motion to waive is made, the senate immediately proceed to vote on the motion to waive. that if the motion to waive is

agreed to, then notwithstanding rule 22, the senate immediately proceed to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the bill. that if cloture is not invoked, the bill be returned to the calendar. if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back and the pending amendments be withdrawn and the senate proceed to vote on passage of s. 2648. the presiding officer: is there objection? seeing no objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by me after consultation with senator mcconnell, senate proceed to consideration of the conference report to accompany h.r. 3230, the veterans access to care act. that senator coburn or designee be recognized for the purpose of raising a budget point of order against the conference report. that if the point of order is raised then senator sanders or designee be recognized for a motion to waive. that if the motion to waive is made, there be up to 10 minutes equally divide between senators coburn and sanders or their designees. that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote on the motion to

waive. that if the motion to waive is agreed to, the senate immediately proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report. that the vote on adoption be subject to a 60-affirmative vote threshold that. if the conference report is adopted, the senate then proceed to the consideration of h. con. res. 111, that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? seeing no objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of the conference report to accompany h.r. 3230, the chair lay before the senate a message from the house with respect to h.r. 5021. following the reporting of the message, that i be recognized to make a motion to recede from the senate amendment. that there be a person recognized for raising a point of order against the bill. if a point of order is raised, senator wyden or designee be recognized to move the waive the point of order. that no other motions be in order to the bill.

that if the motion to waive is made, there be up to 20 minutes equally divided between the two leaders or their designees and the senate immediately proceed to the vote on the motion to waive. that if the motion to waive is agreed to, the senate proceed to vote on the motion to recede from its amendment to h.r. 5021. the presiding officer: is there objection? seeing no objection, so ordered. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 6:45 p.m. will be equally divided among the two leaders. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: we expect to vote -- votes to begin 6:45 tonight but

they could come earlier, so everyone should be aware of that. seeing no one here to speak, i ask that the senate now proceed -- see if a quorum is -- proceed to see if a quorum is present. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection, the quorum call is suspended. ms. mikulski: we are now in the closing hours of this session of the congress, as we get ready to take our break. i'm rising to exort our members to vote for the urgent supplemental. i appreciate the fact that we are now -- that the -- that wave doptd the motio --that we have n to proceed. i just want to remind our colleagues what is in the urgent supplemental. first, it's to fight wildfires

in our own country. $615 million to fight 23 large fires that are sending homes and communities up in smoke in eight western states. second, it fortifies israel's antimissile defense system, iron dome, by providing $225 million to enable israel to purchase interceptor rockets that they have utilized in their own self-defense. it is lifesaving technology. it is a defensive technology. and, third, not at all least, it is to deal with our issues facing the border. providing $2.7 billion to deal with the surge of children coming through central and -- central america through a treacherous route through mexi mexico, presenting themselves at

our border asking that we consider their petition for refugee or asylum status. this bill is a reduction by $1 billion of what the president asked for. the president originally asked for $3.57 billion for the surge of the children all by itself and then additional funds for iron dome and the wildfires. when we looked at the request for the surge at the border, we felt we could reduce that by $1 billion and to ensure the taxpayers that we're doing rigorous and vigorous oversight, we have money in there for the inspector general. this is an emergency spending bill which means that no offsets are required. and, third, it is meant to deal with humanitarian crises both in our own country, fire fighting,

a crisis that a treasured ally is dealing with, and then a crisis in central america, where the violence is so severe that children are on the march to be able to escape it. these funds will pay for additional law enforcement by our border patrol, humanitarian assistance for h.h.s. to house, clothe and feed the children on a temporary basis while we find a relative and their legal status is determined. that is, do they qualify for asylum or refugee status. much has been said about the backlog and even a mockery, some states mocked the current system because they said that there are so many awaiting these types of hearings. well, you know, maybe if we passed regular appropriations, which we haven't done in three years, we wouldn't be in this crisis. but this money does include money for additional immigration

judges to be able to expedite the determination of these children's legal status. also what it does is go after the drug smugglers, the human smugglers, the drug traffickers, the human traffickers and the coyotes that are exploiting, creating the misery and violence in central america and also while they're doing that, exploiting these children who are on the move and on the march. now, i understand that there's a great deal of reluctance to either vote for the money or to weaken our asylum laws. i would really caution us weakening our asylum laws, particularly as it affects children. and i would hope we could pass this bill and be able to move forward on it. madam president, i want everyone to be aware that we're talking

about a surge of children. approximately 60,000 children. not 600,000 children. just barely enough to fill ravens stadium. we're only in a country of 300 million. we're talkingable about this. so i hope that we could move on this bill, meet our responsibilities to our neighbors in the west facing wildfires, an ally who is running out of interceptor rockets to protect itself, and really not only deal with the children and their quest to determine asylum status, but at the same time we really put the money in the federal checkbook to go where the crime and the criminals are, which is the narcotraffickers in central america. i'll have a more to say before we wrap up, but i now yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the