vote. not one member of the democratic leadership has even demanded that mr. reid bring it up for a vote. not one has pledged to stay here in washington every day until this executive amnesty is stopped. but it's not too late. we're going to have a vote soon. where is the courage, where is the independence that senators should show, where is the willingness to stand up to the political class, the lobbyists, the party bosses, the elite set in the nation's capital and to stand by the side of the american people? indeed, to defend the institutional powers of congress, which alone has the power to make law; not the president. he cannot make law. he cannot give someone the right

to work in america when the law says they're not able to work, if they entered the country unlawfully. until that happens, i have to say that every senate democrat is the president's partner in this scheme, as surely if they wrote the executive orders themselves. and surely as if they were sitting right next to the interest groups huddling with the white house aides to craft these orders. so i have a message today to all the special interests, the globe elites, the activists, the cynical vote-counting politicians, plotters that are meeting in secret at the white house, and this message is this: you don't get to sit in a room and rewrite the laws of this united states of america. no, sir. congress writes the laws.

you may not be used -- used to people telling you "no," but i'm telling you "no" today. but it's critical that our senate democrats are willing to say "no," too, today when we vote. so i have a message for the american people: you have been right from the beginning. you have justly demanded that our borders be controlled, our laws enforced and that, at long last, immigration policy serves the needs of our own people first. for this virtuous and legitimate demand, you have been demeaned, even scorned by the governing class. they know so much, this cosmopolitan elite. they want you to believe that your concerns are somehow illegitimate, that you are wrong for being worried about your jobs or your schools or your hospitals or your communities or

your national security. these elite citizens of the world speak often of their concern about people living in poverty overseas and yet they turn a blind eye to the poverty and suffering in their own country. they don't want you to speak up either. they don't want you to be heard. they don't want you to feel you have a vote, but do you have a voice, american people, and your message is being heard. and i'm delivering that message to the senate today. this is a moment of choosing for every senator. where will history record you stood in face of the president's promise to unlawfully nullify immigration law in america? i'm going to make a motion -- or i will have a motion made soon that would allow the senate to

block the president's planned executive amnesty. this is really simply to pass the legislation the house has already passed. this is a commonsense senate action. if you believe we are a sovereign nation with the right to control our borders, don't we have that right, then you must vote "yes" for this. let's bring it up before this unlawful executive order amnesty occurs. well, if you go along with the idea that america is an oligarchy run bay grou by a grof special interests meeting at the white house that just rewrites laws, immigration laws of america, then you vote "no." so the nation is watching today. this is an issue of extreme importance for the american people and for the rule of law. will you, at long last, break

from your majority leader, democrat colleagues, or will you once again surrender your vote to mr. reid and the groups meeting in secret at the white house to thereby enable -- to enable their lawless actions? so it's almost -- in its almost two years of existence in this congress that's been in existence here, going on two years now, has failed to pass a single appropriations bill on time. now we're facing another c.r. pass everything, one vote to fund the entire government, not a single amendment b being allowed. this senate has violated the laws that limited spending that we voted for, and spent more than allowed. it has blocked amendments to such a degree that the entire

heritage of free debate and free right to amend law has been violated and damaged substantially in the senate. if we leave town without having passed a bill to block this executive amnesty, then it will be a permanent stain on the senate, on the constitutional order, and this entire democratic caucus. so i urge my democratic colleagues, i know the pressure is to stay hitched, to stay in line, but do you have the power to vote differently. senator manchin voted differently last time. others can also. it's time to stand up and be counted for the working people of this country and to enact legislation in their interest. i thaip thank the chair and yiee floor.

ms. mikulski: does the gentleman from texas wish to speak? mr. cruz: i had intended to, yes. ms. mikulski: fine. because the gentleman from alabama had finished. he didn't note the absence of a quorum. i was going to speak. but, please, i know the gentleman has been waiting. why don't you just go ahead and proceed. mr. cruz: i thank my friend from maryland. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cruz: mr. president, we have a crisis in this country. we have a crisis at our southern border that right now is producing some 90,000 unaccompanied children coming into this country. these kids are being victimized. these kids are being abused, they're being physically abused, they're being sexually abused by

violent drug cartels. the american people understand we have a crisis. the american people want action. the house of representatives understands we have a crisis. the house of representatives has acted. and yet, mr. president, i'm sorry to say that the majority leader and the democrats in this body refuse to allow any action to address this crisis. the crisis at the border is the direct consequence of president obama's lawlessness. just three years ago in 2011 there were roughly 6,000 unaccompanied kids coming into this country. then in 2012 just a few months before the election, president obama unilaterally granted anal necessar-- granted amnesty to me children who entered the

country. the predictive consequence of that if you grant amnesty to those who enter illegally as children, it creates an enormous incentive for more and more children to enter illegally. and, as a result, we've seen the numbers go from 6,000 three years ago to this year it's expected to be 90,000 and next year the department of homeland security predicts it will be 145,000 little boys and little girls being smuggled in illegally, being victimized, being brutalized. this needs to stop. we need leadership in washington. we need leadership in both houses of congress. we need leadership from both republicans and democrats. and yet not only do president obama and the senate democrats refuse to do anything to solve this problem, i'm sorry to say it's even worse. in recent weeks president obama has told the american people he intends to grant even more

amnesty -- the first illegal amnesty of some 800,000 people was not enough. so in his view, we need more. he intends to grant amnesty to 5 million or 6 million more people. mark my words, mr. president ... the president of the united states intends to illegally grant amnesty. am necessary iamnesty is coming. yet we heard in recent days that the president has decided to delay that action until just after the election. mr. president, there's a lot of cynical policies in washington, d.c., and yet this has to rank very near the top. for the president of the united states to say he understands the american people don't want amnesty but there is an election coming up, and so he intends to do the policy they don't want, they don't believe in, that subverts the rule of larks but

h-- that subverts the rule of law, but he intends to wait until after the election so that senate democrats request campaign and say they had -- senate democrats can campaign and say they had nothing to do with it. what does that snai that he thinks they won't remember by the time the next election happens? higher'here's the bottom line: y way to solve this crisis, the only way to protect these kids and prevent these little boys and little girls from being physically abused and sexually abused is to end president obama's amnesty, to pro-speckively stop the promise of amnesty that is causing these kids to come here illegally. i introduced legislation in this body in the united states senate to do exactly that. and the house of representatives, to their

credit, stood up and led. they stayed in session an extra day before the august recess to come together a understan and pe legislation that i had introduced in the senate. they passed it by a vote of 216-192 with four democrats joining with the republicans to stop president obama's amnesty, to actually solve the crisis at the border. and yet what happened in the senate? in the senate the majority leader refused to allow a vote on the provision and sent the senators home for august, while doing nothing to address the problem. and the reason is simple. although president obama and senate democrats are afraid of the voters holding them accountable for amnesty, it should be lost on nobody watching what is happening in the united states senate, that the 5 5 senate democrats serving

in this body affirmatively want amnesty. because if this body would do our job, if we would pass the legislation that the house has already passed, prospectively taking amnesty off the table -- and by the way this bill does nothing, zero, to the so-called dreamers that are already here. this issue simply addresses the promise of amnesty in the future. as long as these children believe they'll get amnesty, they'll keep coming illegally, and keep being victimized and abused. unfortunately, the majority leader has employed a procedural trick called filling the tree. it is a trick this body is now quite familiar with, because it's what the majority leader has done over and over again to shut down every single amendment from every member of this body. now, to be fair, majority leaders in both parties have used this trick in the past. the previous six majority leaders used the procedural

trick of filling the tree a total of 40 times. the current majority leader, the democratic majority leader, has used it almost 90 times since 2006. the current majority leader has used it more than double what his six previous predecessors did, roughly two-thirds of the time this procedural trick has been employed, it has been by the majority leader of this body. what does that do? what that does is says legislation in this body will shut down the right of every senator in this body what. it says is to the 26 million texans, that their views don't matter because neither senator cornyn nor i will be allowed to introduce any amendment. it says to the citizens of the commonwealth of massachusetts, to the citizens of the state of maryland, to the citizens of new york and california, your views don't matter. why? because the majority leader has

stripped your senators of the right to offer any amendment on any topic whatsoever nearly 90 times, including on this continuing resolution, including on the basic bill that funds the government because the senate has failed to appropriate the funds that we should be doing otherwise. mr. president, this is wrong. it's fundamentally wrong. the american people deserve a vote. if senate democrats want to embrace amnesty, let them do so openly and in daylight. stop hiding. people are frustrated with washington because they recognize politicians here. they say one thing at home. how many senate democrats, particularly in red states, go home to their states and say amnesty's a terrible thing and then come back here and facilitate the president illegal little granting amnesty?

how about we have some honesty? how about we have elected members of this body say and do the same thing in washington that they say and do back home. don't hide. how about we all tell the truth. and the truth is the 55 senate democrats want amnesty but they don't want the voters to know. they are celebrating that president obama has said fear not, the amnesty is coming but we'll wait until after the election. that cynicism is fundamentally inconsistent with the obligation every member of this body owes to our constituents. and so, mr. president, i'm pleased that we will get a vote despite the majority leader's best efforts on amnesty, because momentarily this body is going to have the opportunity to vote, and i predict most if not all senate democrats will vote in favor of president obama's amnesty. and i have a lot higher opinion

of the american people, of the voters than it seems the president does. i think the american people understand what's going on and i don't think they're going to be fooled by the president's delaying his illegal amnesty until after the election. so we're going to get a vote on this matter. and for that reason, mr. president, i move to table reid amendment number 3852 for the purposes of offering the cruz-sessions amendment number 3859. and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? the chair -- there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. cruz: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, the solution -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. lee: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from utah is recognized. mr. lee: mr. president, the solution to this immediate crisis along our nation's border and our longer-term immigration needs necessarily needs to begin with the president finally

enforcing the law. that set of law is already on the books. there's no amount of money that congress can spend, there's no new law that can solve this crisis if the president and the leadership of his party continue down their lawless path. there are several steps the president can take, and he can take those steps immediately, that do not require any action by congress or another dime from the american people. the most important thing he can do to stop -- would be to stop abusing his, quote unquote, prosecutorial discretion and end the daca program which provides administrative amnesty and work permits to those who have entered the united states illegally as minors. he also needs to involve an effort to resist the temptation

to further expand daca to millions of additional adults and send a strong message to respond quickly by returning those who enter the united states illegally back to their home countries. by announcing to the world that he will not enforce our nation's laws by requiring the department of homeland security to process and return those who have already come here unlawfully, the president of the united states is encouraging hundreds of thousands of children and adults to make a very dangerous journey to the u.s. illegally. he's encouraging families to pay coyotes controlled by drug cartels thousands of dollars to smuggle their children into this country. that is truly the humanitarian crisis that we now face. this continuing resolution, the continuing resolution now before

the senate provides funds for the daca program and any other executive amnesty the president may choose to implement illegally. i along with my friends, my colleagues from alabama and from texas, want to offer an amendment prohibiting funding to process prospective applications, but the majority has objected, so we'll attempt to table the reid amendment in order to allow that vote. the president's threat to widen the scope of daca are only going to make matters worse, matters in this pronounced humanitarian crisis that we're facing along our border, which is why i agree with my friends, senators sessions and cruz, that at the very at least we must take steps to prevent the president from providing any more executive amnesty. now, mr. president, i'd like to speak about some other issues

related to the continuing resolution, and in so doing i want to point out that one of the most important and solemn duties that we have as members of the united states senate is to authorize the use of military force and ask the brave men and women in our armed services to put their lives in harm's way. it is, i believe, a gross dereliction of that duty and an insult to those same men and women to tack on a military authorization to this must-pass spending bill just so members of congress can hurry back to their home states. if the united states is going to escalate our involvement in a brutal conflict overseas, if we're going to send american troops to arm and train syrian rebels for their fight against isis, we need to debate that decision on its own merits and

not take this up simply as a condition of providing ongoing funding for the federal government as a whole. this is the only way for this issue to receive the kind of careful attention and robust debate that it truly deserves. we owe it to our men and women in uniform to separate any military authorization from this must-pass spending bill to keep the government funded. if that means we do not get home early, so be it. the lives of our troops, the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and those who support them and the security of the united states are simply far too important. now i believe, as does the president of the united states, that isis is a threat to the middle east and will take any opportunity that it gets to kill

americans. many of its fighters carry european and even american passports which will offer them easier access to the united states. tracking and stopping these foreign fighters must be a high priority for the president and for the congress, and our allies must work to stop the flow of these fighters into and out of the conflict zone half a world away. we must attack their finances, their abilities to communicate and coordinate and access weapons and supplies. the united states can and should act to protect ourselves from this threat. and there's a clearly defined constitutional process for doing this, a process that involves the participation of the president as the commander in chief and members of congress as representatives of the american people invested with the power to declare war. but are we following that

clearly defined process? are we adhering to this prudent set of procedures that we're supposed to follow under our now 227-year-old governing document? no. instead we're openly flawing it. instead we're considering an authorization of military force almost as an afterthought. we're doing so by attaching it to a continuing resolution which itself reduces in a very shameless and disgraceful way congress's spending authority to another afterthought. why? well, because as far as i can tell, some in congress want to go home early. they're so anxious to get to their next recess, to get back to their home states that they're willing to give inadequate attention to this very serious problem that affects every american, that has implications not only for national security but for the security of 300 million

americans, especially grave complications for the grave -- grave implications for the brave men and women who wear our uniforms whose lives will be on the line as a result of decisions made in connection with this effort. this is shameful and it's unconscionable. it's an insult to the men and women we serve and it's an insult to the men and women who wear uniforms and serve us well. we should strike this action to arm and train syrian rebels from the continuing resolution and instead have full debate and a separate vote on authorizing the president's strategy to address the isis threat. forcing an authorization for our military to act in any manner through a continuing resolution up against a government shutdown does not meet the standards for this process and does not afford the american people, many of whom are service members, a voice regarding our nation's

most important affairs. we have ample reason to take the needed time to consider this decision on its own merits, and not on the merits of a continuing resolution to keep the government funded. the idea of arming syrian rebels has drawn serious concern from members of the senate on both sides of the aisle, but so far only members from certain key committees have been able to debate and discuss openly in an official senate forum the specifics of the president's plan, and even those of us who sit on those committees are still in need of much more information. i've had concerns for the past year as a member of the senate armed services committee with the proposed tactic of arming syrian rebels after hearing testimony from our own intelligence and defense leaders that what we refer to as the --quote, unquote -- moderate

rebels are, in fact, fragmented and decentralized, their memberships fluid and often lacking in common goals, leadership and levels of moderation. this is borne out in press reports from the region almost weekly. in fact, a few months ago, i asked general austin, the commander of centcom, if the u.s. could guarantee that the assistance we're supplying to moderates in syria, the then nonlethal aid, are not being used by or to the benefit of extremist groups who want to attack the united states. his answer was -- quote -- no, we cannot guarantee the assistance we provide doesn't fall into the wrong hands. undoubtedly, some weapons and funds flowing into syria wind up in the hands of extremists, close quote. he then continued -- the extremists -- quote -- work closely with all factions of the opposition and is often aware of lodge islamic state particulars

and humanitarian shipments into syria. at times, they even acquire and disseminate these shipments to the local populace. this in turn benefits the extremists in the propaganda war." close quote. that's probably why hardly a month ago, just a little over a month ago, president obama called the idea of arming syrian rebels a fantasy, a fantasy that was, as he put it, never in the cards. now he's seeking authorization for it. in less than a month, what was once fantasy is now apparently the strategy. what was never in the cards is now not only in the cards but is a card that he's actually playing and doing so as an afterthought thrown onto a must-pass bill, with an entirely different purpose and function. on tuesday in the armed services committee hearing when i asked

secretary hagel about why the president had changed his mind on arming and training syrian rebels, defense secretary chuck hagel could not provide an explanation. this is troubling, to say the least. if there has been some change over the last month in national security threats or in the capabilities and composition of the syrian opposition groups, why has the president not shared this with our secretary of defense? or if there hasn't been a change, then is there some reason other than american national security that may have caused the president to reverse course? the american people deserve answers to these and other related questions. another important issue that deserves full and open debate in the senate is that this is about more than just arming rebels to fight terrorists. it became clear through answers from administration officials in our senate armed services hearing tuesday that the

administration believes that a new government and political structure in syria is needed for these rebel groups to be successful. no one doubts that president assad is a tyrant, one who has exacted terrible measures on his very own citizens, but our constituents need to understand -- and i want to be very clear here -- the idea of arming syrian rebels to fight isis and assad, while also standing up and supporting a new government in syria is more like a long-term nation-building mission than a counterterrorism mission. the administration has not been clear on this point, and if we're indeed taking steps toward a nation-building exercise in syria, then we must also debate both the financial and the tremendous human costs of such an endeavor. the isis threat to the united states is serious, and our response should be given equally

serious consideration here in the senate. when my colleague on the armed services committee, senator fischer from nebraska, mentioned how important she thought it was that this authorization be separate from the c.r., secretary hagel stated that he agreed it should have a -- quote -- more thorough airing with the american people, close quote. but that it couldn't receive such an airing because congress was rushing home for a recess. this is not good enough for the united states senate. this is not good enough for the united states or for the american people. it's shameful. our constituents expect us to do our jobs, and if that means staying here a few more weeks, so be it. if that means staying here for a month or two months, however long it takes, so be it. if this plan is the right one, fine. if we need to adjust it or reject it, fine, but there is no such thing as a must-pass vote

of conscience. not here, not on this topic. the american people deserve to have a debate about how and why we're sending their sons and daughters into danger. we should not set this precedent of sending americans into harm's way as an afterthought. on our way out of town, like some kind of political out of office reply email, congress used to be better than this, and i submit that the american people still are. i respectfully and strongly urge my colleagues to pull this section from the c.r. and have a full debate to give authorization for the president's actions in the middle east. and so, mr. president, i to this end am proposing that we remove this language from the continuing resolution so that it may be considered separately and

adequately, and accordingly, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer my amendment, number 3845. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. mikulski: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i have heard a good part of the afternoon about why can't we stay and debate this and so on. i don't minimize the seriousness of the issues, whether they are arming syrian rebels, the potential of any kind of new kinds of military action. certainly the ongoing saga in the ukraine, and also what is going on in our own country. students not being able to afford college. families not being able to afford to be able to buy a home, work not worth it because we pay wages that are frozen, that we're pushing people to a

standard of living less than what other -- than what they had. the people who are middle class are fighting hand-to-hand to stay middle class, and those who might want to get there seeing the opportunity ladder go down. and when we wanted to bring bills to the floor in a regular order, bring up regular appropriation that had both money and policy where people could have debated them in an orderly way, we had cluster bombs of parliament procedure thrown on where people hid behind votes on motion to proceed. some of the biggest critics today of saying why don't we stay here and debate have been some of the biggest obstacles in insisting on bringing bills up in a regular order. so here we are today in the closing hours of the c.r. we have had much enlightened

conversation here. it was actually to hear really leaders talk about this, differences of opinion done in the most civil way, intellectual rigor, firmness of conviction. that's what we should be doing. i would like to do more of it. this is why we need to reform ourselves. we like to talk about reforming the country, changing barack obama, but we need to reform ourselves. we need to stop hiding behind cloture votes and so on on motions to proceed where you need 60 votes to just barely come up and salute the flag. so i'm not going to go into this today, but i think we need to go into this, where we need to take a look at ourselves and examine ourselves, how we can keep the

traditions of the senate, protect the rights of the minority, but when all is said and done, the american people are fed up that more gets said than done and more gets said about saying things and so on. i am telling you, as i travel maryland, my constituents feel washington means less and less relevance to them, and they are also wondering what is it that you do to get things done? they are asking these questions. and you know what? they ought to ask these questions. so, mr. president, again, i'm not going to take up the time. i know that other colleagues are coming to speak on the floor. but this whole thing about we have got to stay and we have to do that. we have to do our business during the whole year. we can't do it in the last three hours. coming up on the crunch of the

end of the fiscal year. all year long, we have an opportunity to debate. all year long, we have the opportunity to debate issues in our committee process and on the floor. so i feel pretty strongly about this, and i hope that others who feel strongly, too, join a reform effort so that we can honor the traditions of the senate, protect the rights of the minority, but hey, let's get back to majority rule, regular order, and a debate that occurs all year long on issues and not just in a crisis environment. mr. president, i yield the floor.

ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: i ask unanimous consent that the executive calendar consent agreed to on wednesday, september 17, be modified to include executive calendar 925, following 1031, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: mr. president, what that means is that we have now confirmed al lenhart to be deputy administrator of a.i.d. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i -- i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. the senator from maryland is recognized. ms. mikulski: i just want to say -- oh, i'm glad to see the

gentleman from florida, because, mr. president, when we have a quorum, that's charged against our time, and i would hate to have it just empty spaces and empty chairs. does -- ms. mikulski: we have two senators arriving at the same time. does the gentleman from florida agree that the gentleman from new jersey, the chair of the foreign relations committee, go next? mr. menendez: thank you. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i come first to support the distinguished chair of the appropriation committee

in her endeavor to pass a continuing resolution, and i specifically want to speak to support the president's request for authorization to stand up a title trend overt train and equip mission for vetted moderate syrian opposition. the hearing i held yesterday in the senate foreign relations committee laid out specifics of how the president is moving forward and building an anti-isil coalition, that we will undertake targeted air strikes against isil in iraq and syria, that we will train and equip a syrian opposition force committed to a pluralistic free syria. this is a multifaceted plan, and we heard both from secretary kerry and a second panel of regional experts that coalition partners are ready to contribute in real terms not just empty words. the isil threat is grave and it is urgent.

we must stand with our partners in the region to confront this barbarism in the interest of all the individuals being brutalized by isil, but also because regional stability and u.s. security demand it. training and equipping a fighting syrian force is one urgent element in the broader plan. we in the senate must provide this authority as our colleagues in the house did yesterday. in iraq, we have the iraqi security forces and kurdish forces committed to battling isil and partnering with us to do so. at this point in time, we do not have such a force to partner with inside of syria. now, let's be clear-eyed about what this challenge is. it is messy and complicated and not at all easy, and there is no silver bullet, but without a trained, equipped and capable

moderate opposition force to fill the void as we conduct air strikes against isil, we would essentially be opening the door to assad and his russian and iranian backed regime forces to regain lost territory. imagine how our adversaries will celebrate if we fail to build a force equipped, trained and committed to defeating the barbarism of isil and assad. now, the administration was posed with the question yesterday why not, why train these forces now four years into the civil war, and there are several answers. number one, we have been working with these moderate armed groups for over two years now, and we know them. second, there is no real alternative to building a local opposition force to take the fight on in syria unless you are talking about american boots on the ground, and that is not in

play here. and third, the region is standing with us in training and creating the ability to assist these syrian rebels. it's truly a remarkable development that saudi arabia, for example, is willing to publicly discuss its support and publicly disclose that it will host and contribute to our train and equip mission. other gulf countries are willing to fund this mission and help with recruiting efforts. no longer are our partners willing to quietly support from the shadows, they view the threat coming from iraq and syria with isil with such urgency that they are going public loudly and assertively. now, i am clear eyed about the enormity of the challenge. there is risk, but at this point, given the rapidity of isil's advance and the savagery of its actions, we must be willing to take some risk to degrade this brutal, barbaric

organization. the fact is sunni neighbors across the region are lining up to join this mission, and the moderate syrian forces that we will train can pressure isil in syria. the iraq's pressure isil from iraq and we pressure isil from the air. the question is, why now? and the response to the question is this. yesterday i held -- well, as you know, the senate foreign relations committee passed legislation last year to increase lethal assistance to the moderate rebels battling assad in a bipartisan way. we don't get do-overs so we cannot change what was not done. we can't change what has already happened. but we can change what exists on the ground in syria today. we can influence what happens going forward, and working together to set conditions for how it ends. yesterday robert ford, our exceptional former u.s. ambassador to syria, probably our greatest expert on syria and the rebels, particularly, and

until recently our senior state department official working with the moderate opposition, could not have had more compelling testimony. in response to questions i posed to him about whether a moderate armed opposition still exists for us to train and arm, he said, yes, they exist. yes, they are already fighting isil. and, yes, they share our view that a radical extremist islamic state should not be imposed on syria and that this conflict will only end with a political deal or negotiated settlement. in response to questions about whether there is recruitment potential, can we find enough fighters who are moderate who will pass our vetting standards to receive our training? he said, yes, we know them. we've provided them with nonlethal assistance which they have used responsibly. and, by the way, he described them as being pretty resill yep- resilient even in the face of being youth gunned, that they

are still -- being outgunned, that they are still engaged and fighting for their own future. and he also said, we've talked politics with them, meaning understanding where their mind-set is as it relates to the future. in fact, mr. ford said the problem has always been that there were more willing fighters than there were guns and ammunition. in response to whether the moderate armed syrian opposition shares our goal for degrading isil, the answer was also affirmatively yes. the force we train and arm will fight isil because isil is threatening their supply lines and has butchered hundreds of members of the moderate syrian opposition. in syria, the moderate opposition has been mired in a two-front war -- one against isil and the other on assad and his regime backers for years. the language in the amendment to the c.r. reflects this reality. we are training and arming a force that will defend the syrian people from isil attacks and also promote conditions for

a negotiated settlement to end the conflict in syria. in other words, going after assad's security forces. finally, ambassador ford commented that if we do not go forward with this proposal to train and equip the moderate armed opposition, assad will likely become even more convinced that his strategy all along has worked. his strategy is to convince the world that he is the only viable alternative to isil and radical extremists and that we will eventually resolve ourselves to working with them. so let me conclude by saying the only course of action at this point in time is for us to commit to the grinding work of building a viable alternative. this is the moderate armed syrian opposition. again, this is not going to happen overnight but it certainly will not happen if there is not a moderate, capable alternative to assad, a group that is neither radical or the

barbarism of isil or the neo listic barrel-bomb dropping assad. we must be realistic if we're going to degrade and destroy isil. now, frankly, i still have many questions about the way forward beyond this issue. i intend to work with the administration to assure that the plan is sound, the strategy is effective, that we will continue to vet that through a series of both hearings and in unless briefings. but i have no question that this particular action is needed now. and i fully intend through the senate foreign relations committee to explore, vet and ultimately craft what a possible authorization for use of military force should look like. in that regard, we need to get it right not just to do it fast. i don't want an aumf that ultimately as of september 2001 gives us 13 years later a host of different countries that were

never envisioned as being the authorization for to send the sons and daughters of america without the authorization of the congress. and we will work on all of that in a determined, studious and detailed way to make sure that we understand the strategy and all of its dimensions, that we can provide for that and at the end of the day, that we can defeat isil but without an open-ended check. and with that, mr. president, i urge support of the c.r., and i yield the floor. mr. rubio: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: thank you, mr. president. and i know the hour is late and my colleague from oklahoma wishes to speak as well and i know senators are eager to vote so i will not be long. but i will try to be concise in what i'm about to say. i came to the u.s. senate primarily motivated by many different things but one of the things that truly motivated me is the fiscal state of our country. the fear that our current

spending patterns are not just unsustainable but threaten our future. in fact, impede our ability to achieve what i believe is our destiny, another american century. and that's why each time i have been here that i've had an opportunity to be placed before me a vote on a short-term spending matter, i voted against them. because i felt that they ignored our long-term problems of spending in this country and did not deal with them in a responsible way. once again today we're confronted with a short-term spending bill that we are asked to approve. otherwise the government will shut down and the world will stop spinning. but today's question's a little different from the ones that have been posed to us in the past. for the one before us, today has deeply embedded in it an issue of national security. for the better part of three years, i've argued that what's happening in syria is in our national interests, and many, quite frankly, in my own party but also in the white house disagreed with my view. they felt that it was a regional

conflict or one that could be handled by leading from behind and so from that time until today, we have largely watched as the events have unfolded in syria, without carefully explaining to the american people why we should care. but i believed then and i think have been proven right by recent events that what happened in syria and what was happening in syria was in our national interest. because if we fail to influence the direction of that situation, it would leave open a space for radical jihadists from all over the world to establish an operational space from which they could carry out their plo plots. not just against us but all free and freedom-loving and peace-loving people in the world. and sadly that's what's happened in syria. a protracted conflict has left open spaces where foreign radical jihadists from everywhere on this planet have flowed to the deserts of syria where they've set up organizations not just designed to topple assad but to establish an islamic caliphate that

oversees multicountrieoversees n the middle east and ultimately will target us. i say target us because that caliphate cannot exist unless they drive america from the region. and the way they intend to drive us from that region is by terrorizing us. and those efforts began recently when we saw the brutal murder of two brave young americans, including one from my home sta state, for doing nothing other than being present and being from america. so now we find ourselves at this situation and i feel like the president -- and as i said, people in both parties have taken too long to realize what a threat this is. and i recognize that the options before us now are not as good as they would have been had we dealt with it two years ago, three years ago, even six or nine months ago. we have plenty of time in the weeks and months and years to come to debate what should have been done. and i anticipate that i will be involved in that debate because there are lessons to be learned from that. but today as leaders of this country, we are called to

decide, what do we do now? what do we do now, when confronted with the very real left it that, left unconfronted, will become a very real danger for the people we represent here in this country. now, the president's come forward with a plan, a plan i wish he would have come forward with six months ago, that i called for three months ago. but i suppose that, like in most things, better late than never, even if late means that our chances of success have been minimized, even if it will cost more money, and even if it will now take longer. better late than never. and that's the question before us now. i wish that we would have had a separate debate on this issue. i wish that we would have had a separate debate on this issue with regards to arming moderate rebel elements in syria. because there are real reasons to be concerned, not just about who we are arming but whether it will work or not. i wish we would have had longer time to debate the broader plan and come before this body and ask for an authorization of use

of force. although i think there's a compelling argument to be made that for immediate action, the president does not need, as the commander in chief, that authorization. we were not given that opportunity. and what they are cheating is not just the political process. for in that debate we would have been able to inform the american people so that they, too, would have learned more about this and as a nation we could have come to a consensus about what the right thing to do is. but in the end, that is not the opportunity before us now and we are asked to decide things in this chamber that are in the best interest of our country, even if they didn't work out the way we wanted them to. or did not develop the way we wanted them to. and that's what's before us now here today. i say this to you without a shadow of a doubt, as i said weeks ago, if we do not confront and defeat isil now, we will have to do so later. and it will take a lot longer, it will be much costlier and even more painful. we will confront isil one way or the other and i believe the

sooner the better. what we are asked to do now is approve funding to arm moderate rebel elements in syria. there is no guarantee of success. there is none. but there is a guarantee of failure if we do not even try. and try we must. for one fundamental reason -- if we fail to approve this, the nations of that region will say that america's not truly engag engaged, that americans are willing to talk about this but are not willing to do anything about it. and so despite my concerns about the underlying bill and the budgeting that it entails, i will support this resolution. because i think it's in the best interest of our national security. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: all time for the minority has expired.

mr. coburn: inquiry of the chair. it was my understanding -- the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: it was my understanding that i had the four minutes remaining on our side and that senator rubio had time granted to him by the chairman of the appropriations committee. is that not correct? the presiding officer: the chair is unaware of that arrangement. mr. coburn: then what i would simply do is ask unanimous consent that i have seven minutes to make a statement. the presiding officer: without objection. does the chair -- is there objection? ms. mikulski: if the gentleman can stick to seven minutes, we have no objection. mr. coburn: i can stick to seven minutes. i hear the gavel come down, i'll quit. the presiding officer: without objection, the motion from the senator from oklahoma is accepted and the senator is

recognized. mr. coburn: thank you. first of all, i'd like to say -- give some praise to the chairman and ranking member. of the appropriations committee. the cooperative nature of this committee this year in terms of inserting good government amendments into appropriation bills, it was a real pleasure to be able to work with them and to put some of the oversight results that we've done over the past few years into appropriation bills. and the bill we have on the floor even though the chairman is supporting the bill, it's not her bill. it's a bill that came to her from house republicans. and so any criticism i might have of the bill is certainly not directed towards the chairman of the appropriation committee. but it's important to be reminded of what the congress told the american people less than two years ago, that we were going to go on a diet, and then a year ago when we had the

ryan-murray agreement and let me just outline to you where we are with what we're getting ready to vote on. because we're about $47 billion above what we agreed to in the ryan-murray budget. and that doesn't include emergency funding. so this bill -- our appropriators didn't write this bill, this bill came out of the house. we understand the timing of it, we understand the process. but this bill doesn't keep our word to the american public what we said we were going to keep, that's number one. number two is the chairman of the appropriation committee attempted to put bills on the floor, and she was open to an amendment process but one bill was the only one that -- got pulled because there was no agreement to allow any amendments to $3.6 trillion

worth of spending. none. zero. and that wasn't her desire. she is a fair broker in this body for what needs to be done when it comes to spending. so i'd make one third point on the fiscal aspect of this bill. when criminals in this country hurt other people, judges throughout the country -- federal judges -- imply -- and criminals who are convicted end up paying into a crime victims fund. the crime victims fund isn't federal tax dollars. it's individual payments by felons on -- to make amends for damage and injury to people that their crime was cast upon.

in this bill is $20 billion worth of false savings, false savings. but the way we calculate it is since we're not going to spend the money that's due to the crime victims, we're going to say that's going to save us money and so therefore we can spend that money somewhere else. well, if you did that on your income taxes or if you were a corporation and filed that with the s.e.c., it wouldn't take long for you to be in jail. but that's what the appropriators in the house did. and we just got through doing this last december, this same amount of money on the same fund. so what i want the american people to see is regardless whether you think we ought to pass this bill or not, shouldn't there be some clarity about the integrity of our numbers?

shouldn't we -- you know, if we can't meet the guidelines shouldn't we just admit it and say we can't admit it rather than say we're meeting it and create a false set of numbers? shouldn't we at least do that? aren't the american people worth that? but instead we've got -- we've got $11.8 billion from the crime victims fund and 6.$3 billion from the children's health fund which are false savings. they're not real savings. and so we're not going to be honest. well, i'm going to be honest. the american public, the u.s. senate and the authors of this bill in the house will be lying to you if you believe the numbers in this bill. they're not true. and that's not the chairman of the appropriations committee that made that decision. that was a house appropriators that made that decision. to use false numbers to create a

false set of achievements. so finally -- and i think i'm about out of time -- i would say there's one other thing that disturbs me about this bill. we have a mess in the middle east today. and sitting on the intelligence committee and sitting on homeland security, i don't disagree we ought to be involved in terms of going after isil. but i think we ought to recognize we created the problem in the first place. we created the vacuum that allowed that to flourish. and i will tell you my assessment of where we are. we now have recognized this threat, and we have a political plan out there but no real policy plan to confront isil. and having just heard from both

the head of the c.i.a. and also the defense department in response to the president's plan, what i can tell you is, we know what -- we know that something needs to be done, but your government doesn't yet know what to do. and i will there's authorization for moneys in here, we need it, we're going to have to fight it, but let's be real clear as members of this body to ask the important questions so that we don't go down a road that's made even worse and we have the brain power in the senate and the experience and the gray hair in the senate to do that. so i would just ask my colleagues to be very careful, not with this -- this is going to happen. this c.r. is going to happen. it's a terrible way to run the government. the appropriation chairman doesn't want to run it this way. but let's be very careful on the questions we ask in the future and i yield the floor and i thank the chairman of the

appropriation committee for her kindness in yielding me the time. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, i'd like to say a few words to the to -- the gentleman from oklahoma before he leaves the floor. we're in the closing hours of not only this debate but really in this session of congress. and i would like to say to the gentleman from oklahoma on the brink of his retirement from the senate how much i've enjoyed serving with him. and i think though we have differed from time to time you have really played a very important role within this institution, really in terms of focusing in on some of the aspects of folly, fraud, stupidity, duplication -- i could go on -- that really i want to thank you. i know how we joined together shoulder to shoulder on no more

lavish meatballs at some of those conferences where it was $4 for a swedish meatball. but seriously, how as we worked on this year's appropriations. you and i actually met on how we could improve government, really keep an -- a careful eye on some of our spending, get rid of some of the things that just cost money and add no value to our government or its compelling needs, and i just really want to say thank you for your service here. and also hopefully when we come back, we can work on an omnibus to incorporate the very reforms this in spending around waste and duplication and folly that we worked together on a bipartisan basis. and, madam president, we are in the closing hours, i believe

there are two other senators that will be coming here to speak. i'd hoped they'd be here sooner but there's a lot going on and i really want to encourage now as we get ready, i really want to encourage my colleagues to urge a vote on passage of the continuing resolution. this measure will keep government going through december 11. but make no mistake, this is government on autopilot. i hope to be back in december, shoulder to shoulder with senator shelby where we will work on a comprehensive funding legislation. in other words, omnibus. this is washington-speak. i mean really, we use words nobody understands. a continuing resolution -- continuing resolutions, omnibus, motions to proceed. but in plain english it would mean taking all 12 subcommittees

that are in charge of funding the government, doing due diligence, where we all have these and put together a comprehensive funding bill that can be scrutinized, debated, and voted on. we have done our work over the year, i'm very proud of my subcommittee chairmen, the ranking members that have worked on a bipartisan basis, and the staff. if we can do an omnibus when we come back, it will enable us to make the choices that we need to do. meet our national security needs, the compelling human needs of the country, and make those -- make sure we have an opportunity ladder for our people who are middle class to stay there, or those who want to work hard to do better, to be able to get there, and also to make those investments in innovation and research and development that create the new

ideas for the new jobs that keep us being an exceptional nation. so i do hope we do get final passage on this, and i hope also in the return after the election, after the election, we can do this comprehensive funding bill. and i want to thank senator shelby of alabama and all of the other republican members of the appropriations committee who worked so hard as both ranking members, we had spirited debates and votes. we really worked hard. and yet i wish you would come to our committees. they were characterized by civility, intellectual rigor, scrutiny of i.g. and g.a.o. reports. i mean we really worked hard to accomplish the mig of knees -- mission of these agencies to keep our government strong and get value for the dollar for the taxpayer. so, again, thanks to my colleagues on the other side of

the aisle, led by senator shelby of alabama. madam president, i yield the floor. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. hay lay i ask that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: i see my good frernsd the senior senator from texas, on the floor, and i'm about to make a unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4323. before i do, because senator cornyn has been very interested in this, this is the debbie smith act. i have a been working with

debbie smith since her bill was first introduced in 2001, probably one of the few senators who was here at that time when i first supported it, to improve access to rape kits, testing, and services for survivors of sexual assault. senator cornyn has been a strong supporter of this. i know he also supports the justice for all act as well, something that he's cosponsored, the distinguished republican leader have. i'd like to get them all passed. i realize that the one republican knot - -- is not them texas, is objecting to passing the al justice for all act. i don't want to pit them against each other. because at least this one expires this month, i would ask unanimous consent that the

senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4323, which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4323, and act to reauthorize programs authorized under the debbie smith act of 2004 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding on the measure? without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements on the bill appear at this point in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: simply objecting the right to object -- and obviously i am not going to object -- i'm very happy that we could reauthorize this important piece of legislation. i've had an opportunity to get to know debbie smith pretty we well, as senator cornyn and

senator leahy have. we've met on several occasions. the bill passed the house of representatives a few months ago on a voice vote. we tried to clear it when it came over here. unfortunately, there was an objection on the other side of the aisle. but i'm glad that we are where we are and that the bill will be reauthorized, and it's certainly fitting for congress to pass this bill. it's named for such a tireless advocate for those who suffered this terrible abuse. mr. cornyn: madam president, reserving the right to object, and i won't object, but let knee just use this occasion to say to the chairman of the judiciary committee how much i appreciate his leadership and cooperation on this. obviously senator mcconnell, senator leahy and i are all cosponsors of the bigger piece of legislation, the justice for all act. i share senator leahy's desire -- i'm sure shared by the republican leader -- that we pass that today.

but since we can't do that, and since we're engaged in the art of the possible, this is a good outcome, not just for debbie smith, who as you've heard has been a tireless advocate for testing this backlog of rape kits, which holds extraordinary power to both identify the perpetrators in sexual assaults and exonerate people who are not implicated by a d.n.a. test. but, a as you know, we've had a huge backlog and this debbie smith act -- or real estate newable is bipartisan -- or renewal, is bipartisan legislation that will deal with the national scandal that the rape kit law is. so amidst all the frustrations that we all experience in the senate from time to time, this is good news. and this is -- this represents progress. so i will agree with the

unanimous consent request and yield the floor. ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: reserving the right to object -- and obviously i, too, won't -- on behalf of all the women in the senate, i would like to thank senator leahy for his consistent, persistent leadership on this issue; senator cornyn, this is how the senate ought to work, on a bipartisan basis, meeting a compelling need and then being able notify it in an expeditious way. but for rape victims every railroad which to know that -- everywhere to know that we can deal with this backlog and because good men stood up for women who have been wronged really is one of the edifying moments of today. i thank you for it and look -- and lift my objection. the presiding officer: hearing no objection, the request is agreed to. mr. leahy: and, madam president, i will continue to

work with the distinguished senior senator from texas on the justice for all act. 99 senators -- 99 senators agreed to passing it. only one has objected. and i would hope that -- it requires a roll call vote. when we come back in november we can have that roll call vote, perhaps with a time limitation, and the 99 senators who say they support it can vote for it, the one senator who has been blocking it can vote against it. but those of us who have been in law enforcement know how important it is. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. mikulski: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to call off the call of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: madam president, how much time do we have remain sng. the presiding officer: three and a half -- thee and a half minutes. ms. mikulski: madam president, in the spirit of moving the bill forward, i yield back all remaining time. the presiding officer: without objection, the question occurs on the motion to table. the yeas and nays are previously ordered. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or wish to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 50, the nays are 50 and the motion is not agreed to. the majority leader. mr. reid: madam president? on the remaining three votes, i ask unanimous consent they be ten minutes in duration.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: 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 h.j. res. 124, a joint resolution making continued appropriation for fiscal year 2015, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on h.j. res. 124 making continuing appropriation for fiscal year 2015 and for other purposes shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: