Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to thank both leaders for their efforts in bringing about this much-needed--not only the funding but the signal that the Congress will send and the President will sign that we are supporting them.

We all know the latest news is, tragically, that a proposed cease- fire has broken down. Apparently an Israeli soldier has been captured. And all of us know the ramifications of that in the future, the value the Israeli Government and people rightfully put on each one of their citizens who serve.

I thank again our majority leader and the Republican leader for coming together on this most important signal. This isn't just about money. It is a signal from the American people and the American taxpayers that we are with the Israelis, because if they do not have Iron Dome, they can't defend themselves. It is that simple. The Iron Dome is the ability to keep innocent civilians and neighborhoods and families from being destroyed by these barrages of literally thousands of incoming rockets.

Again, I thank my friend. There has been no one more relentless in this effort than the Senator from South Carolina. I yield for him.

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

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.

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.

What is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. President, I will speak very briefly. Mainly, I come here on the floor to thank the Senator from Vermont and my good friend from North Carolina on the hard work they and members of the Veterans Affairs' Committee have done on this issue. I greatly respect my dear friend from Oklahoma and his concern. But I would have to say to my colleagues: If there was ever a definition of an emergency, that emergency faces us today because our veterans are not receiving the care we owe them as a nation.

There are veterans who are dying as we speak for lack of care. There is gross mismanagement. There are problems that will take our new Secretary of Veterans Affairs literally years to

fix. I am proud that in this legislation there is choice, and there is the ability of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to fire people who are not doing their job.

Those are the important aspects, most important to me, because I think we can change the Veterans Administration. But the present situation cries out for immediate action. Obviously there were parts of this legislation that I did not agree with. Obviously there were parts that the Senator from Vermont did not agree with. But the hard work put together by the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from Vermont--I am very proud to say we bring before you a way to put a final stamp on beginning to end. This is not the beginning of the end. This is the beginning of the beginning of our effort to help those men and women who have defended our Nation with honor and dignity. We owe them that.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the waiver of the Budget Act and to vote in favor of this legislation.

I would say in response to my dear friend from Oklahoma, I agree with every single thing that he has said. But we must embark on fixing this problem. The choice and the ability to give the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the authority to hire and fire people is important to me that I believe they deserve our support.

I would also ask my friend from Oklahoma, can we leave here for 5 weeks and not address this issue? There are 50 veterans in my State that have probably died--at least allegations are such. Can we leave here and not act?

If I had written this bill with only you and me, I would say to my friend from Oklahoma, it would probably be $10 billion less and all of it paid for. But we had to negotiate, not only with the other side of the aisle but with the other side of the Capitol.

So this is not perfect legislation. But for us not to pass it at this time would send a message to the men and women who have served this country that we have abandoned them. We can't do that.

Mr. President, what we are talking about, really, is rather than get in a car or van and drive for 40 miles and hours and have that all reimbursed and paid for, a person will go to the local care provider. Common sense shows that costs one heck of a lot less, I would say to my colleague.

Madam President, today I honor a superb leader, intrepid warrior, and outstanding role model. Fifty years ago on August 4, then- LTJG Everett ``Ev'' Alvarez, was shot down in his A-4 Skyhawk during a bombing mission in the Gulf of Tonkin. Everett was the first U.S. pilot shot down over North Vietnam and served 8\1/2\ years--the second- longest tenure of any U.S. prisoner of war. Over the years, hundreds of other American prisoners joined him in Hoa Lo prison and similar detention centers around the country. Despite starvation and other significant health challenges, Everett had the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual strength to endure the harshest conditions imaginable until his release on February 12, 1973.

Mr. Alvarez went on to complete a 20-year career in the Navy, retiring as a Commander in 1980. His service to our Nation, however, did not end there. Upon retirement, Everett earned a law degree and in 1981 was appointed by President Reagan to be the Deputy Director of the Peace Corps. Quickly proving his ability to lead outside of the military, a year later President Reagan nominated him in 1982 to be the Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, serving 6 years. Everett went on to serve on several boards, including the board of regents of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, is a lifetime member on the board of fellows of his alma mater, Santa Clara University, and earlier this year was asked by Secretary Hagel to be a member of the Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Council.

His performance in and out of uniform has been widely recognized, to include the Silver Star, two Legions of Merit, two Bronze Stars, the Distinguished Flying Cross, as well as the Lone Sailor Award, an honor bestowed to sea service veterans for exceptional civilian leadership. Everett has made an indelible impact on his fellow prisoners, service members, and organizations he has been associated with over his lifetime. He is the co-author of two seminal works on the experience of living in captivity--``Chained Eagle'' and ``Code of Conduct.''

Committing a lifetime of service to our Nation, Ev personifies the indomitable American spirit and is a shining example of strength through adversity. In an interview he once famously said, ``Together we stepped into the dungeons and we faced the dragon, and we came out of it.'' On this occasion, I believe it is fitting to recognize Everett Alvarez's 50 years of distinguished service to our Nation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a colloquy with the Senator from Maryland.

I would say first of all to the Senator from Maryland, on behalf of all Naval Academy graduates and all of us who love the Naval Academy, your support of the Naval Academy has been consistent, unswerving. You have been probably the staunchest supporter of the U.S. Naval Academy I have ever had the privilege of encountering. I want to also tell the Senator that the devotion she has extended to the Naval Academy is reciprocated by the Naval Academy and its graduates to her. I thank her for that.

Yes, Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Maryland, a dear and beloved friend, ADM Chuck Larson passed away. I would be honored to join with her in any way that we could to honor his memory. I would just like to point out that the Senator from Maryland was heavily involved when there was a very serious cheating scandal at the Naval Academy. Senator Mikulski led the investigation and demand for correcting that situation, and Admiral Larson was called back from retirement to be the Superintendent of the Naval Academy, on the recommendation of the Senator from Maryland--the only naval officer in history who served as Superintendent twice. And he put the Naval Academy back on the right track.

I would like to say, again, that he mentioned to me often the consistent support for reform, for the institution, and they are incredibly proud of her representation not just of the people of Maryland but specifically of that wonderful institution. I know I speak for Chuck Larson when I say that.

I thank you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. President, quite often--on numerous occasions--I have come to the floor of the Senate to talk about the ongoing tragedy of Syria, not in the belief that any action may be taken of any real impact, although it has always been my hope and prayer, but because my conscience dictates that I come to the floor of the Senate and discuss one of the great and unfortunate and shameful chapters in our history.

Last February I came to the floor to appeal to the conscience of my colleagues and fellow citizens about the mass atrocities that the Assad regime is perpetuating in Syria. I brought with me at that time a series of gruesome images that documented the horrors the Assad regime has committed against political prisoners in its jails across that country. Those images were smuggled out of the country by Caesar-- Caesar--a Syrian military policeman who risked his life and the lives of his family and friends to show the world the real face of human suffering in Syria today.

At the time I had hoped that those images would cry out to our national conscience and compel our great Nation to help end the suffering and genocide of the Syrian people. How could anyone--how could anyone--look at those pictures and not press for immediate accountability and an end to those mass atrocities?

In the months since those images were first made public, United States and European investigators have pored over the images and concluded that not only are these images genuine but they are evidence of an industrial-scale campaign by the Assad regime against its political opponents. According to the State Department, these photographs are evidence of systematic atrocities not seen since Hitler's Nazi regime exterminated millions during World War II.

Stephen Rapp, the State Department's Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, stated that:

This is solid evidence of the kind of machinery of cruel

death that we haven't seen frankly since the Nazis. It's

shocking to me.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, after a briefing to the U.N. Security Council members, stated, ``The gruesome images of corpses bearing marks of starvation, strangulation and beatings and today's chilling briefing indicate that the Assad regime has carried out systematic, widespread and industrial killing.''

Despite the statements from these and other senior officials, the administration has yet to finish its investigation. Perhaps when the administration does complete its forensic analysis of the evidence provided by Caesar, President Obama will decide it is finally time to take action in Syria and prevent the continuation of mass atrocities that according to his Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities is ``a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.''

I have to tell my colleagues I am not hopeful. In the time that the investigation to prove what we all know to be true has been underway, approximately 40,000 more people have died, another 1 million people have been forced from their homes, and over half of Syria's population is now believed to be in dire need of food, water, and medicine.

The Assad regime continues to bomb northern Syria, using crude cluster munitions known as barrel bombs with the sole purpose of terrorizing and killing as many people as possible when indiscriminately dropped from Syrian Government aircraft on schools, factories, and mosques. It continues to raze entire neighborhoods for no military purpose whatsoever, simply as a form of collective punishment of Syrian civilians.

It continues its ``surrender or starve'' famine campaign, starving people to death by denying entire neighborhoods any access to food or water. Just last month the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which has been tasked with destroying Syria's chemical stockpiles, announced there is credible evidence that toxic chemicals are still being used in a systematic manner in Syria.

Indeed, this kind of inhumane cruelty is a pattern of behavior for the Syrian government. As early as August 2011, a damning 22-page report was issued by the United Nations human rights office, which concluded that Syrian Government forces had committed crimes against humanity by carrying out summary executions, torturing prisoners and harming children, the evidence of which we now see clearly in those images.

The report prompted President Obama to issue a statement calling for President Assad to step down. The President declared:

We have consistently said that President Assad must lead a

Democratic transition or get out of the way. He has not led.

For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for

President Assad to step aside.

That was 2 years ago. The President ended this statement by saying, ``It is clear that President Assad believes that he can silence the voices of his people by resorting to the repressive tactics of the past, but he is wrong.''

Following the President's statement, there was no shortage of administration officials publicly professing that President Assad's days were numbered. In December 2012, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a NATO gathering that Assad's fall was ``inevitable.'' She later repeated, ``It is time for Assad to get out of the way.'' That was from our then-Secretary of State.

That same month White House spokesman Jay Carney echoed Clinton's proclamation stating:

Assad's fall is inevitable. As governments make decisions

about where they stand on this issue and what steps need to

be taken with regards to brutality of Assad's regime, it is

important to calculate into your consideration the fact that

he will go.

He went on to say, ``The regime has lost control of the country and he will eventually fall.'' In May 2012, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey told FOX News that ``escalating atrocities would likely trigger a military intervention following a massacre that left more than 100 dead.''

One hundred dead--that was back when we were talking about Syria's dead in hundreds rather than thousands and tens of thousands. One month later, in June 2012, then-Secretary of Defense Panetta stated:

I think it's important when Assad leaves--and he will

leave--to try to preserve stability in that country . . . I'm

sure that deep down Assad knows he's in trouble, and it's

just a matter of time before he has to go. I would say, if

you [Assad] want to be able to protect yourself and your

family, you better get the hell out now.

That was in June of 2012 by our Secretary of Defense.

Where are we now? Three years after President Obama and his administration rightly decided it was time for him to go, President Assad remains in power, and I know of no one who believes Bashar Assad is going to negotiate his departure. In fact, he just orchestrated another ``reelection.'' I remember when an American President said that a foreign leader must go, it conveyed a commitment to doing something about it. But instead of taking decisive action in support of the President's declared policy, the administration has simply moved away from calls for Assad to step down over the past year.

In fact, instead of being forced to step down, Assad has continuously gotten the administration to treat his regime as a central interlocutor, first with the chemical weapons agreement through which Assad forced the United States into acknowledging its legitimacy and ensuring that he would remain in place until the agreement was carried out, then by serving as the sole authority on distribution of aid within the country, and now by presenting himself as critical to the fight against terrorism and the Al Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

So as it turns out, President Obama was right that Assad's violence and repressive tactics could not silence the voices of the Syrian people who even in the worst imaginable conditions have continued to fight for freedom and a Democratic Syria. Instead, it has been the voice of President Obama and other administration officials that President Assad has managed to silence. We cannot be silent, but we cannot allow words to replace action either.

What has become exceedingly clear in the wake of recent events is that even if we can ignore the moral imperative to act, the growing threat to American national security interests means that doing nothing is now out of the question. The conflict in Syria is largely to blame for the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has grown into the even more dangerous and lethal Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, commonly referred to by the acronym ISIS or ISIL.

Top officials testified in last week's Foreign Relations Committee hearing that ISIS represents a threat that is ``worse than Al-Qaeda.''

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran Brett McGurk stated that ISIS is no longer simply a terrorist organization but ``a full blown army seeking to establish a self-governing state through the Tigris and Euphrates Valley in what is now Syria and Iraq.''

The Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General have all warned repeatedly about the threat posed by ISIS's state-like sanctuary in Syria and Iraq and the largest safe haven for global terrorism in the world.

If the September 11 attack should have taught us anything, it is that global terrorists who occupy ungoverned spaces and seek to plot and plan attacks against us can pose a direct threat to our national security. That was Afghanistan on September 10, 2001. That is what these top officials are now warning us that Syria is becoming today.

Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson said, ``Syria is now a matter of homeland security.'' FBI Director James Comey recently warned Congress that the terrorist threat from Syria against the United States is ``metastasizing.'' Their assessments were confirmed earlier this month by Attorney General Eric Holder, who said that recent intelligence reports of terrorists from Syria partnering with Yemeni bombmakers are ``more frightening than anything I think I've seen as attorney general. It's something that gives us really extreme, extreme concern.''

He added:

If they--

Meaning ISIS--

are able to consolidate their gains in that area, Iraq and

Syria, I think it's just a matter of time before they start

looking outward and start looking at the West and at the

United States in particular. So this is something that we

have to get on top of and get on top of now.

It is clear President Assad's strategy is to convince the administration that we only have two options, him or Al Qaeda-linked terrorists. It is a sad testament to the administration's leadership on Syria that Assad's strategy seems to be working. According to a report by the Daily Beast, administration officials are debating whether to abandon the President's goal of toppling Assad and enter into a de facto alliance with the Assad regime to fight ISIS or other Sunni extremists in the region.

Such a decision would represent the height of folly. Nobody--nobody-- should believe Assad is an ally in the fight against terrorism. Former Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, who resigned in May after asserting that he could no longer defend American policy in Syria, made it clear how foolish such thinking is. He said:

The people who think Bashar Assad's regime is the answer to

containing and eventually eliminating the Islamic-based

threat do not understand the historic relationship between

the regime and ISIS. They do not understand the current

relationship between Assad and ISIS and how they are working

on the ground together directly and indirectly inside Syria.

He added,

If this administration wants to contain the Islamic State

on the ground, they are going to have to help the Free Syrian

Army.

After more than 3 years of horror and suffering and devastation and growing threats to our national security, the conflict in Syria continues to get worse and worse, both for Syria and for the world, but the United States has no effective policy to bring this conflict to a responsible end. The outcome of the administration's disengagement has been a consistent failure to support more responsible forces in Syria when that support would have mattered.

The descent of Syria into chaos and growing regional instability, the use of Syria as a training ground for Al Qaeda affiliates and other terrorist organizations, the ceding of regional leadership to our adversaries, and the shameful tolerance of war crimes and crimes against humanity--in short, all of the horrible things the critics said would happen if we got more involved in Syria--have happened because we have not gotten more involved. Now President Obama finds himself in a position where the United States will have to do far more today to stave off disaster in

Syria than we would have needed to do in 2012. The administration seems to have finally come around to the idea that we must arm, train, and equip the moderate opposition in Syria. But arming moderate FSA units is only one element of what must be done for a much broader strategy that includes both Syria and Iraq.

I will be the first to admit there are no good options left, if good options ever existed to begin with. But as bad as our options are, we still have options to do something meaningful in Syria.

The conflict in Syria is reaching a critical point. Government forces are advancing on Aleppo, effectively cutting off routes into and out of the city from the south and west, exercising a stranglehold on the people of Aleppo. More than 6 months of punishing daily air strikes have killed thousands of residents and forced tens of thousands more to flee. But at least 500,000 residents remain in Aleppo, and they are being slowly asphyxiated by Assad's forces as they brace for Aleppo's upcoming siege.

Meanwhile, disillusioned fighters, starved of the resources and equipment they need, have been drifting from the front lines and, in some cases, joining the better funded and equipped extremist groups.

It is a moral outrage to watch the destruction of what remains of Aleppo and refuse to do more to help those fight against our enemies in the region. Worse still, the government's campaign has been aided and abetted by ISIS, which is attacking the Free Syrian Army from the northeast in an attempt to take control of two vital supply lines from Turkey and forcing the moderate opposition to fight simultaneously on two fronts.

Such activists are suggesting that the fall of Aleppo could be the nail in the coffin for the modern opposition, and the situation for civilians still living in Aleppo has become so disastrous that the United States recently authorized the delivery of cross-border humanitarian aid without prior approval from the Assad regime.

These efforts are a bandaid on a bullet wound. It will not be enough to mitigate the dire crisis unfolding in the city, and we must offer quick support to the moderate opposition as they battle the Assad regime and extremists from the Islamic state before it is too late.

The rise of ISIS, combined with the events in Gaza and Ukraine, has placed Assad's assault on Aleppo safely outside of the headlines. With the international community distracted by these disturbing events in other parts of the word, Assad will again manipulate time and terror in his favor.

President Obama, who spent much of his time in recent weeks at fundraising events, said nothing about Syria or Iraq during recent appearances to discuss Gaza and Ukraine.

Worse still, details of the sole initiative proposed by the administration on Syria since the collapse of the Geneva peace talks reveals a plan that would train less than a battalion-sized unit of 2,300 individuals and wouldn't begin until the middle of next year. By that time Aleppo may be lost and there may be no more units left in Syria to support.

The conflict in Syria is a threat to our national interests, but it is more than that. It is an affront to our conscience. Images such as these should not just be a source of heartbreak and sympathy, they should be a call to action. For the sake of our national security we must move quickly to help the moderate opposition now before it is too late. For the sake of our national conscience, we must do more to help the 150,000 political prisoners who remain in Assad's prisons and put an end to the suffering of the Syrian people.

It is with great sadness that I met with Caesar yesterday and had to tell him the truth: that although our great Nation could have done more to stop the suffering of others, that we could have used the power we possess--limited and imperfect as it may be--to prevent massive atrocities and the killing of innocents, it is with everlasting shame that we have not.

Shame on all of us for our current failure. If there ever was a case that should remind us that our interests are indivisible from our values, it is Syria, and we cannot afford to go numb to this human tragedy.

I have seen my fair share of suffering and death in the world, but the images and stories coming out of Syria haunt me most. But it is not too late. The United States is still the most powerful Nation in the world today, and we have the power and capabilities to act when brutal tyrants slaughter their people with impunity. No one should believe that we are without options even now. I pray that we will finally recognize the costs of inaction and take the necessary actions to end Assad's mass atrocities and to help the Syrian people write a better ending to this sad chapter in world affairs.

I note the presence of our distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I urge my colleagues--among many reasons--to support him in his effort to bring the National Defense Authorization Act before this body. Part of that act also authorizes for the training and equipping of the Free Syrian forces.

I thank my friend and colleague the Senator from Michigan and the chairman of our committee, whose unstinting effort has made this National Defense Authorization Act something that deserves the attention, debate, amending, and passage from the Senate.

I thank my colleague from Michigan.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my statement on the National Defense Authorization Act following the remarks of Senator Levin and Senator Inhofe.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues today to urge the majority leader to bring to the floor for debate one of the most important pieces of legislation that comes before this body each year-- the National Defense Authorization Act.

The Senate Armed Services Committee version of the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act provides $514 billion for national defense in Fiscal Year 2015. This includes $496 billion for the Department of Defense, DOD, base budget and $17.7 billion for national security programs.

This bill contains several important provisions. It includes a provision to keep the A-10, a vital close air support combat aircraft. This provision would strictly prohibit the U.S. Air Force from retiring A-10 airplanes for 1 year and fully fund the flight hours, pilot training, fuel, maintenance, and operations for all A-10 pilots and crew through 2015.

Additionally, this bill contains three different provisions that would improve the prospects of competition for military space launch and help move the Pentagon away from using taxpayer dollars to purchase rocket engines from Russia.

Finally, this bill includes a provision that would eliminate wasteful spending in Department of Defense, DOD, IT systems. Before DOD is allowed to spend millions of dollars on new IT projects, the department must identify and eliminate old IT systems first.

These are just a few of the important provisions that have been included in this year's NDAA.

The Senate Armed Services Committee began consideration of the defense authorization bill immediately after the President submitted his fiscal year 2015 budget request. Over the course of 4 months, the committee conducted several hearings, held countless briefings, and then met for 3 solid days in markup to produce this legislation. The bill was approved by the committee on May 22 and is ready to be debated, amended, and passed so that we may conference with the House on their version of the bill.

I strongly urge the majority leader to bring this important bill to the Senate floor for debate. A failure to move to the defense authorization bill as soon as possible is a failure to recognize the critical national security importance signified through the strong bipartisan support this bill has enjoyed in this Chamber over the past five decades.

Mr. President, today I want to pay tribute to an exceptional leader, public servant, patriot, and friend. Earlier this week, ADM Charles Larson passed away after a 2-year battle against leukemia. This morning, we said goodbye to him as he was memorialized and laid to rest at the U.S. Naval Academy Cemetery in Annapolis. Although it is always hard to lose a friend, and it is certainly proper to mourn, I also want to celebrate his life and his tremendous accomplishments and contributions to the Navy, Naval Academy, and Nation.

Chuck and I were good friends, flight school roommates, and both members of the Class of 1958. An Eagle Scout, brigade commander and class president, he continued his meteoric trajectory, becoming the first naval officer selected as a White House Fellow and the second youngest officer to be promoted to the flag rank. On top of his operational commands, he also served as naval aide to President Richard Nixon. Chuck was bright, extremely talented, and never shied away from a challenge. For instance, after earning his pilot wings and doing a tour aboard the USS Shangri-la, he decided to go to nuclear power school to become a submariner and be at the tactical tip of the Cold War. Similarly, instead of pursuing a lucrative civilian job after finishing his tour as the commander in chief, U.S. Pacific Command, he took on what he considered his most challenging but rewarding job of his career, returning to his alma mater for a second tour as the superintendent.

A man of unparalleled character and vision, Admiral Larson wanted to refocus the academy to be ``an ethical beacon for the nation.'' He established the Character Development Division and implemented innovative ethical and character-enhancing programs and initiatives to both the curriculum and student life. His devotion to the academy and midshipmen went beyond his two tenures at the helm, serving as the chairman of the U.S. Naval Academy Foundation for nearly a decade after his retirement.

Chuck was more than a renowned four-star admiral; he was a friend to many, husband to Sally, father to Sigrid, Erica, and Kirsten, and grandfather to seven beautiful children. I join many past and present members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Class of 1958, the Naval Academy family, and thousands of military personnel who have served under and alongside Chuck in extending our most sincere gratitude for his legacy of excellence and ethical leadership.

Fair winds and following seas, Admiral Larson. You will be missed, but not forgotten.

Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate is taking action this week on two extremely important measures for our Nation's veterans. First, Congress is poised to pass the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act. This compromise, bipartisan legislation will, for the first time, provide our Nation's veterans who cannot easily get into a Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, health care facility, the ability that most Americans already have: to choose their own doctor. I am also extremely pleased that the legislation allows senior managers of the VA to be fired if they fail to do their jobs.

The Senate is also set to approve the nomination of Mr. Robert McDonald to head the VA. As important as our legislation is for fixing the VA, we cannot legislate a change in culture. Only the head of an agency can reform a toxic culture that allowed veterans to die on wait lists while senior officials lied in order to collect their bonuses.

I have met with Mr. McDonald and we see eye to eye on the massive problems that need to be fixed and the challenges that lie ahead. I am confident he is the right person with the right experience to lead the VA during this challenging time. He is a veteran himself but also has decades of private sector management experience that will serve him well in implementing the Veterans Choice Card and repairing the culture of the VA to focus on the veteran and restore honesty and accountability to that workforce. I thank him for accepting this challenge to serve the Nation again and look forward to working with him in the days ahead.

Mr. President, could I say that I understand the frustration the chairman of the committee feels, and this has been, for everyone involved, a very frustrating process. I think to some degree the real effort has been diverted on this whole issue of the pay-fors, the cost of this legislation. I fully understand the frustration of the Senator from Vermont, the distinguished chairman of the committee. I would hope we could maybe, all of us, cool down some and maybe go to this meeting at noon, and ahead of time--as far ahead of time as is possible--tell the chairman what their proposal is and also a counterproposal of Senator Sanders' would be fully considered by the conference as well.

It is the proper process to go to a conference. Unfortunately, we only did that once, and that was largely a pro forma kind of activity.

Again, I fully appreciate Senator Sanders, who has worked very hard on this very terrible issue. But I hope all of my colleagues recognize that for us to not come to agreement on legislation which is not that dissimilar, which passed this body 93 to 3, and over on the House side I believe it was unanimous, is a gross disservice to those who deserve our consideration most.

There is no group of citizens in this country who deserve our help in this time of crisis more than our veterans, the men and women who have served. So may I say to my friend from Vermont, who, like me, is very given to calm deliberation of all issues, we are very similar in that respect. I say, with some humor, I hope, that I hope we can go to this conference at noon today and sit down together, and listen to the various proposals.

I believe the fundamentals, as were passed by this body on a 93-to-3 vote, should be a basis for largely the final legislation we reach. The other body's legislation is strikingly similar. It seems to me where we have a difference is how much additional funding to the fundamentals of the legislation we are considering.

I was watching my friend from Vermont on the floor here. I want to say to him, I fully understand his frustration. I hope we will be able to sit down at noon with both Republicans and Democrats, both sides of the aisle, with the overriding priority of not leaving and going out into an August recess without acting on this issue. Veterans are dying. There are allegations that 40 veterans in my State at the Phoenix VA hospital died because they did not receive care. There is not a policy/ academic issue here. This is the very lives of the men and women who are serving.

I guess for the third time I would say to my colleague, and I will yield to him in just a second: I would be more than happy to look at what we have proposed and what has passed through this body, as compared to what the other side of the Capitol is proposing. Perhaps we can come to some agreement and compromise, which is the way we are supposed to pass laws in this body.

I ask unanimous consent to yield to Senator Sanders.

Well, could I say to my friend from Vermont, I believe it is a matter of simple courtesy, that the Senator, as the chairman of a committee, should be asked to come to a meeting with the other major chairmen and ranking members of the committees. I hope that kind of thing does not happen again.

What I would like to see--and I beg my colleagues to sit down and let's work this out. It is a matter of money. It is not a matter of the provisions of the bill. That cannot be the reason for us not to reach some agreement. I intend at noon to attend. I intend to make a strong case that we would be glad to hear any proposal by the chairmen and ranking members on the other side of the Capitol, and that we would have a counterproposal and maybe could start a discussion and dialog which could lead to an agreement.

I would be more than glad to do that, I would say to my friend from Vermont. I would also like to say I hope the participation of a number of people would lead us to some agreement today. Because once we reach an agreement, then, of course, we have to go through the normal votes and all of the things that require some period of time.

I want to say to my friends who are deeply concerned about the costs here of some of these provisions: My argument is that, yes, we should seek ways to pay for as much as we can. I believe we can compromise on some areas of spending. But we cannot allow that alone to prevent us from acting.

I thank my friend from Vermont. I look forward to engaging with him. I think maybe it is important that we show courtesy to all Members who are involved in this, including the chairman of the committee. I thank the Senator.

That is absolutely my conviction, that the reason why we have emergency funding from time to time in times of crisis is for when there is an emergency. I will repeat: I do not know of a greater domestic emergency than the care we owe the men and women who have served this country.

I thank my colleague. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was saddened to learn recently of the passing of Judge Robert C. Broomfield, who served on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona for nearly 30 years, including as chief judge on that court from 1994 to 1999. During his impressive tenure on the Federal bench, Judge Broomfield was known for his outstanding work improving the administration of our Nation's court system. He was instrumental in bringing the Sandra Day O'Connor Courthouse to Phoenix, where a special memorial service will be held today in the Special Proceedings Courtroom named in his honor. Judge Broomfield was an outstanding public servant and a well-respected jurist, and his work will continue to have a lasting impact on our State for years to come. He will be greatly missed by his family, friends, and all those who had the pleasure of working with him.

I thank the Senator from Florida and I thank him for his advocacy for freedom and democracy throughout the world. Frankly, I have been incredibly impressed with his knowledge and depth, including in our own hemisphere, which I think he and I would agree has been very much ignored. There are enormous challenges ahead there as well.

I would ask a couple of questions of my friend from Tennessee and my friend from South Carolina.

Isn't it true that in order to have a true nuclear capability you have to have a warhead and you have to have a delivery system, and the Iranians are proceeding apace forward in acquiring those capabilities? Would anybody believe that if they were truly interested in not going to nuclear weapons, they would not be spending time and effort on that capability?

Doesn't that destroy any credibility they might have about a commitment to not continue the development of nuclear weapons?

I would ask my friend from Tennessee, was he surprised and shocked that there would be an extension of these negotiations? Was he shocked and surprised that the end date is now after the midterm elections that we have in the United States of America?

Was he shocked that even though there has not been ``sufficient progress,'' there was still more relaxation of the sanctions, which then gives the Iranians billions of dollars worth of a boost to their economy? Was he surprised and shocked that this extension took place?

Finally, could I ask the Senator from Florida, we judge nations by their behavior, I believe. In fact, we don't view them in a vacuum. For example, the President of the United States said that if Syria crossed the red line in the use of chemical weapons, we would have to respond, and obviously we didn't.

Meanwhile, 170,000 people have been slaughtered--men, women, and children. So isn't it appropriate for us to not look at the Iranians in a very narrow spectrum but to look at overall behavior going all the way back to the bombing of the barracks in Beirut, the USS Cole, and a plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador here? And maybe the worst, most of all, is the Revolutionary Guard that has gone into Syria and the incredible flow of weapons and training on the part of the Iranians which has turned the tide in favor of Bashar al-Assad.

What about the Iranian missiles, some of which are threatening and raining down on Israel. Shouldn't we understand better? Shouldn't the American people and the world understand better what we are dealing with--a country with leaders who are dedicated to the extinction of everything we stand for and believe in? Therefore, wouldn't that impact our calculations as to their sincerity about a nuclear weapons program?

I would ask again, going full circle with the Senator from South Carolina, wouldn't we actually be helping the administration at the negotiating table to say wait a minute, we have a Congress full of people who have spent a lot of time on this issue, are very skeptical and, one, are going to have to be convinced of this deal?

Wouldn't we actually be strengthening the United States' hand at the bargaining table, in the Senator's view, if it were something of this magnitude that Congress would have to be involved in, as we have been in other major treaties that have been made, some of them much less significant than this agreement?

I thank the Senator from Tennessee. As the Senator from South Carolina noted, the relationship that exists between the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from New Jersey, I believe, has reinvigorated the Foreign Relations Committee in a very incredible way. What has taken place, thanks to that bipartisanship and hard work, has really been some remarkable results.

Frankly, thanks to the Senator's leadership and under the chairman, we have been able to have a significant impact on the conduct of national security in what I would argue is probably the greatest turmoil in my lifetime.

I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his great work.

I thank the Senator from Florida and I thank him for his advocacy for freedom and democracy throughout the world. Frankly, I have been incredibly impressed with his knowledge and depth, including in our own hemisphere, which I think he and I would agree has been very much ignored. There are enormous challenges ahead there as well.

I would ask a couple of questions of my friend from Tennessee and my friend from South Carolina.

Isn't it true that in order to have a true nuclear capability you have to have a warhead and you have to have a delivery system, and the Iranians are proceeding apace forward in acquiring those capabilities? Would anybody believe that if they were truly interested in not going to nuclear weapons, they would not be spending time and effort on that capability?

Doesn't that destroy any credibility they might have about a commitment to not continue the development of nuclear weapons?

I would ask my friend from Tennessee, was he surprised and shocked that there would be an extension of these negotiations? Was he shocked and surprised that the end date is now after the midterm elections that we have in the United States of America?

Was he shocked that even though there has not been ``sufficient progress,'' there was still more relaxation of the sanctions, which then gives the Iranians billions of dollars worth of a boost to their economy? Was he surprised and shocked that this extension took place?

Finally, could I ask the Senator from Florida, we judge nations by their behavior, I believe. In fact, we don't view them in a vacuum. For example, the President of the United States said that if Syria crossed the red line in the use of chemical weapons, we would have to respond, and obviously we didn't.

Meanwhile, 170,000 people have been slaughtered--men, women, and children. So isn't it appropriate for us to not look at the Iranians in a very narrow spectrum but to look at overall behavior going all the way back to the bombing of the barracks in Beirut, the USS Cole, and a plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador here? And maybe the worst, most of all, is the Revolutionary Guard that has gone into Syria and the incredible flow of weapons and training on the part of the Iranians which has turned the tide in favor of Bashar al-Assad.

What about the Iranian missiles, some of which are threatening and raining down on Israel. Shouldn't we understand better? Shouldn't the American people and the world understand better what we are dealing with--a country with leaders who are dedicated to the extinction of everything we stand for and believe in? Therefore, wouldn't that impact our calculations as to their sincerity about a nuclear weapons program?

I would ask again, going full circle with the Senator from South Carolina, wouldn't we actually be helping the administration at the negotiating table to say wait a minute, we have a Congress full of people who have spent a lot of time on this issue, are very skeptical and, one, are going to have to be convinced of this deal?

Wouldn't we actually be strengthening the United States' hand at the bargaining table, in the Senator's view, if it were something of this magnitude that Congress would have to be involved in, as we have been in other major treaties that have been made, some of them much less significant than this agreement?

I thank the Senator from Tennessee. As the Senator from South Carolina noted, the relationship that exists between the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from New Jersey, I believe, has reinvigorated the Foreign Relations Committee in a very incredible way. What has taken place, thanks to that bipartisanship and hard work, has really been some remarkable results.

Frankly, thanks to the Senator's leadership and under the chairman, we have been able to have a significant impact on the conduct of national security in what I would argue is probably the greatest turmoil in my lifetime.

I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his great work.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask unanimous consent the colloquy between the three of us be allowed.

I thank my two colleagues from North Dakota and Wyoming. There are no two Members of the Senate who know more and have worked harder on this energy issue. There are no two Senators who have worked harder to try to bring to the American people the fact that if we could export energy to these countries, it could literally change the world. This is not only when it actually arrives, but when Vladimir Putin gets the message, within 3 years--as I understand the Senator from North Dakota's context--we could be sending energy to the living rooms.

If you would put the numbers back up with the countries and their dependence on Russian energy.

Within 3 years the people within Latvia, Estonia, members of NATO, would no longer be reliant--and it gets very cold up in those Baltic countries as well. It can have a significant effect on the entire world.

I would also point out if that energy--and I would ask my colleagues from Wyoming or North Dakota--could get to the living room of Kiev-- which the Senator showed the different pipelines that cross Ukraine-- that has a huge effect.

I would ask my friend from Wyoming to comment.

We have threatened Russians time after time after they absorbed Crimea in violation of an agreement they made in Budapest to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. They absorbed Crimea. They continue to provoke unrest in Eastern Ukraine.

They have been threatened time after time by the United States and Europe, and I would argue that the handful of sanctions on individuals has had very little effect whatsoever on Russian behavior.

I ask the Senator from Wyoming as well, this is not only about the fact that the United States of America would be an energy exporter-- which is a huge effect on our economy--but this could have a huge effect on the entire European Continent, because if Vladimir Putin understands that this energy is coming from a friend of the ally of the United States America, as opposed to them being dependent on Russian oil and energy, I would argue that it could change the entire shape of the world as we know it.

I thank both of the Senators who have been involved in this issue for many years. I don't know how many times both Senators have come to the floor--and I might just say I don't claim to be an expert on energy as my two colleagues are--but I will say the presentation the Senator from North Dakota just made should be understandable and I believe is understandable to every American citizen how we can, within 3 years as I understand it, achieve a level of energy independence and that for Europe that could literally change the entire equation in Europe and in the United States.

I say to both of my colleagues, the Senator from North Dakota, Americans understand, I believe, that we need to do what we can to help our European friends become independent of Vladimir Putin as a source of energy.

They also are beginning to understand the United States of America is going to be an exporter of energy, which will obviously change our dependence on Middle Eastern energy and on other forms of energy, but the way the Senator from North Dakota described this, I think every American, if they saw it, would ask: Why don't we move in that direction? Why don't we believe the major energy companies that say within 3 years--and beginning, I understand, next year with some of them--we could be supplying these countries with energy which would then give them not only the ability to have energy without dependency, but it also sends a huge message to Vladimir Putin and to Europe that they are no longer dependent on his largesse. There have been times in the past where Vladimir Putin has shut off the energy in the wintertime, and it gets very cold in some of these countries in the wintertime.

It might also send a message to Vladimir Putin himself that he is not going to get away with the kind of behavior that he has.

I would ask the Senator from North Dakota, what does it require-- suppose I am just an average citizen--to capture that natural gas that is being burned for $1 million-plus a day? What does it require to capture that and then get it to that port where it is going to be exported?

I would finally say I intend to go every place I can in America in the next few months and give the same presentation the Senator from North Dakota did and help the American people understand that we don't have to do a lot.

The energy is there. The question is, Do we have the national will and legislative will to take the action necessary to get that energy to the people who need it so badly, who are literally under the threat of freezing cold this coming winter?

Which is roughly how much money?

If I could ask the Senator from North Dakota one additional question, and maybe the Senator from Wyoming would comment on it too. What about the environmental aspects of using natural gas as opposed to other forms of energy, whether it be coal or oil or other forms of energy?

So I would think the EPA would be out there in front arguing for this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent the colloquy between the three of us be allowed.

I thank my two colleagues from North Dakota and Wyoming. There are no two Members of the Senate who know more and have worked harder on this energy issue. There are no two Senators who have worked harder to try to bring to the American people the fact that if we could export energy to these countries, it could literally change the world. This is not only when it actually arrives, but when Vladimir Putin gets the message, within 3 years--as I understand the Senator from North Dakota's context--we could be sending energy to the living rooms.

If you would put the numbers back up with the countries and their dependence on Russian energy.

Within 3 years the people within Latvia, Estonia, members of NATO, would no longer be reliant--and it gets very cold up in those Baltic countries as well. It can have a significant effect on the entire world.

I would also point out if that energy--and I would ask my colleagues from Wyoming or North Dakota--could get to the living room of Kiev-- which the Senator showed the different pipelines that cross Ukraine-- that has a huge effect.

I would ask my friend from Wyoming to comment.

We have threatened Russians time after time after they absorbed Crimea in violation of an agreement they made in Budapest to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. They absorbed Crimea. They continue to provoke unrest in Eastern Ukraine.

They have been threatened time after time by the United States and Europe, and I would argue that the handful of sanctions on individuals has had very little effect whatsoever on Russian behavior.

I ask the Senator from Wyoming as well, this is not only about the fact that the United States of America would be an energy exporter-- which is a huge effect on our economy--but this could have a huge effect on the entire European Continent, because if Vladimir Putin understands that this energy is coming from a friend of the ally of the United States America, as opposed to them being dependent on Russian oil and energy, I would argue that it could change the entire shape of the world as we know it.

I thank both of the Senators who have been involved in this issue for many years. I don't know how many times both Senators have come to the floor--and I might just say I don't claim to be an expert on energy as my two colleagues are--but I will say the presentation the Senator from North Dakota just made should be understandable and I believe is understandable to every American citizen how we can, within 3 years as I understand it, achieve a level of energy independence and that for Europe that could literally change the entire equation in Europe and in the United States.

I say to both of my colleagues, the Senator from North Dakota, Americans understand, I believe, that we need to do what we can to help our European friends become independent of Vladimir Putin as a source of energy.

They also are beginning to understand the United States of America is going to be an exporter of energy, which will obviously change our dependence on Middle Eastern energy and on other forms of energy, but the way the Senator from North Dakota described this, I think every American, if they saw it, would ask: Why don't we move in that direction? Why don't we believe the major energy companies that say within 3 years--and beginning, I understand, next year with some of them--we could be supplying these countries with energy which would then give them not only the ability to have energy without dependency, but it also sends a huge message to Vladimir Putin and to Europe that they are no longer dependent on his largesse. There have been times in the past where Vladimir Putin has shut off the energy in the wintertime, and it gets very cold in some of these countries in the wintertime.

It might also send a message to Vladimir Putin himself that he is not going to get away with the kind of behavior that he has.

I would ask the Senator from North Dakota, what does it require-- suppose I am just an average citizen--to capture that natural gas that is being burned for $1 million-plus a day? What does it require to capture that and then get it to that port where it is going to be exported?

I would finally say I intend to go every place I can in America in the next few months and give the same presentation the Senator from North Dakota did and help the American people understand that we don't have to do a lot.

The energy is there. The question is, Do we have the national will and legislative will to take the action necessary to get that energy to the people who need it so badly, who are literally under the threat of freezing cold this coming winter?

Which is roughly how much money?

If I could ask the Senator from North Dakota one additional question, and maybe the Senator from Wyoming would comment on it too. What about the environmental aspects of using natural gas as opposed to other forms of energy, whether it be coal or oil or other forms of energy?

So I would think the EPA would be out there in front arguing for this legislation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to address the Senate as in morning business and engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Arizona and the two Senators from the State of Texas, Mr. Cornyn and Mr. Cruz.

Madam President, as my colleagues know and the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Arizona both understand, we are facing a crisis on our border. It has been changed now to a ``situation.'' I understand that it is no longer a crisis but a situation, according to the White House.

The Senator from Texas has been to the border. I have been to our border. We have seen this veritable flood of young people who have come to our country under the belief that they will be able to stay.

The real human tragedy here of many, as my colleague from Texas and my friend from Arizona know, is that the trip from Central America to the Texas border, which is the closest place of arrival, is a horrible experience for these young people. Young women are routinely violated. Young men are mistreated. It is a terrible experience for them. Those who are for ``open borders,'' those who think this is somehow acceptable ignore the fact that this is a human rights issue of these young people who are enticed to come to our country under false circumstances and suffer unspeakable indignities and even death along the way.

The President of the United States, who initially stated that they would--and I would quote him--he said that we had to stop this and initially said that we needed to reverse the legislation that has encouraged the people to come here. I quote him:

Kids all over the world have it tough, he said. Even

children in America who live in dangerous neighborhoods. . .

. He told the groups [that he was addressing that] he had to

enforce the law--even if that meant deporting hard cases with

minors involved. Sometimes, there is an inherent injustice in

where you are born, and no president can solve that, Obama

said. But presidents must send the message that you can't

just show up on the border, plead for asylum or refugee

status, and hope to get it.

Then anyone can come in, and it means that, effectively, we

don't have any kind of system, Obama said. We are a Nation

with borders that must be enforced.

Unfortunately, the proposal--and I would ask my friend from Texas-- that has come over for $3.7 billion has nothing to do with dispelling the idea and the belief in the Central American countries that they can come here and if they get to our border they can stay. They cannot stay. They cannot stay. If they believe they are victims of persecution, they should go to our consulate, go to our embassy. But we cannot have this unlimited flow of individuals.

Finally--I will yield for my colleagues--what about people in other parts of the world? Do they not need this kind of relief? Are they not persecuted? What about the Middle East? What about Africa? This is selective morality that is being practiced here, I would say to my friend from Texas.

We want people to come to this country legally. We want them to come if they are persecuted. But we want an orderly fashion. Finally, could I just say and remind my friends that despite what may be said, the fact is--and the numbers indicate it--for young people these terrible coyotes are bringing them for thousands of dollars. The Los Angeles Times reports: In fiscal year 2013, 20,805 unaccompanied children from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras were apprehended by the Border Patrol and only 1,669 were repatriated.

I ask my friend from Texas: What kind of message does that send?

Could I ask the Senator a question? The first thing that needs

to be done is to amend the legislation which basically would then make every country treated the same way contiguous countries would be. That has to be the first step. Again and again, I think it is important to emphasize here that this is a humanitarian issue, but it is a humanitarian issue about these children who are taken--for how many days? Fifteen, twenty days on top of a train they are being taken and exploited by these terrible coyotes.

So should we not have a system where if someone deserves asylum in this country we could beef up our consulates, beef up our embassies, and have them come there and make their argument, and then be able to come to this country, I would argue?

I would say to my colleague, yes. Also, the commander of Southern Command believes there is an increasing inflow of people entering our country illegally who are not from Mexico or from Central America. They are from other countries around the world, and there is a real and imminent threat of people coming to the United States of America not just to get a job with a better life but to commit acts of terror. We are seeing increasing numbers.

I say to my friend from Texas, it is my understanding--tell me if I am correct--that now 82 percent of the people coming across the border illegally are other than Mexican, a majority from Central America but then China, India, Africa--from all over the world they are coming.

I just mentioned, and we all know--and I certainly would like my friend from Arizona to comment on this--we have a proposal that came over from the President of the United States to spend some $3.7 billion. I think all of us are for finding a way to pay for it but agree with measures that need to be taken, such as beefing up our consulate and embassy capabilities, such as increasing the number of refugee visas for citizens of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala by 5,000 each next year, do what is necessary to try to address this from the humanitarian standpoint.

But the President of the United States failed, even though he had stated with the proposal that came over, there is not a request to amend the Trafficking Victims Prevention Act. In other words, we could be in an unending funding for treatment of people who came illegally unless we address the fundamental problem that is driving it.

I would ask my friend from Arizona--and, by the way, could I also point out that legislation he and I were part of and spent hundreds if not thousands of hours on called for 90-percent effective control of the border and 100-percent situational awareness, some $8 billion being spent. It was amended on the floor for an additional 20,000 Border Patrol, that a fundamental element of immigration reform, as we proposed it, was to get 90-percent effective control of the border, and, in addition to that, that we would have that funding come out of fees people would pay as they moved on a path to citizenship, not subject to appropriations.

Absolutely. And I think, as we mentioned earlier, beefing up our embassy and consulate capabilities to hear these cases in the country of origin--particularly Central America--is very important.

I would also point out an article entitled ``Deportation data won't dispel rumors drawing migrant minors to U.S.'' It is a very interesting piece.

Organized crime groups in Central America have exploited

the slow U.S. legal process and the compassion shown to

children in apparent crisis, according to David Leopold, an

immigration attorney in Cleveland.

He said smugglers, who may charge a family up to $12,000 to

deliver a child to the border, often tell them exactly what

to say to American officials.

``The cartels have figured out where the hole is,'' he

said.

As it now stands, the 2008 law guarantees unaccompanied

minors from those countries access to a federal asylum

officer and a chance to tell a U.S. judge that they were

victims of a crime or face abuse or sexual trafficking if

they are sent home. If the claim is deemed credible, judges

may grant a waiver from immediate deportation.

``Word of mouth gets back, and now people are calling and

saying, `This is what I said in court' '', said a senior U.S.

law enforcement official, who was not authorized to speak on

the record. ``Whether it is true or not, the perception is

that they are successfully entering the United States. . . .

That is what is driving up the landings.''

Of course, the numbers are staggering, as we have pointed out.

The President himself spoke in the Rose Garden last week.

Speaking in the Rose Garden last week, Obama said he was

sending a ``clear message'' to parents in Central America not

to send their children north in hopes of being allowed into

America.

``The journey is unbelievably dangerous for these kids,''

Obama said. ``The children who are fortunate enough to

survive it will be taken care of while they go through the

legal process, but in most cases that process will lead to

them being sent back home.''

Unfortunately, his statement is not backed up by the actual numbers. We are talking about one-tenth of these children actually being sent back, as they are being coached by these coyotes who are giving them the story to tell.

I wish to emphasize on the part of all of us on this side of the aisle and every American we represent that we have compassion for these people. We care about a humanitarian crisis. We care about these children. It is not a matter of fortressing America. We are all for legal immigration. We are from every part of the world. We will be portrayed by the open border people, very frankly, as those who want to stop these poor children from being able to come to our country. It is not that. We are trying to stop the human abuses, the terrible things being perpetrated on these children under the false pretenses--they should be false pretenses but now not so false--that they can come to this country and stay.

Well, the other aspect of this that makes things worse: Of course, the President on the one hand agrees with us that they can't stay. I don't know how many times I have quoted him here. But at the same time, as any objective observer would indicate, the proposal that came over for $3.7 billion has nothing that would dispel the incentive and the magnet creating this flood of young people whose trip we have been talking about, I ask my friend from Arizona.

If I could finally add that this proposal that came over for $3.8 billion--and I can only speak for myself, but unless there are provisions in that legislation which would bring an end to this humanitarian crisis, then I cannot support it. I cannot vote for a provision which will then just perpetuate an unacceptable humanitarian crisis that is taking place on our southern border. I don't know if my colleague would agree.

I would say to my colleague, the answer to the second question is obviously no. It is my understanding that if you break this legislation into individual illegal immigrant, it is like $80,000 per individual--a remarkable sum. I will be glad to be corrected for the record if that is not true.

But concerning the Senator's first question, about a month ago, for the first time in Syria, an American citizen blew himself up as a suicide bomber in Syria.

There are now thousands and thousands of Europeans--we believe there are as many as 100 U.S. citizens, although that number varies--who are fighting in Syria on behalf of the most radical terrorist organization: ISIS. These many hundreds of Europeans who are fighting there have-- guess what. As European citizens of these countries in Europe, they have a visa. They can go to a European country, get on a plane tomorrow, and fly to the United States of America because they are a citizen of one of the European countries with which we have a visa-free agreement.

Our Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have all said unequivocally that the events that are transpiring now in the largest, most wealthy, most influential, and largest center for terrorism, between Syria and Iraq, is breeding these people who have said they want to attack the United States of America.

Baghdadi, who is now the leader of ISIS, whom we saw on television apparently preaching at a mosque in Mosul the other day, despite the fact that there is $10 million on his head, when he left our prison camp Bucca in Iraq, he said: See you in New York. And I don't think he was joking.

So this also is clearly a national security issue over time as well, I say to my friend from Texas.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.