[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 122 (Thursday, July 31, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5197-S5206]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




MAKING EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING 
                     SEPTEMBER 30, 2014--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume 
consideration of S. 2648.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that 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 No. 3751; 
that if the motion to table is not agreed to, Senator Sessions or his 
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 her designee be recognized for a motion to waive; 
that if the motion to waive is made, the Senate immediately proceed to 
vote on the motion to waive; that if that motion to waive is agreed to, 
then, notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate immediately proceed to the

[[Page S5198]]

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amendments be withdrawn and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of S. 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?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be 
determined by me, after consultation with Senator McConnell, the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 
3230, the Veterans Access to Care Act; that Senator Coburn or his 
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 his designee be recognized for a motion 
to waive; that if the motion to waive is made, there be up to 10 
minutes equally divided between Senators Coburn and Sanders or their 
designees; that upon the use or yielding back of 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 upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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; that following the reporting of the message, I be recognized to 
make a motion to recede from the Senate amendment; that following the 
leader's motion, Senator Sessions or his designee be recognized for the 
purpose of raising a point of order against the bill; that if the point 
of order is raised, Senator Wyden or his designee be recognized to move 
to 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 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 6:45 
p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we expect the votes to begin about 6:45 
tonight, but they could come earlier, so everyone should be aware of 
that.
  Seeing no one here to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are now in the closing hours of this 
session of the Congress. We are getting ready to take our break. I am 
rising to exhort our Members to vote for the urgent supplemental. I 
appreciate the fact that we have adopted the motion to proceed.
  I remind our colleagues what is in the urgent supplemental. First, it 
is to fight wildfires in our own country: $615 million to fight 27 
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 defensive technology.
  Third, and not at all least, it is to deal with issues on the border, 
providing $2.7 billion to deal with the surge of children coming 
through Central America, through a treacherous route through Mexico, 
presenting themselves to 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 $3.7 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 
are doing rigorous and vigorous oversight, we have money in there for 
the inspector general.

  This is an emergency spending bill, which means no offsets are 
required.
  Also, it is meant to deal with humanitarian crises, both in our own 
country with firefighting and then a crisis 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 for our Border Patrol, 
humanitarian assistance for HHS 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 there were so many awaiting 
these types of hearings. Maybe if we passed regular appropriations, 
which we haven't done in 3 years, we wouldn't be in this crisis. But 
this supplemental includes money for additional immigration judges to 
be able to expedite the determination of these children's legal status.
  Also, it goes after the drug smugglers, the human smugglers, the drug 
traffickers, the human traffickers, and the coyotes who are exploiting, 
creating the misery and violence in Central America, and also, while 
they are doing that, exploiting these children who are on the move and 
on the march.
  I understand there is a great deal of reluctance to either vote for 
the money or to weaken our asylum laws. I would caution us in weakening 
our asylum refugee laws, particularly as it affects children. I hope we 
can pass this bill and begin to move forward with it.
  I want everyone to be aware we are talking about a surge of 
children--approximately 60,000 children, not 600,000 children--just 
barely enough to fill Ravens stadium. We are a country of 300 million; 
we are talking only about this.
  I hope we can move on this bill, meet our responsibilities to our 
neighbors in the West facing wildfires and an ally who is running out 
of interceptor rockets to protect itself and not only deal with the 
children and their request to determine asylum status, but at the same 
time we put the money in the Federal checkbook to go where the crime 
and the criminals are, which is the narcotraffickers in Central 
America.
  I will have more to say before we wrap up, but I now yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Maryland 
has described the President's request and what she has proposed, the 
Appropriations Committee has proposed in response. The problem with the 
response is it does not solve the underlying problem, which is a 
loophole in a 2008 law, which is now being exploited as part of the 
business model of the cartels that smuggle children and other 
immigrants illegally from Central America through Mexico into South 
Texas.
  It makes no sense to me just to write a check for this surge, which I 
agree that there is money needed for additional judges, additional 
detention facilities, and the like in some dollar figure. But if you do 
not solve the underlying problem, we are going to be back here months 
later and doing this all over again. This, of course, is an emergency 
supplemental. We will be doing this emergency every 2 or 3 months 
because what we have seen over the last couple years is that the 
numbers of children coming into the country because of this loophole in 
the 2008 law I described a moment ago--the numbers have nearly doubled 
over the last couple of years, and there are projections that there 
will be not just the 57,000

[[Page S5199]]

unaccompanied children who have been detained so far this year but that 
the number could grow as high as 90,000 by the end of this year and 
145,000 next year. We are going to be in deep trouble, not to mention 
the crisis for these children. Our capacity to deal with them at the 
border and in local communities there is overtaxed, and there is the 
fact that the Border Patrol is diverted from interdicting illegal drug 
traffic and other necessary activities because they are taking care of 
these children, who deserve to be taken care of, at least while they 
are in our protective custody. So this is not a solution to the 
problem.
  I know from meeting with the President--I see the distinguished 
majority leader and the majority whip here. We all were invited over to 
the White House this morning to talk to the President about national 
security matters. My distinct impression was the President understands 
the nature of the problem, and he conceded that we cannot endlessly 
accept people who want to come to the United States from troubled 
regions of the world because it would simply overtax and overwhelm our 
capacity to deal with it. That is why it is so important to have legal 
immigration. I agree that we need immigration reform. I do not agree 
that we need the Gang of 8 bill. But I am committed to trying to fix 
our broken immigration system on a step-by-step basis when we next have 
an opportunity to do so.
  But right now we have an emergency that is disproportionately 
affecting my State, the State of Texas, and our local communities and 
our State are being overwhelmed. It is the Federal Government's 
responsibility and the Federal Government needs to step up. That is why 
I agree some amount of money--I do not agree it is $2.7 billion, as an 
emergency, but at some level we do need to come up with the money to 
deal with this emergency. But we cannot just write a check because, as 
I said, we will continue to come back. This crisis will be unabated 
and, in fact, it will get worse.
  I mentioned earlier today the polling that I saw that miraculously 
said 68 percent of the American people disapprove of the way the 
President is handling this immigration crisis, which is a rather 
dramatic development. I think all that the American people expect and 
deserve from us is that we try to work together to solve this problem. 
Congressman Henry Cuellar, my friend from Laredo, TX, a Democrat, a 
self-described blue dog Democrat, and I have come up with one 
suggestion: The HUMANE Act. It is our proposal, and if anybody has a 
better idea, we are all ears and all willing to consider it. But so far 
we have heard no alternative proposals and only a request to write a 
check for $2.7 billion. I think it would be irresponsible for us to 
only appropriate money and not deal with the underlying cause.
  So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside 
the pending amendment so I may call up my amendment No. 3747, which is 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President----
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, if I may, I hold the floor, if I am not 
mistaken. I just have a couple concluding comments and then I will turn 
it back over.
  What we need to do is learn the lesson that we learned in 2005 and 
2006. In talking with Secretary Johnson, he understands this problem 
very well. I know the Senator from Arizona remembers this. In 2005, we 
saw a surge of what were at the time called OTMs, immigrants from 
countries other than Mexico. Strangely enough, we saw a surge of 30,000 
Brazilians who were detained at our southwestern border.
  What Secretary Chertoff came to learn is that a loophole they were 
exporting was the so-called catch and release at the time. They did not 
have detention facilities. What would be done is they would be 
released, essentially based on their own recognizance, and we would 
never hear from them again. They would escape into the great American 
landscape.
  Well, the same phenomenon is happening now with these unaccompanied 
children because of that 2008 law that needs to be addressed so that 
they will remain in protective custody pending any court hearing, which 
we would give on an expedited basis. If they have a legal claim to 
stay, an asylum claim, a victim of human trafficking and the like, then 
the judge would determine that. And those who do not would have to be 
returned to their home country. I think I heard the President say as 
much today. I certainly have heard Secretary Johnson and others say the 
same thing.
  That is what my amendment would do. I am sorry the distinguished 
Senator from Maryland has seen fit to object to it. I think this 
virtually guarantees that we will leave here today without having 
solved the problem, and that is a tragic circumstance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, if I could respond to the Senator from 
Texas, first of all, I do not want my objection to be interpreted by 
him or by the Senate or those watching as a pugnacious dismissal of the 
Senator's request. The distinguished Senator from Texas has always 
stood for Texas and he has also stood for the protection of the border. 
He comes with an incredible background where he was a judge, a former 
judge of the highest court in Texas. So I understand. And I have also 
heard him speak repeatedly about the plight of these children, and he 
has spoken with great compassion. He and I both agree that we should 
not have open borders and open wallets, that we have to deal with this.
  But I say to my colleague, this bill is a money bill. It is an 
appropriations bill. We do not legislate on appropriations. There is no 
legislative language in this bill. What the Senator is proposing, 
working with the administration, with the Judiciary Committee, on a 
bipartisan basis--because I think there is a sentiment perhaps we could 
arrive at some other language, but on this bill I objected because this 
would be legislating on appropriations. The type of pragmatic approach 
the Senator from Texas is proposing--and we have perhaps some ideas--
cannot be done on this bill tonight with the urgent nature of it.
  So I want the Senator from Texas to know my great respect for him and 
his advocacy on this issue, and I know of his heartfelt compassion for 
the children and his desire to have a broader immigration policy. I 
look forward to working with him on legislative matters in a different 
forum.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator will yield for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, here is the conundrum I think we find 
ourselves in. The President has made a request for the money. The 
Secretary of Homeland Security has said he needs more authority in 
order to deal with the problem, and what my proposal would do is to 
give him that authority necessary to solve the problem.
  The Senator from Maryland has always been very kind and gracious, and 
I appreciate her response, and I know of her compassion, given her 
background, particularly in social work, that she has great compassion 
for these children, as we all do. But we have a problem and we need to 
solve the problem.
  What is so confusing to me is, when the House was considering a 
proposal which would combine both policy changes together with some 
money to deal with them, the White House issued a notice the President 
would veto it if it were passed. So it seems to me that--well, it is 
confusing, to say the least. I am not sure how we get out of this place 
we are in.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Is that the Senator's question?
  Mr. CORNYN. The fact is, we are dysfunctional. But if the Senator has 
a suggestion for how we get out of this dysfunction, I would love to 
hear it.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. First I would like to respond----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much. We are eager to engage in 
conversation with each other.
  It is the belief of the members of the Judiciary Committee--at least 
the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee--that the President has enough

[[Page S5200]]

current authority to provide what Secretary Johnson is asking. I too 
have heard what Secretary Johnson has. So there is a dispute about 
whether he needs more authority or whether the President can exercise 
the authority he has. We believe he already has enough authority.
  Then there are two large issues. The two large issues are: 
immigration reform, commonsense, sensible, along the lines that passed 
the Senate--Senator McCain of Arizona and others have worked on this, 
Senator Durbin--and then the other is what is going on in Central 
America with these drug traffickers.
  Quite frankly, the fact is we need to start to pay attention to our 
own hemisphere. I note that when everybody talks about how much money 
this is, it is less money than we are going to spend to give to the 
Afghan security force. OK. We give $4 billion to the Afghan security 
force. Let's hope they are going to use it and shoot in the right 
direction.
  I am looking at making sure our country goes in the right direction, 
and I am going to work on a bipartisan basis. I say pass this bill. 
Let's put together a bipartisan task force and see if we can deal with 
these two problems of both immigration reform--to move it through both 
bodies--and also bring our focus back to our own hemisphere and deal 
with the issues in Central America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, as I was watching the back and forth 
here on the floor of the Senate, I could not help but notice that my 
three colleagues on the other side of the aisle there and I have 
roughly the same amount of time here in the Senate. In fact, the 
distinguished majority leader and my friend from Illinois and I came to 
the House together way back more than 30 years ago.
  When I came to this body, and when they came to this body, we had 
leaders. We had leaders. Do you know what those leaders used to do? 
They would say at the beginning of the week: We are going to take up a 
certain piece of legislation, and we are going to work through it. We 
are going to do what the Senate does. We are going to have amendments 
proposed, and we are going to have votes on those amendments, and we 
are going to have the Senate be a deliberative and debating 
organization, praised as the greatest debating institution in the 
world, although that probably is not true--and Senator Byrd, a 
distinguished majority leader, Senator Mitchell, a distinguished 
majority leader--do you know what they would say--Senator Lott, Senator 
Dole--do you know what they would say They would say: We are going to 
take up a bill and we are going to have amendments and we are going to 
have debate and we are going to have votes, and then we are going to 
vote on final passage. For 30 years that is how I have watched the 
Senate function.
  Now we have a humanitarian crisis on our border, a humanitarian 
crisis of incredible proportion, where thousands of young people--while 
they are being transported by these coyotes, young women are being 
raped, they are falling off trains, terrible things are happening--and 
what are we presented here in the Senate? I say shame on you. I say 
shame on you for not allowing those of us who represent the States that 
are most affected by this to have an amendment, an amendment voted on. 
That is unbelievable to me. We put together--and I say with great 
respect to the Senator from Maryland, saying that we do not legislate 
on appropriations--excuse me. Excuse me.
  We have legislated a lot on appropriations, mostly to my dismay. Year 
after year I have watched legislating on appropriations. On the Defense 
authorization bill, it has caused me heartburn time after time. So 
please don't--please. I have been around here too long for you to tell 
me we do not legislate on appropriations.
  I want to have some amendments debated. I want to be able to tell the 
people of my State that are being flooded by immigrants--I want to be 
able to tell them that I had a proposal representing them here in the 
Senate and I wanted it debated and I wanted it voted on. Is that a hell 
of a lot to ask? I do not think so. I do not think so.
  This is a crisis of proportions that we have seldom seen the likes 
of. I am sure the majority leader will come over and talk about 
Republican obstructionism and how we cannot get anything done around 
here. We have now compiled a record, according to the experts, as the 
least productive Congress in history--in history. So I am supposed to 
go back to my home State of Arizona, which is experiencing terrific 
problems, horrific problems--my constituents are really angry. They 
expect me to come here and represent them in the Senate and debate and 
have their views and their desires and their ambitions and their 
reputation here in the Senate.
  What have we done? The parliamentary situation is that there will be 
no amendments that will be allowed to be debated or voted on no matter 
what.
  The Senator from Maryland said: Well, we do not legislate on 
appropriations.
  We have some amendments on money that would either reduce or increase 
the amount of funding. Are we going to be able to have that amendment 
voted on? Hell no. We are not going to be able to have a single thing 
voted on. Everyone wants to get out of town. So sometime tonight or 
maybe tomorrow we are going to close up shop and we are going to go 
home. The humanitarian crisis goes on. It goes on.
  What about these children? Are they going to be enticed by coyotes 
for their families to give a year's salary to transport them from one 
of these countries to the United States of America? Are an untold 
number of young women going to be raped along the way? Are there going 
to be kids who fall off these trains? Is that what is going to happen? 
We are going to go for 5 weeks without debate on a single amendment, 
not a single one. What kind of an institution is this? What has 
happened since the days when the Senator from Nevada and the Senator 
from Illinois and the Senator from Maryland and I came to this body 
proud--proud to be a Member of this institution?
  I can remember time after time the junior Senator being able to come 
down here, propose an amendment, have it disposed of--usually losing 
but at least I was representing the people of my State. Now I cannot 
represent them. I cannot give them what they believe they deserve here 
in the Senate.
  In a second I will stop and I will ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendment so that the amendment Senator Flake, my colleague 
from Arizona, and I have put together after visiting our border, after 
talking to all of our constituents, after discussing the issue with our 
Governor--we came here to represent them. How can I represent them if I 
am not allowed to express their beliefs and their ambitions and their 
desires to help solve this problem?
  How do I go down to the ranchers in the southern part of my State and 
say: I am sorry there are people crossing your property every night. 
What do I say to the families of those people who are being separated? 
What am I supposed to tell my citizens whom I represent--that I came 
here to ask for something that I know is going to be objected to? What 
has happened to this body? What has happened to the Senate, I ask my 
colleagues?
  The approval rating of Congress, the last time I checked, was either 
a single digit or low double digits. Everybody kind of thinks, well, 
that is normal. It is not normal. I hearken back again to the days when 
we first came here. Our approval rating with the people of our country 
was 70 percent, 80 percent, maybe even a little lower. Is all the fault 
on that side of the aisle? No. But I would say that the people in 
charge here have an obligation to allow all of us to represent the 
people who sent us here. That is not happening today. It has not 
happened all year. It may not happen until next January, where I am 
committed and I believe the majority of my conference is committed to 
bringing up legislation and having debate and having votes. That is the 
way the Senate was supposed to function.
  I know what is going to happen here in about 30 seconds. I say to my 
colleagues, this is not right. This is not right. This is not the way 
we are supposed to represent the people we asked to send us here and 
let us represent them.

  Senator Flake and I have pretty simple legislation. It has to do with 
the

[[Page S5201]]

fact that, as the President said, it would modify the Trafficking 
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. It would do some other things. 
It would provide for funds--and I will not go through all of the 
details of it except to say that I know what is going to happen, but it 
is not right. It is not the right way for this institution to function. 
We all should be a bit embarrassed.
  I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending 
amendment so that I may call up amendment No. 3742, which is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, let me 
say at the outset that I have the highest respect for my colleague from 
Arizona. We are friends. We came to Congress at the same time, as has 
mentioned on the floor, and spent month after month together on the 
comprehensive immigration bill. I believe there were 130 amendments 
that were considered to that bill. I thought that was an orderly, 
thoughtful process. I hope we can return to it.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this is what we are facing: The 
President has come to us facing a crisis at the border. He has asked us 
for the resources for the Border Patrol that has to process these 
children coming in and for Health and Human Services so that once these 
children--some of whom are toddlers and infants--are in our country, 
they can be treated humanely. He has asked us for the resources for 
that purpose.
  He has also asked us initially for some resources to get to the heart 
of the problem, which Senator Cornyn of Texas has acknowledged. The 
heart of the problem is not in the United States; the problem is in 
Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. There is clearly a crisis 
situation there.
  What Senator Mikulski, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, has done is reduced the President's budget request by $1 
billion, if I am not mistaken, and said: We will respond to this 
emergency request with these resources and realize that more is going 
to be done.
  On the other side of the aisle, the senior Senator from Texas has 
come in and talked about changing immigration law. He was kind enough 
to acknowledge that we made an effort to change the immigration law 
right here on the floor of the Senate over a year ago with 68 votes. 
Fourteen Republicans joined the Democrats in a comprehensive 
immigration bill. The Senator from Texas acknowledged he did not vote 
for it. Had he voted for it, he would have voted for the most dramatic 
increase in border security in American history. But he voted against 
it. That is his choice. I respect his judgment. But to come to us today 
and say: Now we have to vote again on border security--we had a chance. 
The Senate passed it. What happened to the comprehensive immigration 
reform bill? It made it over to the House of Representatives and 
disappeared into vapor. It was never called for consideration.
  So it is not as if we have ignored the problems of immigration. We 
addressed them forthrightly in a bipartisan fashion, in a comprehensive 
fashion, and the House of Representatives refused to even call the 
bill.
  Let's go to this particular issue. The heart of the problem is 
clearly in three Central American countries that are so lawless that 
people are desperately sending their children to the United States of 
America. We have to deal with that issue. We are. The President has 
dealt with it. The Vice President has visited those countries. Last 
week the Presidents of all three countries came here. So to say the 
President is doing nothing about the cause of the crisis is not 
accurate. The President is addressing it directly to discourage any 
more children from making this dangerous, deadly journey, No. 1.
  No. 2, I hope we all agree: No mercy for these smugglers. No mercy 
for those coyotes who are exploiting these families and sadly abusing 
many of these children.
  No. 3--and the President has made this point--we have an obligation. 
When a child is entrusted to you, people stand in judgment of how you 
treat that child. We have many children now entrusted to us on a 
temporary basis. The President has asked for money so that they can be 
treated humanely on a temporary basis. Not an unreasonable request.

  Time and again America has responded to crises around the world--
families and children who are victims of war, earthquakes, tsunamis. 
For virtually every natural disaster, we have been there. America has a 
reputation for being there. Now that children are at our border, will 
we do anything less?
  What we are doing with the bill before us, the supplemental bill, is 
providing enough money for humanitarian care and still working on the 
root causes of the problem. I think that is responsible.
  I hope we do not leave here this week having failed to come up with 
this money. I hope we provide the resources to this administration. I 
hope my colleagues on a bipartisan basis will do two things: Vote for 
this emergency appropriation and, secondly, let's join in a thoughtful 
discussion about how to pass a comprehensive immigration bill which 
includes this aspect--asylees and refugees.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I think I have said enough with enough 
emotion. But I will say to my friend from Illinois that the way you 
have a thoughtful discussion is to have debate and amendments and 
votes. That is generally the accepted way. You want a thoughtful 
discussion; I want a thoughtful discussion. Why can't we just accept 
the fact that we should go forward with our amendments and have debate? 
That way we can best serve the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republicans have 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the problem we have at the border 
today is a direct result of the actions of the President of the United 
States. In 2011 we had 6,000 young people coming to America unlawfully. 
They were apprehended. Now we have 60,000. It was because of his DACA 
program and his open statement that was heard throughout the world as: 
If you come to America as a young person, you will be able to stay.
  That was exactly and I think to some degree remains the situation.
  If you come to America as a young person from Central America, not 
Mexico, and you turn yourself in, you will be released on a permiso or 
bond or promise to reappear.
  People come and pick up the children and they stay.
  This is no way to run a lawful system of immigration. You know, it 
was said: Well, we offered a comprehensive bill to fix it.
  That bill was flawed. I opposed that bill. It was rejected by the 
House of Representatives.
  I would say with great confidence that because the House of 
Representatives rejected the bill that Members of this Senate supported 
and that the President of the United States supported does not thereby 
mean the President of the United States can do what the bill says when 
it was rejected and did not become law. It takes both Houses to pass a 
piece of legislation.
  The bill would not have worked. It would not have been effective. The 
people of the United States, through their elected representatives, did 
not allow it to become law.
  I would point out that this administration amazingly has announced 
its intention to bypass Congress and to implement an executive amnesty 
by fiat. This would include, as has been widely reported, 5 million to 
6 million work permits and legal status for illegal immigrants into 
America.
  This is contrary to Congress's decision. Congress has not approved 
that. But Congress has approved a law that says it is unlawful for 
somebody in the country, for example, to work if they are not here 
lawfully. They can't work in the United States. They are not approved 
for work.
  The President is saying he is going to give them legal status and 
permission to work contrary to plain law. This is

[[Page S5202]]

very serious. This action would be in violation of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act. It would be an executive nullification of our laws and 
the protections that American workers are entitled to. Congress must 
not surrender to such lawlessness.
  It has been in half a dozen papers. The Wall Street Journal 2 days 
ago: Millions of people by executive action of the President--it is 
unbelievable to be so open and bold about this, as if he thinks maybe 
this would intimidate Congress to force us to adopt legislation 
Congress has rejected.
  We have the power--the power of the purse--to stop it. That is the 
appropriate response of Congress. When the President proposes something 
that is improper and outside of law, when we have powers as coequal 
branches of government, we can respond, and we should use the power of 
the purse.
  Senator Cruz has filed an amendment to this bill that would prohibit 
the executive expenditures by the President of any funds for 
administrative amnesty or work authorization for unlawful immigrants. 
However, the majority leader, with the support of his conference, has 
blocked all amendments to this border supplemental. If we do not stop 
this Presidential action, we will ensure that the border crisis 
continues a catastrophe.
  The President's planned action would also represent a total breach of 
our constitutional system, and it would be a hammer blow to millions of 
unemployed American citizens. We do have the power to stop this. We 
ought to stop it. We have a duty to Congress, we have a duty to the 
rule of law, and we have a duty to the Constitution.
  What we can do today by voting yes on my motion to clear the 
amendment tree and to consider and pass Senator Cruz's amendment would 
fix this problem. It would say: Mr. President, you are not authorized 
to utilize any money of the U.S. Government to spend on a program to 
grant amnesty and work permits to millions.
  The vote we are about to have will be a vote on whether to support 
the President's illegal amnesty or to block it. It will be a vote to 
allow us to vote on it, because right now the tree is filled and we 
can't vote.
  I am going to be asking to table what is on the tree and clear that 
amendment out so we can vote on this amendment, and we will have a vote 
on it. Everyone in this Chamber will cast a vote before this whole 
Nation and reveal whether they stand for our laws, for our border 
sovereignty or whether they stand in support of the President's illegal 
activities, in truth.
  A number of cosponsors support this amendment. I think it is the 
right thing to do, and we will be asking for that later today.
  Colleagues, in addition, the administration has announced its 
intention to bypass Congress, according to the Associated Press, the 
Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, and others, with as many as 5 
million to 6 million of these work permits.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us is merely a blank check to 
perpetuate the failure of this administration to fix the problems at 
the border. This can be done, colleagues. It is not impossible. It is 
not hopeless. We simply need a President who wants it to happen.
  He has been sued by his own ICE officers, saying that they are being 
blocked from doing their duty. They asked a court to give them relief 
and tell their supervisors to quit telling them to violate the law and 
not enforce the law. That is amazing. Their morale is in the tank.
  The current crisis on the border can be attributed to specific 
actions taken unilaterally by the President. After his 2012 Executive 
order, the number of unaccompanied minors apprehended at the border 
jumped from 7,100 in 2011 to nearly 15,000 in 2012, and now we have 
already hit more than 57,000 heading to 90,000. Estimates suggest 
approximately 32,000 unaccompanied minors are projected to cross the 
border in the remaining months of this fiscal year.
  We have this egregious funding supplemental before us that would 
equal more than $110,000 per child who is coming into the country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank my colleagues. We do have good colleagues here, 
and we have great robust debate, and I appreciate the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Mikulski.
  Moreover, this border supplemental provides the Department with 
unlimited transfer authority of $1.1 billion--an unlimited ability of 
up to $1 billion. It becomes, really, a slush fund in that sense. They 
can use it for anything. Finally, the border supplemental would provide 
an additional $1.2 billion to the Department of Homeland Security.
  So I am raising a point of order. And I am sure a motion to waive 
will be heard. But make no mistake. A vote to suspend the budget rules 
and to block our point of order is a vote for the President's amnesty; 
it is a vote for continued chaos. I urge my colleagues to sustain it.

  The bill before us today is in clear violation of the budget. All the 
money is borrowed money, it violates the budget, and I raise that point 
of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, a parliamentary question: Did the 
Senator from Alabama raise a budget point of order? Did the Senator 
from Alabama raise a budget point of order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I have not raised it at this point, 
but I do intend to. I thought we had an understanding so we could make 
the votes occur at the agreed-upon time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I say to the Senator from Alabama, do you want to raise 
it now or do you want to raise it later?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would raise it later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I note that the Senator from Maryland 
wishes to respond.
  How much time do the Democrats have in this debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrats have 9 minutes remaining.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois 
have 4 minutes to offer a rebuttal and I have 5 minutes for the wrapup 
debate before we move to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senator from Alabama now joins the 
Senator from Texas, coming to the floor of the Senate complaining about 
the state of immigration laws in America. They have in common the fact 
that they both voted against comprehensive immigration reform.
  When we had a chance in committee--which the Senator from Alabama and 
the Senator from Texas serve on--and on the floor to offer amendments 
and change the bill accordingly, both of them at the end of the day 
voted against comprehensive immigration reform. Now, over a year later, 
they come and complain about the state of law when it comes to 
immigration in America. They can't have it both ways.
  They could have participated with us in changing the law in a 
positive fashion. They chose not to. They wanted to wait until a year 
later and complain about President Obama not meeting his obligation.
  When it comes to comprehensive immigration reform, the Senate met its 
obligation, and those who voted for it did as well. It was the House of 
Representatives that failed to call the bill.
  Now the Senator from Alabama says, well, the reason these children 
are coming to our border is because President Obama signed an Executive 
order which said that if you were a child brought to the United States 
by August 15, 2007, you could qualify to be benefited by this order and 
not deported, under DACA on a temporary basis.
  Now, that has nothing to do with any child that comes after that 
date. They are not covered by that order. They are not protected by 
that order. To blame President Obama for the children coming to the 
border is to ignore the obvious. The law that brings these children to 
the border was a law signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. That 
is the law that governs the treatment of these children. Everything has 
to be blamed on President Obama from that side of the aisle. In this 
case, the law was signed by President George W. Bush.

[[Page S5203]]

  I happen to believe that this DACA Executive order by the President 
was thoughtful and humane. Here is what it said: If you were brought to 
the United States before the age of 16, as a child, you lived in the 
United States and finished high school, with no criminal record of any 
magnitude, you would be allowed to stay in the United States on a 
temporary basis and not deported.
  I have met these children. There are many of them who are growing 
into magnificent contributors to America--doctors, engineers, teachers. 
They beg to join our military. They are not what they are characterized 
to be. These are young people who believe this is their homeland, this 
is their country, and all they are asking for is a chance.
  President Obama gave them that chance, and the Republicans time and 
again--Senator Sessions now, later Senator Cruz--can't wait to deport 
all these children who have gone through high school, gone through 
college, and only aspire to be contributors to the future of America. 
That is the Republican party position for some: Deport these children; 
we don't want them in our country any longer. That is their position. 
That is not the position of a majority of Americans. They deserve a 
chance to prove themselves and earn their way to legal status. And to 
blame them for this border crisis is unfair.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the majority leader has brought a $3.5 
billion emergency supplemental spending bill to the floor at the 
request of President Obama. This bill, while it shaves off $1 billion 
from the President's original request, is still a blank check that does 
not solve the crisis along our southern border.
  This Democratic spending bill isn't a solution, and it is not a 
reasonable or responsible request. The majority in the Senate want 
taxpayers to fund a bandaid that is needed because of the President's 
own policies and practices.
  Not only does the President want a blank check, but he wants 
unfettered authority to keep people unlawfully in the country from 
being returned to their home country. While we are facing a crisis, 
President Obama is looking at ways to weaken our immigration laws.
  I understand that there are a variety of reasons that people come 
here--to be with family, to find work, and to have a better life. We 
are a compassionate country, and we provide a safe haven for people who 
need it. But we are also a country based on the rule of law.
  That rule of law has been a principle of our country since its 
founding. This principle means that the government will enforce the 
laws it writes. People need to be able to trust their government and 
trust that it will be fair.
  Today, people don't trust the government to enforce the laws. They 
see lawlessness at the border. Individuals--including both children and 
adults--are crossing the border without repercussions, and instead of 
taking responsibility for it, the President wants to fuel the fire and 
provide them with more benefits.
  Instead of providing a blank check, Republicans have come forward 
with solutions. Today, Senators Cornyn, McConnell, Flake and I are 
introducing a humanitarian solution to the problem. We provide funding 
while changing the law to ensure speedy repatriation of unaccompanied 
minors to their home country.
  We provide equal treatment to young children of noncontiguous 
countries to voluntarily return to their home country when apprehended 
by a border agent. Today, these young people can't voluntarily return. 
They wait 6 or 12 months until they go before an immigration judge. 
They are released, and we can only hope that they will show up for 
their court date.
  Our bill provides a new and special process for unaccompanied 
children to have an immediate court proceeding. This new process would 
be conducted within 7 days, and children would remain in protective 
custody.
  We also require expedited removal--meaning, no opportunity for formal 
removal proceedings--of criminals, gang members, those who have 
previously violated our immigration laws, and those who have 
fraudulently claimed to be an unaccompanied alien child. Expedited 
removal is a tool that will help border agents return people who don't 
have a right to be here, and it will avoid an influx of individuals 
going through our lengthy court system.
  Our efforts, unfortunately, are only worthwhile if the home countries 
cooperate. We would require the President to certify that the 
Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are cooperating in 
taking back their nationals. Moreover, we tie taxpayer dollars to their 
cooperation.
  In addition to fixing the immigration court system for children, our 
alternative approach requires information sharing between Federal 
partners, including the Departments of Homeland Security and Health and 
Human Services.
  It requires information sharing between the Federal Government and 
States, providing transparency and notice to States about individuals 
released. This administration has an abysmal record with transparency, 
and many States are left wondering how they are going to deal with the 
influx of undocumented children in their schools and health systems.
  By the end of this fiscal year, up to 90,000 children will have 
entered the country. People are rightly concerned that they are being 
released into our communities. They are also being released to 
nonrelatives and people without lawful immigration status. Our bill 
fixes that. It requires children to be in the government's protective 
custody unless their parent is in legal status and undergoes a criminal 
background check.
  Our bill prohibits the government from placing children with sex 
offenders or traffickers. Doesn't that just make sense. We are talking 
about vulnerable young people, and we need to be careful about who is 
taking custody of them.
  Why are these young people coming? Aside from President Obama's weak 
policies, there is reason to believe that they are being trafficked and 
used as a commodity by drug traffickers. There are serious gang issues 
in some of these countries. And these issues are seeping into our 
country.
  Our bill ensures that alien gang members are not provided a safe 
haven in the United States by rendering them inadmissible and 
deportable, requiring the government to detain them, and it prohibits 
alien gang members from gaining U.S. immigration benefits such as 
asylum or temporary protected status.
  Border Patrol agents are being strained during this crisis. They are 
being taken off the line to care for children and adults. States along 
the border are stepping up and paying the price. Our bill supports 
State and local governments by reimbursing the costs they have had to 
bear.
  Our bill ensures that Customs and Border Protection agents are 
provided access to Federal lands along the border. It also increases 
the penalties for smuggling offenses.
  Finally, our bill deals with the lawless policies of this President 
and his administration. Over the last few years, the President has 
shown an astonishing disregard for the Constitution, the rule of law, 
and the rights of American citizens and legal residents. He has made 
promises and threats to go around Congress by using his phone and pen.
  Well, today we are exercising our constitutional right in cutting off 
funding for the President to expand his administrative amnesties. Our 
bill would stop him from expanding the deferred action for childhood 
arrivals. It would stop other legalization programs that President 
Obama is contemplating. Congress has a role to play in reforming our 
immigration system. He should not circumvent the process and go against 
the will of the American people.
  Again, our bill is a reasonable alternative to a blank check. We have 
a solution that provides due process for minors who illegally enter our 
country. We are being responsible and showing leadership on this issue, 
and I encourage my fellow colleagues to seriously consider our proposal 
so that we can humanely deal with this crisis.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, as we begin to close out this part of 
the debate, I would just say that the issues I am advocating are deeply 
personal to me and, I believe, deeply personal to all Senators.

[[Page S5204]]

  When I talk about the fact that we have to fund help for wildfires in 
several States and help them be able to help themselves by replenishing 
the money for the Forest Service, I am reminded of the fact that a 
great writer by the name of de Tocqueville came to the United States to 
hear: What is this thing called democracy? He wrote that famous book, 
``Democracy in America.'' In it he called for something that he 
observed. He said what sets America apart is its habits of the heart, 
that it helps neighbor helping neighbor.
  Now, we used to do that through barn raising and pancake suppers. 
But, my gosh, these issues have gotten too big, too horrific. We now 
have thousands of acres burning, homes being destroyed, businesses 
being destroyed. We need to be able to help our neighbors in the West.
  And I say to my colleagues from the West: I appreciate all the 
support you have given us on the East Coast who faced hurricanes. We 
didn't say we practice ZIP Code politics, that we only help one part of 
the country when they are facing a disaster.
  Habits of the heart, de Tocqueville said that is what defines us. We 
now need to help that.
  This issue now in terms of the Israelis and Iron Dome began for me 
right after I was elected to the Congress. When I traveled to Poland I 
went to Auschwitz and saw forever and a day--6 million Jews 
exterminated--why they needed a homeland, forever--a homeland safe and 
secure. Now they are asking for help to replenish their interceptor 
rockets on the eve of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, where people fought 
with sticks and stones and children crawled through sewers to defend 
themselves.
  We are not going to fool around here. We are not going to delay until 
we come back from the 5-week break. Israel is the homeland for the 
Jews. We need to help them defend themselves.

  My journey in Central America began as a brand new Member of 
Congress, with four Maryknoll nuns and a woman named Jean Donovan, who 
were raped and killed by the death squads in El Salvador. I watched a 
gallant, brilliant, charismatic bishop named Oscar Romero killed, 
gunned down in his own cathedral. Then we finally got around to looking 
at Central America and what was going on. We were worried more about 
communism than the rise of violence. For 30 years we have been up and 
down in Central America. We have inherited the winds. Our way of 
ignoring these three countries is by turning a blind eye, by always 
looking elsewhere in the world. If we have $4 billion to arm the Afghan 
security forces, I think we ought to back our Border Patrol, back our 
FBI, back our law enforcement to go after organized crime in Central 
America, because if we don't, it will be an additional threat and it 
will not only be the children--and now we have 60,000 children crossing 
the border.
  I understand Texas and Arizona, the border States, are facing these 
problems. We do want to work together. But could we in the final 
minutes of this Congress get ourselves together enough to meet the 
urgent supplemental request to do this? This is what America is. This 
is who we are, helping our neighbors in the West, helping the country 
fighting for its survival, and also helping our own country dealing 
with the crisis in Central America facing our border.
  I think it is time we pass this legislation, move forward, and come 
back and deal with the crisis there and also at the same time take a 
good look at immigration reform and do it in the way I think we can do 
it.
  How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). The Senator has 10 seconds 
remaining.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. With that I urge the adoption of this bill and hope we 
could move forward as a united bipartisan Congress.
  I yield the floor. I yield what time I would have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is a $2 billion bill, all the money 
borrowed as a result of a crisis the President has created at the 
border, money this country does not have, and there are zero policy 
changes in it.
  Republicans on the floor today have filed and argued for a number of 
amendments and attempted to offer those that are focused on critical 
policy changes to strengthen this legislation and make it more 
effective.
  Unfortunately, the parliamentary maneuvering has been executed, the 
amendment tree is filled, and we have been prevented from offering any 
amendments at all that are necessary to establish a lawful system of 
immigration that works and that we can be proud of.
  So I move to table the Reid amendment on the tree, 3751, for the 
purpose of offering the Cruz amendment. That amendment would prohibit 
the President of the United States from expending any funds to 
unilaterally provide amnesty and work authorizations for millions of 
people as has been reported in the press. The Cruz amendment is No. 
3720.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from the Senator from Iowa 
(Mr. Harkin), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Mississippi 
(Mr. Cochran), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 251 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--52

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Alexander
     Cochran
     Harkin
     Roberts
     Schatz
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that all remaining votes be 10 
minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the pending measure, S. 2648--a bill 
providing emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2014--
contains a number of provisions in violation of the Budget Act and 
spends in violation of the Budget Act. Specifically, it contains matter 
within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee that was not reported 
or discharged from the Budget Committee. Therefore, I raise a point of 
order against the measure pursuant to section 306 of the Congressional 
Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive all applicable 
sections of that act for purposes of the pending bill, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S5205]]

  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, first of all, the Senate is not in 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 3 minutes in 
support of my motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The bill that is before the Senate contains $3.57 
billion of emergency spending, a reduction of $1 billion, to help fund 
and care for the children who seek refuge and to fight the criminal 
traffickers at the border. We fund fighting wildfires for our States 
and we also help Israel replenish its interceptor rockets.
  What happens if the motion to waive fails? If the Senate fails to 
waive the point of order, the bill will go back to the Appropriations 
Committee, but the urgent need will remain. If the Senate fails to 
waive the point of order, agencies will take from other programs to 
fund this compelling need. What does that mean?
  It means that HHS, which has already cut $138 million from the 
National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and 
others--we could have an ebola crisis in the world, and maybe even come 
to our border, and we are fooling around cutting HHS and CDC and other 
agencies. Please, let's look at what we are doing.
  Homeland Security is also spending resources that would otherwise be 
used to secure the border, such as FEMA disaster relief money has to be 
there if we have a hurricane.
  Simply put, failing to act is irresponsible. Let's waive the Budget 
Act, let's get on with the bill, and let's do our job.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I respect the remarks of the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, but I would note that every penny of this 
bill is borrowed. None of it is funded through any offsets or other 
sources of income. This country has to be more careful. The bill needs 
to go through the Budget Committee. It did not get approved properly 
there. I would note, again, it is all borrowed. It does not make any 
policy changes. I think we all should stand firm to reject this bill, 
and to sustain the point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive.
  The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Hagan), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), and the Senator from Hawaii 
(Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Mississippi 
(Mr. Cochran), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 252 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Levin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Alexander
     Cochran
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Roberts
     Schatz
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 50, the nays are 44. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected and the point of order is 
sustained.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is regretful that the Republicans have 
blocked the Senate from addressing urgent needs.
  Senator Mikulski has worked very hard on this urgent supplemental. It 
is very regrettable that we are not able to move forward on it. I would 
like to address at least two of what I believe are urgent needs. I 
understand that Republican Senators are unwilling to fund a proposed 
response to the crisis we have at the border. But certainly could we 
not agree that we have situation in the western part of the United 
States that is very difficult.
  We responded when we had problems in the South with the hurricanes, 
in the East with the hurricanes. We have a problem in the West. We have 
fires that are raging all over the West. We have a fire in Washington 
that has been burning for weeks. Hundreds of homes have been burned. In 
Oregon, we have 400,000 acres that are burning. California has a couple 
of big fires. Nevada has a fire. A fire started, I understand, in Idaho 
a day or two ago. Thousands and thousands of firefighters are there. 
With temperatures rising, we have a drought all over the western part 
of the United States. Fires have gotten more and more difficult to 
fight and more expensive. They have been easier and easier to start.
  We are in dire need of additional funds. That is why this is part of 
the emergency supplemental. This is an emergency. The West is burning. 
The funds we seek would ensure that we protect life and property in the 
West without draining funds from other programs that help us stop this 
destructive wildfire cycle.
  Another urgent need. We have all watched as the tiny state of Israel, 
our friend who is with us on everything, they have had in the last 3 
weeks 3,000 rockets fired into their country--3,000. Iron Dome, as I 
have spoken here on the floor, has done a good job, but it does not 
cover Israel. They are mobile units. They move them around as well as 
they can. They depend on Iron Dome. The system works 90 percent of the 
time, not all of the time.
  Last week Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel asked for $225 million in 
emergency funding so that Israel's arsenal as it relates to the Iron 
Dome could be replenished. It is clear this is an emergency. We should 
be able to agree on that. That is why I make the following unanimous 
consent request.
  First of all, so everyone understands, I am going to make a request 
that we have emergency funding for the wildfires in the West and the 
money I have talked about for Israel and Iron Dome.


                Unanimous Consent Requests--H.J. Res. 76

  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 220, 
H.J. Res. 76; that a Mikulski substitute amendment at the desk 
providing emergency appropriations for the Iron Dome defense system in 
Israel and combating wildfires in the Western States be agreed to; that 
the joint resolution, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and 
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with 
no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the 
President has called the crisis at the border a humanitarian crisis. If 
that is not an emergency, I do not know what is. But as a result of the 
majority leader's refusal to allow us to offer any constructive 
suggestions to reform the law to

[[Page S5206]]

stop this flow of humanity across our borders and actually solve the 
problem, the supplemental has now fallen to a budget point of order.
  Likewise, this unanimous consent request to fund Iron Dome and 
wildfires exceeds the budget caps and the Budget Control Act. It is 
subject to a budget point of offer. Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am frankly not surprised that this 
objection has been made. It is too bad. I ask unanimous consent that 
the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 220, H.J. 
Res. 76; that a Mikulski substitute amendment at the desk providing 
emergency appropriations for combating wildfires in the Western States 
be agreed to; that the joint resolution, as amended, be read a third 
time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid on the table with no intervening action or debate.
  This relates just to the wildfires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I agree, 
like the crisis at the border, the wildfires in the Western States 
represent a genuine emergency and something we should address. But 
inasmuch as this consent asks for money that would break the budget 
caps and the Budget Control Act, it is subject to a budget point of 
order. I must object.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is an emergency. There are no budget 
caps involved with an emergency. Everyone knows that. I am shocked that 
anyone in this Chamber would stop us from getting these critical funds 
to fight these fires that I have outlined on a very preliminary basis, 
and, of course, to help defend Israel.
  By requesting this amendment, I am disappointed that it has been 
rejected. I have one more and then we can go on to something else.
  I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 220, that 
a Reid-McConnell-Mikulski substitute amendment at the desk providing 
emergency funding for the Iron Dome defense system in Israel be agreed 
to; that the joint resolution, as amended, be read a third time and 
passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the 
table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, would the 
Senator from Nevada, the majority leader, consider an amendment that 
would modify his request that would provide an offset for this bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority leader agree to modify his 
request?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is an 
emergency. Our No. 1 ally, at least in my mind, is under attack. If 
this is not an emergency, I do not know anything that is. So I refuse 
to modify my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. COBURN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator's amendment would cut the United 
States assessed contribution to NATO and the World Health Organization. 
Now as we speak, they are fighting to control an Ebola outbreak in 
Central Africa. Peace Corps volunteers have been called home from three 
different countries.
  The amendment of the Senator, my friend from Oklahoma, would cut the 
International Civil Aviation Organization, which is now investigating 
what took place in Ukraine, killing 298 people. So even if you do not 
like the U.N., the Senator's amendment would cut UNICEF funds to help 
the world's poorest children. The Senator's amendment would cut the 
U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.
  Now, that says it all. I have no more to say.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would note--everybody should know that 
the U.N. gets well over $7 billion of money every year from this 
Congress, the American people, with absolutely no accountability. There 
is no transparency on how it is spent. There is no accountability. They 
are not held accountable for how it is spent. The oversight that we 
have done over the past 6 or 7 years shows that the waste associated 
with the money that is sent to the U.N. is at least 30 percent--at 
least 30 percent when you do the actual oversight of it.
  So we can talk about specifics. We can take a small portion from 
everywhere. I do not care. Or I will offer another pay-for. But the 
fact is, we do not get any accountability of the money this country 
sends to the U.N. today. Go see if you can find it. You cannot. You 
will not be able to find it. I want to fund Israel. I want to supply 
them. I also want to make sure our children have a future. It is not 
hard to find $225 million out of $4 trillion.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, under the previous order, I call for the 
Senate to proceed to the veterans conference report.

                          ____________________