[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 155 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6872-S6883]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF SARAH R. SALDANA TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair
report the Saldana nomination, Calendar No. 1084.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Sarah R. Saldana, of
Texas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my colleague from Texas has just stepped
off the floor. He has spoken at some length about his position on this
nomination. With the utmost respect for my colleague from Texas, I wish
to address the same issue.
We disagree on many political issues, but we are truly friends, and
we work together on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I respect him very
much, even though we disagree on this issue. I just wanted to express
my respect for the senior Senator from Texas before I speak about the
nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security.
I am at a loss to explain the position of the Senator from Texas and
the Republican Party of America when it comes to the issue of
immigration. What are we to make of what they tell us when we talk
about immigration? Without fail, they say to us: First and foremost, we
must have enforcement at our borders. Once we have secured our borders
from the inflow of illegal immigrants, then--and only then--can we
discuss fixing our broken immigration system.
How often have we heard that? I have heard it every time the
Republicans address the issue of immigration: First, fix the border,
and then we will talk.
It was about 540 days ago--on the floor of the Senate--when we called
up an immigration reform bill for consideration. That immigration
reform bill was put together--a comprehensive bill--by Democrats and
Republicans. I was one of eight who helped to put that bill together.
We sat down for months and negotiated that bill.
The Republican side of the table had John McCain of Arizona, former
Republican candidate for President; Jeff Flake of Arizona, a border
State Senator with passionate feelings about this issue; Marco Rubio,
one of the two Hispanic Members of the Republican Senate caucus; and
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a man who is an attorney, works in
the Air Force Reserve in the Judge Advocate General's Corps, and is a
conservative by every measure. Those were our four on the Republican
side. On the Democratic side we had Senator Charles Schumer, chairman
of the Senate immigration subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee; Bob
Menendez, of the Presiding Officer's State of New Jersey and a Hispanic
leader; Michael Bennet of Colorado; and myself.
We negotiated not for weeks but for months. We laboriously went
through every aspect of immigration in America, and, to the amazement
of ourselves as well as the public, we reached an agreement, a
compromise. I was not happy with parts of the bill. Some of it I didn't
like at all, and I thought other parts were excellent. That is the
nature of a compromise.
We brought this bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee and opened it
up for amendment. We said to Republicans and Democrats alike: Improve
it if you can. There were scores of amendments that were offered in
that committee.
The bill was favorably reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee
and came to the floor of the Senate, where once again it was amended.
One amendment, offered by Senator Corker of Tennessee and Senator
Hoeven of North Dakota, Republicans, dramatically increased border
enforcement.
We currently spend more on immigration enforcement than on all other
Federal law enforcement efforts combined. We have made a huge
commitment, and the Hoeven-Corker amendment increased it with 700 miles
of fences, more personnel than ever, to the point where they could
literally have an agent every 1,000 feet along the southern border.
Are we serious about border enforcement in our comprehensive bill?
Yes, we are. We adopted the Hoeven-Corker amendment. Although some said
we were overdoing it, we adopted it in the spirit of compromise and
offered it on the floor for passage. On the final vote, we had 68
Senators who voted in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. There
were 14 Republicans who voted for it, along with the Democrats, which
made a majority of 68, and we passed the comprehensive immigration
reform bill.
Sadly, the senior Senator from Texas voted no. He voted no on
comprehensive immigration reform. We did our job. We had a bill
endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO. This bill was
endorsed by faith leaders all across the United States and had the
support of the civil rights community as well as conservatives such as
Grover Norquist. We passed it. It is what the Constitution said we had
to do.
We sent it through the Rotunda and across the Capitol to the House of
Representatives, where it fell into this dark and gloomy pit never to
be seen again. We have waited about 540 days now for the House of
Representatives to at least acknowledge it, maybe even debate it,
perhaps change it or even offer it on the floor of the House of
Representatives, but no, they chose to do nothing. In the view of the
House of Representatives, we have a broken immigration system. Yet they
decided to leave it untouched.
So the President said time and again to Speaker Boehner: When are you
going to accept your responsibility when it comes to fixing this broken
immigration system?
The Speaker kept saying: Give me some time. Give me some time. Give
me some time.
Eighteen months passed, and the President said: I am sorry. I have to
do something. If you are going to do nothing in the House of
Representatives when it comes to immigration, I must do something as
President.
He went into an effort--I know because we spoke--of research to
determine what previous Presidents had done when it came to immigration
by Executive action. He started off somewhat skeptical, and he said as
much publicly, as to the limits of what he could do.
He said: I need to carefully research this, and he did. He found that
some 11 Presidents have engaged in Executive action on immigration, and
so he set out to do the same, to carefully construct Executive action
to deal with our broken immigration system, all the while knowing the
Republicans in the House of Representatives, and many here in the
Senate, were going to do nothing when it came to immigration.
He issued his Executive action a few weeks ago. What did it say? It
said: If you have been in the United States at least 5 years and come
forward and register with this government by giving us your name, your
address, and vital information, we will then submit you to an extensive
criminal background check to determine whether you have done anything
while in the United States or before that makes you ineligible to stay.
If you fail that initial criminal review, you are gone--no questions
asked. But if you pass it and are prepared to register with this
government and pay your fair share of taxes for working in the United
States, you will be given a temporary work permit that must be renewed,
as we review every several years whether you are still eligible to
stay. That is the Executive action that has driven the Republicans to
distraction.
The notion is that this President is going to try to fix a broken
immigration system by at least guaranteeing that those who are here
working legally have no criminal background problems and are paying
their fair share of taxes. They are so distraught over this that they
have come up with a strategy that is incredible.
The Republican Party, which has insisted time and time again that
border enforcement is their highest priority, have--in protest to this
Executive action by the President--decided to do two things. First,
they passed a spending bill in the House of Representatives which
funded all of the Federal Government with a budget for the next year
except for one agency. Which agency would that have been? It turned out
to be the Department of Homeland Security, which is responsible for
border enforcement. The party that is dedicated
[[Page S6873]]
to border enforcement as the starting point for an immigration
discussion starts off by tying the hands of the agency responsible for
border enforcement when it comes to their budget.
Why would you do that? If you truly want the border enforced and you
want people there doing their job, why would you limit their resources?
Why would you make it more difficult for them to operate? But the
Republicans--in protest of the President's decision--insisted on it.
That was the first thing they did, and now we are seeing the second
part of the Republican strategy, which is in protest to the President's
Executive action.
They are prepared to stop the nomination of Sarah Saldana to become
an Assistant Secretary leading U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement. That title describes what she would do, but for the record
she would be responsible for making certain that the people who are
protecting our border are doing their job right and spending their
money well, and it turns out she is eminently qualified to do it.
I will read a quote from Sarah Saldana's confirmation hearing:
Ms. Saldana [is] the first Latina United States Attorney in
Texas history, and only the second woman to hold that
position in the 135-year history of Texas' Northern District.
. . . In her role as U.S. Attorney and prosecutor over the
past decade, Ms. Saldana has served our state with honor--
fighting corrupt public officials, organized crime, sex
traffickers, and other dangerous criminals. Throughout her
career, Ms. Saldana has developed a reputation for her
decisive and fair temperament and her commitment to
excellence.
What is the source of this glowing tribute to Ms. Saldana? It turns
out the source is the Senator who just left the floor, the senior
Senator from Texas who announced today he is voting against her.
After making this statement, he is voting against her. Why? He said
because she would aid and abet this President of the United States in
implementing his Executive action.
Elections have consequences. I noted that President Obama was
reelected by the people of the United States of America and given the
responsibility to lead this great Nation. He has asked for a team to do
that, and whether I agree or disagree with any given policy of this
President, it is clear the American people said: Mr. Obama, lead this
Nation.
He has asked for help to lead this Nation, and it is help long
overdue. Do my colleagues know how long it has been since we filled
this critical spot to protect our border from unlawful immigration?
Over 2 years. July of 2012 was the last time this spot was filled.
There have been objections to those people who have been suggested by
the President over and over again, by the same political party that
insists border enforcement is their highest priority. Yet they will not
fund the agency responsible for it in a systematic, orderly way, and
they refuse to fill the vacancy of the person responsible for
administering this border enforcement.
I am at a loss to explain this. It appears to me their feelings about
this President have reached a point where they are not thinking
clearly. They cannot announce on one hand that first we must have
border enforcement and then fail to fund the agency. They cannot
announce that first we need to make sure we stop the flow of
undocumented immigrants and then refuse to fill the position
responsible for administering that responsibility. Yet that is exactly
what they want to do today.
I hope good sense will prevail. I hope Ms. Saldana is given her
chance to serve this Nation. I am certainly going to support her in
that process. It is time we have a Senate-confirmed head of this
agency, and it is overdue for us as a Senate and a House of
Representatives to address comprehensive immigration reform.
The Republicans who are critical of the President's Executive action
when it comes to immigration, in the words we learned in law school, do
not have clean hands. They have failed to support immigration reform.
They have failed to call on the House of Representatives. They have
failed to fund the agency responsible for border enforcement, and they
want to fail today in even filling the spot to administer it.
Leadership requires that we step forward with the President and do what
is necessary.
I see the minority leader and my colleague from Utah are on the
floor. I will close by saying that President Obama, when he announced
his Executive action, said to his critics on the other side of the
aisle: There is a way to deal with this issue and to stop this
Executive action. Pass a bill.
We have waited over 500 days for the House of Representatives. I hope
we don't have to wait much longer.
I yield the floor.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Honoring Our Armed Forces
Staff Sergeant Daniel T. Lee
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today I rise to honor the life of a
brave soldier in the U.S. Army Special Forces from Kentucky who gave
his life to defend his country. SSG Daniel T. Lee of Fort Wright, KY,
was killed on January 15, 2014, in Afghanistan from wounds received
during combat action in the Parwan Province while searching for
militants wanted for recent attacks on Bagram Air Base. He was 28 years
old.
For his service in uniform, Staff Sergeant Lee received many awards,
medals, and decorations, including the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple
Heart, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the
Army Achievement Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National
Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Iraq
Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, two
Noncommissioned Officers Professional Development Ribbons, the Army
Service Ribbon, two Overseas Service Ribbons, the NATO Medal, the
Combat Infantryman Badge, the Basic Parachutist Badge, and a Special
Forces Tab.
Danny's mother Frances Lee has this to say about her son:
Danny became consumed with being all that he could be; not
only in Special Forces but as a father, husband, brother, and
son. He never lost his sense of humor and was rarely without
a smile. His smile was infectious even in dire times.
A northern Kentucky native, Danny's childhood was filled with
friends, family, and sports. He was a member of the Beechwood diving
team from the age of 5. In the eighth grade, he transferred to
Turkeyfoot Junior High School and began playing football. He also
played basketball, baseball, and softball.
Danny graduated from Dixie Heights High School in 2003 and moved to
Tennessee ``for a fresh start,'' says Danny's mother. He began working
for a Knoxville electrical company but soon moved to Lowe's hardware
chain, where he got a job as a manager in Crossville, TN.
His mother said:
While in Crossville, he enlisted in the U.S. Army, a move
that took all of us by surprise. We packed up the house and
off he went to Fort Benning. He is the only person I have
ever heard say that he loved basic training!
After enlisting in the U.S. Army in October of 2007, Danny completed
basic training at Fort Benning. His first assignment was with the 2nd
Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment at Fort Lewis, WA. While serving in the
1st Cavalry Regiment, Danny deployed to Iraq in support of Operation
Iraqi Freedom in 2009.
Daniel's service in Iraq compelled him to join the elite ranks of
some of our finest fighters in the Armed Forces. Danny's mother said:
Upon his return from Iraq, he became a man with a mission.
That mission was to become a Special Forces Green Beret.
Danny began his Special Forces training in March of 2011 and
ultimately earned his Green Beret when he graduated as a Special Forces
communication sergeant. To earn that Green Beret, Danny attended
Airborne School at Fort Benning and went to Qualification School at
Fort Bragg, NC. For approximately 20 months he completed a series of
rigorous classes covering skills and tactics such as languages,
leadership, navigation, survival, evasion, resistance, and escape.
While in Qualification School, Danny also married his wife Suzanne,
whom he met while stationed at Fort Lewis. Danny graduated from Special
Forces training in May 2013, and he and Suzanne had a child, Daniel
Roderick, in July of that same year.
In August 2013, Danny was assigned to C Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd
Special Forces Group, Airborne, based in Fort Bragg. In September of
that year,
[[Page S6874]]
he was deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring
Freedom.
After Danny's death, the Kentucky General Assembly appropriately
designated a portion of Kentucky Route 1072 in northern Kentucky's Kent
County as the ``Sergeant Daniel Tyler Lee Memorial Highway.''
We are thinking of Danny's loved ones today as I recount his story
for my colleagues in the Senate, including his wife, Suzanne; his son,
Daniel; his parents, Frances and Daniel Patrick Lee; his sister, Jamie
Hahn; and many other beloved family members and friends.
The motto of the U.S. Army Special Forces, of which Daniel T. Lee was
a proud member, is ``de oppresso liber'' or ``to liberate the
oppressed.''
As an elite member of the Nation's Armed Forces, with service in both
Iraq and in Afghanistan, Staff Sergeant Lee certainly fulfilled a
mission to the best of his ability. The Commonwealth of Kentucky and
the U.S. Senate are both grateful for his service and for his
sacrifice.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of
Sarah Saldana to be in charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
As we all know, the President of the United States recently announced
he will take unilateral Executive action on immigration. In so doing,
he has circumvented the democratic process, and he has broken the law
and subverted our constitutional order.
It is incumbent on every Member of this body, no matter what their
politics or what immigration policies they might prefer to enact, to
oppose that usurpation of legislative power and to defend the rule of
law. Fulfilling that duty--the duty to defend the rule of law and our
constitutional order--leads me to oppose Ms. Saldana's nomination to be
the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, as it is
commonly known. Although I respect her and respect her record of public
service, including an admirable and independent streak she demonstrated
as U.S. attorney, I am concerned that she has also demonstrated that
her commitment to the rule of law may falter where the Immigration and
Nationality Act is concerned.
In response to a question raised by several members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, including me, Ms. Saldana said that she agreed
with DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson that immigrants who enter the country
illegally and have now been targeted for the so-called deferred action
program have ``earned the right to be citizens.'' That is bold. This is
an extraordinarily bold assertion on her part.
No doubt Congress could and many people think Congress should ease
the path to citizenship for some aliens, some immigrants who are
currently here unlawfully, but to assert that citizenship--not just the
right to remain here for a time but full-blown citizenship--is a matter
of right and that it has been earned by the very act of breaking our
immigration laws is an unacceptable view for a person who has been
nominated to be the head of our Nation's immigration enforcement
office, but, as I told the Senate last week, this seems to be precisely
the mentality of this administration.
Although President Obama has repeatedly denied clearing a path to
citizenship for those who have crossed our borders illegally, his
denial is false, and he knows it. A 2010 Department of Homeland
Security memorandum explicitly contemplated this very thing. We see
some evidence of this. There was a 2010 memorandum within the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security--one that made it all the way up to
then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano--that explicitly
contemplated using a legal device called parole to enable aliens who
crossed our border unlawfully to become citizens.
Now, the law makes it possible for aliens with U.S. citizen children
who have been paroled into the United States to adjust their
immigration status and become green card holders, but parole is
supposed to be very rare. In other words, there is a way to get here
but not by use of parole.
Federal law--specifically INA S. 212 (d)(5)(a)--forbids the
President, forbids the executive branch of government from paroling
aliens into the country except for under very limited circumstances,
including ``urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public
benefit.'' That is the text of the statute enacted into law by
Congress. But now, despite denying having cleared the path to
citizenship, the administration has begun granting parole to
beneficiaries of deferred action under the very thinnest of pretexts:
The President's policies now allow deferred action recipients to get
advanced parole so long as they have a client meeting or an interview
or some academic research to perform overseas--hardly an urgent
humanitarian crisis. When they get back from their trips, these same
individuals would then be paroled into the country and will eventually
become eligible to adjust their status and get green cards--exactly as
the 2010 DHS memo suggested.
All of this, of course, is illegal. But it is worse than illegal; it
is illegitimate. If Congress decides to make it easier for illegal
immigrants who have children here to obtain citizenship, then so be it,
but that is a decision for the American people through their elected
officials in the legislative branch of the Federal Government to make.
If the President dislikes the law, he, as any other citizen, must ask
this body to change the law--must ask Congress to change that law. He
has no more right than anyone else who lives in this country to ignore
or change the law outside the constitutional process.
But the President and this administration have talked themselves into
doing just that. They can try to rationalize that action--to us and
perhaps themselves--only by donning the mantle of moral indignation. It
isn't just that it would be prudent or merciful to reform our
immigration regime. Instead, the administration's argument is that
those who flout our laws have, by the very act of flouting them and by
the very act of breaking them, earned some kind of moral entitlement to
have the law changed or at least to have the law ignored. If Congress
will not oblige them, they will do it themselves. They will draft a law
called an Executive order that overturns national immigration policy as
established by law and passed by Congress, and they will announce it at
a press conference. There will be no debate; there will be no
amendments; there will be no vote. In short, there will be no
democracy.
We have passed through the looking glass. And to see how far we have
gone inside, observe: Today, the President asks us to install as
custodian of our border a person who evidently believes that crossing
our border illegally earns you the right to vote. The Constitution
gives the Senate the responsibility to give the President advice about
his Executive nominations and ultimately consent.
My advice is this: The President should not proffer a nominee for the
job of executing our immigration laws who affirmatively supports
subverting those very same laws, those same laws she would be called
upon to enforce and implement and execute if, in fact, she were
confirmed to this position. But that is exactly what the President
does. That is exactly what the President has done by submitting this
name to the Senate for confirmation. I cannot and will not give my
consent.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cyprus
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on two
separate and distinct topics. The first is about Cyprus.
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Turkish invasion. We
hoped it would have brought a fair settlement to the Cyprus question;
that would have brought an end to a 40-year-long occupation and
division of the island by Turkey.
There is always cause for optimism and room for faith that the
realization of a reunified Cyprus is in the near future. Global and
regional dynamics
[[Page S6875]]
have made the reunification of Cyprus a priority, driven in part by
Cyprus's newly found energy resources. This is particularly true in
light of Russia's Machiavellian-like power plays in Central Europe that
have placed Cyprus and Israel at the forefront of the discussion of
European energy security.
The natural resources that have been discovered this year in the
eastern Mediterranean offer both Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike a
powerful incentive to reach an agreement. Cyprus can play a pivotal
role in regional energy security. But the dynamics have again changed,
which is why I rise today to express my grave concern over the Republic
of Turkey's incursion into Cyprus's exclusive economic zone.
On October 20, Turkey sent a Russian vessel--the Barbaros--into
Cyprus's exclusive economic zone to stop the Government of Cyprus from
exercising its lawful and sovereign right to explore the natural gas
within the exclusive economic zone. In the days following, Turkey
dispatched warships to support the Barbaros in its illegal activities,
where they remain to this day.
The incident is merely the latest in a long series of violations on
the part of Turkey against Cyprus's sovereign right to explore and
exploit its natural resources within its own exclusive economic zone.
Turkey, of course, also illegally occupies, with 40,000 Turkish troops,
the northern portion of the island and has for 40 years prevented any
meaningful reconciliation efforts.
This map, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
shows the positions of the Turkish ships in red. They are sitting
between the island of Cyprus and its own ships in its own exclusive
economic zone.
There is no doubt in my mind that Turkey's actions have endangered
peace talks between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots that began in
February with a joint communique issued by the two communities. That
communique committed to finding a durable solution based on a bizonal,
bicommunal federation with political equality. But because of Turkey's
bullying practices, peace talks are now on hold. For peace talks to
resume, Turkey must immediately withdraw its ships operating in and
around Cyprus.
The international community has been abundantly clear in supporting
Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades in recognizing Cyprus's right to
explore the resources within its economic zone and in condemning Turkey
for this blatant violation.
On November 13, the European Parliament adopted a resolution strongly
condemning Turkey's ``illegal and provocative actions'' in Cyprus,
stressing that ``the Republic of Cyprus has the full and sovereign
right to explore the natural resources within its exclusive economic
zone.''
Turkey's recent actions in Cyprus are only one instance of its
belligerent and bellicose rhetoric and backsliding on peace and
democracy. In recent weeks, President Erdogan and his Cabinet have used
unusually belligerent and anti-Western rhetoric to attack the West. He
actually said--and I am amazed at the rhetoric:
Americans look like friends but they want us dead--they
like seeing our children die.
He said: They like seeing our children die. This is the President of
Turkey. He also said:
Women are not equal to men. Our religion has defined a
position for women: motherhood.
Erdogan said this at a summit in Istanbul on justice for women.
He went on to say:
Some people can understand this, while others can't. You
cannot explain this to feminists because they don't accept
the concept of motherhood.
He then went on so far as to say that Muslims discovered America, not
Columbus.
He has vowed to make lessons in the Arabic alphabet Ottoman language
compulsory in high schools--a highly symbolic move which enraged
secularists who proclaim he is assuming an increasingly extremist
agenda.
These statements, along with Turkey's illegal actions in Cyprus's
exclusive economic zone, are a dramatic escalation of Turkey shifting
away from democracy and its partners in the West, and in my view
requires an immediate and forceful response.
The Cypriot people need a strong voice on this issue. They need us to
demand President Erdogan to immediately withdraw from Cyprus's
exclusive economic zone so reunification talks can resume.
Cyprus's leaders deserve credit for trying to change the dynamics and
return to talks. They also deserve credit for being an ally and
advocate of America's interests.
Cyprus's active role in supporting counterterrorism efforts, terror
financing, and the removal of chemical weapons from Syria have not gone
unnoticed to this Senator. Cyprus is clearly positioning itself as part
of the Western security architecture and is a resource, advocate, and
an ally for our interests.
These developments have led the White House to play an active role on
behalf of Cyprus, and I was very pleased to see our former colleague
and now Vice President--Vice President Biden--visit in May and to hear
of his commitment to resolving the Cyprus question. I share his support
for the confidence-building measures in Famagusta that would benefit
both sides and accelerate progress toward a final settlement where
Cypriots control their destiny and their territory, and where at the
end of the day any settlement is from the people of Cyprus, by the
people of Cyprus, and for the people of Cyprus, and Cyprus alone.
To that end, I recently sent a letter to President Obama urging his
continued engagement on the issue of reunification of the island and
the restoration of human rights for all its citizens. I also wrote to
Ambassador Power urging her active involvement in the extension of the
island's U.N. peacekeeping operation, and I was pleased when the
extension was formalized at the end of July.
I hope President Erdogan, now that his election is behind him, will
use this opportunity to play a renewed role in finding a fair
settlement. We all appreciate that any progress will depend on a true
commitment by the Turks to the peace process.
As the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I believe the
United States is committed to supporting Cyprus as a friend and ally.
So as we mark the 40th year of a divided Cyprus, let us hope and pray
that a fair and mutually beneficial settlement will be reached very
soon and that, once again, the island will be reunited. Above all, let
the warship and let the other ships that do not belong in Cyprus's
waters be removed and removed now.
Mr. President, at this time, I would like to switch the topic to the
nomination of Sarah Saldana, and I want to reiterate my strong support
for Sarah Saldana, a woman eminently qualified to serve our country and
to lead ICE as our next Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security.
The junior Senator from Texas began this long legislative weekend
engaged in his own political battle, wholly dependent on a strategy of
obstructionism, delay, and some quixotic fixation on preventing the
Senate from exercising its constitutional responsibility to legislate
and ensure that critical leadership positions for our Nation are filed
in a timely manner.
Unfortunately, some of my friends on the other side have joined in
the politics of obstructionism. Now they want to prevent a duly elected
President from filling a position they themselves feel is of paramount
importance. They have railed about the need for strong Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and now, given the chance finally to confirm a
Director of ICE to give them the strong enforcement they have demanded,
they refuse, they obstruct, they delay, and they reverse their
positions from when they voted for her to be a U.S. attorney. They now
use her nomination to score political points with their base because
they disagree with the President's politics--not with the
qualifications of the nominee, but with the President's policies.
Sarah Saldana is qualified, and Senators Cruz, Cornyn, Sessions, and
everyone on the other side of the aisle know it. I think they have said
so themselves. She currently serves as the U.S. Attorney for the
Northern District of Texas. She is the first Latina U.S. Attorney for
the Northern District of Texas and would be the first Latina to head
ICE.
In 2011, she won bipartisan approval to serve as the U.S. Attorney in
the Dallas-based Northern District of Texas. Senators John Cornyn and
Kay Bailey Hutchison at that time of Texas
[[Page S6876]]
backed her for that post. She has been endorsed by the law enforcement
community, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association president and
the Philadelphia Police Department Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey.
She is an effective, qualified, competent, outstanding U.S. attorney.
In fact, the senior Senator from Texas, my friend Senator Cornyn, has
praised her as being ``tough, smart and fiercely independent.'' Now she
is being denied confirmation for that same toughness, intelligence, and
independence. Why? Because--surprise of all surprises--she happens to
agree with the policies of the President who nominated her; just as
Attorney General Herbert Brownell agreed with President Eisenhower in
1956 when he paroled foreign-born orphans into the United States for
adoption; just as Attorney General Edward Levi agreed with President
Gerald Ford in 1976 when he granted extended voluntary departure to
Lebanese citizens; just as Ed Meese agreed with Ronald Reagan in July
of 1987 when he shielded Nicaraguan refugees from deportation, and
later when he shielded Polish nationals from deportation; and in
October 1987 when President Reagan protected from deportation the minor
children of parents legalized in the 1986 immigration law; just as
Attorney General Richard Thornburgh agreed with George Herbert Walker
Bush in November of 1989 when he protected Chinese nationals from
deportation after Tiananmen Square, and in February of 1990 when
President Bush extended President Reagan's family fairness policy to
spouses and unmarried children, all undocumented at the time; and just
as John Ashcroft agreed with President George W. Bush when he expedited
nationalization for green-card holders who enlisted in the military in
2002.
So this isn't a fundamental Republican policy issue backed by history
or by the facts, it is a modern-day extreme conservative issue driven
by politics, despite the facts contrary to their own history. The fact
is they do not agree with the President on just about anything--
certainly not on immigration, as proven by the statements we have heard
on this floor.
I want to be very clear. We cannot judge the qualifications of Sarah
Saldana to run Immigration and Customs Enforcement based solely on the
fact she agrees with the policy decisions of the President who
nominated her. That is an absurd and completely illogical standard. We
judge nominees based on their qualifications, their integrity, their
record, and their willingness to serve the Nation.
The fact is we don't deny confirmation to score political points. We
may disagree on the issues, but we cannot raise the political bar so
high in this Chamber that we no longer are able to carry out our
constitutional mandate of advice and consent. I don't believe that is
what my colleagues will suggest, but that appears to be how they are
judging this nominee and why they have chosen to hold up confirmation
of so many nominees. They have raised the political bar so high as to
deny any ability for this President to fill key positions in government
and in our embassies abroad--all to score political points and diminish
the ability of this President and this institution of government.
Sarah Saldana is more than qualified to head Immigration and Customs
Enforcement. She is more than qualified to oversee the agency my
Republican colleagues fully support, which is responsible for
enforcement of immigration laws, national security, drug smuggling,
human trafficking, cyber security, and child exploitation.
She will direct the agency that tracks down people without
documentation--that is what my Republican friends want. Yet they have
set the political bar so high that they have made it impossible for
them to get what they claim to want most when it comes to immigration
policy--that is immigration enforcement. The illogic of their position
is just mind boggling.
The Senator from Texas comes to this floor for one purpose, and one
purpose only, in my view--to rail against the President, to castigate
him for doing what his own party's iconic Ronald Reagan did when he was
President, George H.W. Bush did when he was President, and what every
President has done to defer deportations when keeping people's lives
and families together were in the balance.
My friend from Texas wants to join his House colleagues and score
political points with the most extreme elements of his party. So be it.
But I wish to remind everyone that this isn't a game. I would say to
the junior Senator from Texas that instead of floor theatrics and
playing politics, it is time to step up and govern. It is time to
confirm Sarah Saldana and put her in charge of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement. Let's do the work we were sent here to do.
I say to my friend from Texas what I have said before on this floor.
There is a simple antidote to Executive action. It is to have our
friends in the House of Representatives pass immigration reform. Pass
it. Call it up for a vote. That is the end of it--not disinformation
and misleading speeches about what the President's action does and does
not do or blocking this nominee.
Let's be clear. The President's Executive action will not grant
anyone legal status or citizenship. It is not a free pass. But it will
clear the way for many to come forth out of the shadows, register with
the government, pass a criminal background check, get a work permit,
pay taxes, and no longer live in fear of having their families ripped
apart.
As a result of the President's actions--which is replicated actions
by 11 Presidents for the last 60 years on 39 different times--more
Border Patrol will be sent to the southern border, more felons will be
deported, more people will pay taxes like the rest of us, and more
families will stay together. Those are all goals and values I think we
would want to espouse.
The fact is, the Senate is being prevented from conducting the
people's business. For some Members that is the goal. For them it is
all or nothing. For them it is an ideological war that can only be won
or lost. For them it is not about governing; it is about winning.
So I would say to my colleagues, there is a very important
difference, and that difference is the basis of millions of Americans
who expect us to work for them. They don't care if we win or lose
political battles. They want us to help them with their battles in
their lives for their families. That is what they want. It is what they
deserve. I ask my friends to help us do the people's business.
Our agencies have waited long enough. They need positions filled by
qualified appointees, and Sarah Saldana is more than qualified. So I
urge my colleagues to confirm this nominee and fill the position that
is responsible for law enforcement activities that keep our country
safe.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Authorization For Use Of Military Force
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I wish to discuss the work that Congress
still must do regarding America's ongoing war against ISIL, and I am
glad to follow my colleague, the chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, who has played such a critical role in initiating
the first major step that Congress has taken. I want to talk about that
step and the steps in which we would continue to engage.
It was my strong hope as of December 2014 that Congress would have
spoken by now with a clear voice regarding ISIL and authorizing the
military action commenced by President Obama on August 8. While that
has not occurred, action taken by the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee last week finally moves the body into the sort of good-faith
legislative process regarding this ongoing military action, and it is
my hope the process will be completed early in 2015.
I first began speaking about this issue in the spring of 2013. I had
grown deeply concerned that the administration, as did the previous
administration, was using the 2001 Al Qaeda authorization and the 2002
Iraq authorization to justify military actions significantly beyond
what Congress had intended when those authorizations passed. So during
an Armed Services hearing in May 2013, I told administration witnesses
that any decision to introduce U.S. forces into Syria would require, in
my view, a new authorization.
I was pleased when President Obama sought congressional approval for
military action in Syria in August 2013, and
[[Page S6877]]
I believe the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote at that time
helped lead to the ultimate destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons
stockpile--one of the largest stockpiles in the world.
There is an important lesson. The President's determination that U.S.
military action is necessary is made more powerful when Congress joins
in that decision.
In June of this year, when it became apparent that the advances of
ISIL in Iraq and Syria posed a threat to humanitarian values, to
regional allies, to U.S. citizens and embassies and to our broader
national interests, I publicly argued and encouraged the administration
to address the threat--but only using military force after consultation
and approval by Congress.
Make no mistake. ISIL is a major threat. But Presidents cannot
constitutionally start military action without Congress unless there is
a direct and imminent threat to the United States.
In this instance, with ISIL's activities occurring halfway across the
globe and with the administration admitting that the organization poses
no imminent threat of attacking the United States, a new congressional
authorization is necessary.
Now, I regret that the administration started military action--what
President Obama called going on offense against ISIL--in August without
congressional approval. The White House asserts that the current action
is justified by the 2001 and 2002 authorizations, but most outside
observers and most Members of Congress believe the current campaign
against ISIL needs its own legal authorization. The White House has not
proposed authorizing language, and so it is up to Congress to do the
job of providing a legal framework for this war.
I introduced a proposed authorization for war against ISIL within
days after President Obama addressed the Nation on television on the
evening of September 10. Since then, I have been working to have the
matter heard--first in the Foreign Relations Committee and then by the
full Senate. I have been greatly assisted in my effort by many
colleagues, none more so than the chairman, Senator Menendez, who has
passionately worked to advance this item in the business of the Senate.
The pace of our efforts has been frustratingly slow. But last week,
after a series of hearings and business meetings, the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee voted on an authorization to authorize the ongoing
military action.
The authorization is a sound product that does a number of things.
First, it authorizes and describes the military campaign against ISIL.
Second, it establishes a 3-year duration of the authorization, with the
ability for reauthorization if the Congress determines it to be in the
national interests. Third, the authorization repeals the 2002 Iraq
authorization and sunsets the 2001 Al Qaeda authorization in 3 years as
a mechanism for forcing Congress to review and revise that Al Qaeda
authorization.
Finally, what we did last week places limitations on the use of U.S.
ground troops in the war on ISIL in accord with President Obama's clear
pledges to the American public and our considered judgment that the
U.S. role should be primarily to assist ground troops from the region
in battling the region's own extremist violence.
After reporting the authorization out of committee, Senator Menendez
filed it as an amendment to the omnibus budget bill with numerous
cosponsors, including me. That was entirely appropriate because the
budget contained funding for the ongoing operation against ISIL. But
the amendment was not allowed, and, thus, in all likelihood, we will
adjourn our 2014 session without taking action beyond the SFRC vote.
But just as the SFRC vote in August 2013 played a significant role
leading to the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile, I
believe the authorization we passed last week will also have a
significant effect. It becomes the first formal action by Congress in
providing a legal framework for the war that, until now, has been
carried out without any clear legal authority. It will be the basis for
our discussions in January as we complete the necessary work of
authorizing this military action.
It is my hope that the authorization passed in Senator Menendez's
committee will be introduced early in 2015, with dozens of cosponsors,
and ultimately enable a full congressional vote on this most important
matter.
I do believe the dialogue in Congress since August--since the
President initiated unilateral military action on August 8--does offer
some important lessons.
First, not surprisingly--and especially as a Virginian I have to say
this--the Framers of our Constitution had it right--Framers such as
Mason, Madison, and Jefferson. We shouldn't go to war without
congressional approval. Unilateral action by the Executive without
congressional support deprives the public of the full debate necessary
to educate everybody about whether military action is in the national
interest.
Just as importantly--maybe more importantly--it is unfair to send
American troops into harm's way without a clear political consensus
supporting the mission. We have already had three Americans who have
lost their lives in Operation Inherent Resolve.
Congressional debate and approval expresses a support for the
mission. But the lack of clear congressional support subjects an
ambivalence about whether military action is a good idea or bad, and
that is not healthy when we are asking people to risk their lives.
Second, when a President decides that military action is needed, the
events of the last few months demonstrate it is best for the President
to propose a draft authorization to Congress. When the President spoke
to the Nation on September 10, he should have sent a draft
authorization of the war against ISIL to Congress immediately. A clear
definition of the proposed mission by the President is the best way to
encourage full congressional debate and build the national consensus in
support of the proposed mission.
Now, if a President does not propose an authorization, that doesn't
give the Article I branch--the legislature--a pass from our
constitutional obligations. We cannot let the lack of Presidential
action slow us down in doing our job. But the process works better if
the President initiates military action with a clear proposed
authorization of Congress.
Third, the administration's reliance on the 2001 and 2002
authorizations in prosecuting this war on ISIL without congressional
action demonstrates the profound need to revisit those authorities,
because using a 13-year-old authorization crafted in different times
for a different circumstance under a different administration for a
different bit of geography with the support of a vastly different
Congress to justify a new war 13 years later is not the way the Nation
should make the great decision about whether to go to war. That is why
the repeal of the 2002 authorization and a significant revision of the
2001 authorization is so important.
Finally, the events of the last months revealed yet again the
weaknesses of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, an act whose
provisions have been ignored by Presidents and Congresses of both
parties since the ink was dry on the original. This fall, as an
example, the President provided Congress notice of the start of
military action as provided by the 1973 act, but then he completely
ignored the 60- and 90-day timeline for ceasing military action and
instead continued military operations in a unilateral way. It is time
to update the 1973 law so it will work, for gosh sake. Senator McCain
and I have introduced a significant revision of the law to improve the
consultation between Congress and the President on matters of war, to
define the magnitude of conflict that should trigger a required
congressional vote, and to set out mandatory timelines for
congressional action.
I am fully aware that a better, more consistent process for
initiating war will not make our security challenges easy ones. The
world is a difficult place. We have bellicose authoritarian regimes--
North Korea and Russia--we have non-State actors such as ISIL or Boko
Haram or the al-Nusra Front or Al Qaeda. It is a complicated security
situation that we have right now, and if we have a better process it
will not make those security challenges easy, but I maintain--and my
belief has grown stronger with every day I have
[[Page S6878]]
been in this body--that the absence of a process for making decisions
about war coupled with the twin pathologies of Executive overreach and
congressional abdication make it harder for us to do the right thing
with clarity and with speed.
The events of the last month show that America can make decisions
about war in a better way, and it is my hope we will address this
important issue promptly as we reconvene in 2015.
Thank you.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tribute to Don Marfisi
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, over the past few years I have had the
great privilege, along with Dr. Tom Coburn, to chair the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Our committee has many
responsibilities, one of those being oversight of the Department of
Homeland Security.
The Department of Homeland Security was created just shy of 12 years
ago--a young organization compared to most other agencies. It was
established in 2003 following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It brought
together under one umbrella 22 different and disparate agencies. Trying
to form one unified agency has not been easy. There have been growing
pains aplenty. Our current Secretary Jeh Johnson, Deputy Secretary Ali
Mayorkas, and their leadership team have made great strides in
addressing challenges, and I am confident their hard work will continue
and pay off.
Behind the leadership team at the Department of Homeland Security are
the more than 200,000 men and women who go to work each day to fulfill
one critical mission, to create a safe, secure, and resilient place
where the American way of life can thrive. Whether these employees are
encountering terrorism, securing our borders and our airports,
responding to natural disasters or bolstering our defenses in cyber
space, few other agencies and employees touch the lives of Americans on
a daily basis more than does the Department of Homeland Security.
As chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee, I have had the great honor and pleasure of meeting with many
of these men and women and learning more about their work, learning
about their families, their frustrations, and their dedication to the
service of our Nation. We have also heard the Department of Homeland
Security leadership from across the Department, including Secretary Jeh
Johnson, sing their praises and describe the mission-critical work they
perform day in and day out in communities across America and around the
world.
A young man named Don Marfisi of Kansas City, MO, is one of those
employees. I wish to take a few minutes to talk about him and to
acknowledge his service. Don grew up in Omaha, NE. He is the son of a
civil servant and homemaker. His father worked for the city of Omaha,
his brother worked for the Department of Justice, and his son currently
works for the Metropolitan Community College in Kansas City, MO.
Clearly, public service is a deep tradition in his family--and from
what I hear, it is something Don takes to heart.
Don began his Federal service more than 24 years ago as a supply
clerk with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency in
Lincoln, NE. Four years later, in August of 1998, he joined the
Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Department of Justice.
After a little over 1 year there, he was transferred to Citizenship and
Immigration Services in the new Department of Homeland Security. Within
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Don works at the National Records
Center where he is responsible for logistics, procurement, and property
management. We can still find him there today. In fact, his colleagues
consider him a ``cave pillar,'' having worked at the Center since
opening day.
What does the National Records Center do exactly? According to the
Department, it is the keystone to the recordkeeping of the agency for
which he serves. We call it USCIS--housing millions of paper records
that have been centralized into a single state-of-the-art facility. The
Center where Don works improves the integrity of USCIS's recordkeeping
and dramatically reduces the time it takes to retrieve a file or
paperwork, meaning faster application processing for an agency charged
with overseeing our immigration system.
Don's current job title, mission support specialist, doesn't do his
work justice. Colleagues say Don is not just a support specialist but
an integral part of the National Records Center's mission support team
and plays an important role in nearly all the logistics-related
projects executed at the center. In this position, he develops and
administers best practices for Federal procurement and property
management. While he avoids the spotlight, he is highly valued and
sought out for his expertise in the asset management field.
Don's colleagues told me, ``Through his painstaking attention to
detail and timely responsiveness . . . he has provided a superior level
of customer service to local employees and other stakeholders.''
Don's attention to detail ensures that folks within Citizenship and
Immigration Services have the tools and resources they need to get
their job done. Don's critical eye and expertise in procurement is also
credited for saving the government and the taxpayers over $500,000 in
fiscal year 2013 and over $800,000 to date in fiscal year 2014. Let me
repeat that: Don has saved the American taxpayers in the last 2 fiscal
years $1.3 million.
His service and stewardship don't end there. At the same time he is
saving the Department and taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars,
he is also finding a way to give back. Along with the money he has been
able to trim off the Federal deficit, he has managed to arrange the
contributions of nearly $800,000 in equipment to local schools through
the GSA Property Disposal Program. Through this program he ensures that
unused or older government equipment goes directly to local schools.
Because of his efforts, computers and other equipment that would
otherwise be trashed are recycled and used to boost education and raise
student achievement in schools across the country.
As one can imagine, educators, communities, and the students
themselves who receive the equipment have been overjoyed with the
generous donations. But don't take my word for it. In 2012 the Miami R-
1 School District, in Amoret, MO, a small K-12 school located on the
Missouri border in the middle of cornfields and cow pastures, received
$45,000 worth of recycled technology equipment.
Sharon Knuth, the school's technology administrator, wrote to Don
saying that her district was ``blessed by the GSA Property Disposal
program.'' She added:
We are limited in our funds and budgets so we do not always
have the chance to purchase the latest technology equipment.
Because of your generosity, we will put the computers,
monitors, speakers and plugs to good use. . . . We will grow
and prosper only because we found some great friends like you
who gave us support along the way.
Another school in Chadwick, MO, thanked Don for the ``blessing''--
that is their term--of this new technology they received through his
efforts. But there is more. Don was also a member of the Office of
Equal Opportunity and Inclusion's Minority Serving Institutions Program
team which facilitated more than $1 million in computer equipment
donations in the past fiscal year 2014.
Don has been recognized for his extraordinary accomplishments in
years past. In 2013, for example, he was recognized as USCIS Employee
of the Year and as one of the National Record Center's Employees of the
Quarter. Yet despite these great accomplishments and high praise from
his colleagues and from people all over the country, Don insisted that
every award he has received is a team award. When he learned he was
gathering such high praise for his work, his response was:
Being recognized for your efforts is appreciated, however,
I'm the fortunate one, I get to reuse items and give--two
things I enjoy doing.
Like a true leader, this man is humble.
[[Page S6879]]
Don remembers something that I learned from Department Secretary Jeh
Johnson during his confirmation. I learned that one of Secretary
Johnson's guiding principles is a lesson from Dr. Benjamin--known as
Bennie--Mays, former president of Morehouse College, who said: ``You
earn a living by what you get; you earn a life by what you give.''
Think about that for a second, and then think about this man right
here and all the giving he has done throughout his career and his
service to our country. I just have to say to Jeh Johnson, the
Secretary of the Department, that you have a remarkable employee. You
are blessed with a lot of remarkable employees, and Don is certainly at
the top of the list.
Don's service doesn't end at the Department. He has a couple of other
critical roles. He is a husband and a dad. He and his wife Pam have
been married for 30 years. He has a son, Josiah, and daughter Anna.
When he is able to find some well-deserved downtime, he enjoys watching
a Big Ten team, the Nebraska Cornhuskers, with his family.
I have to say that as a proud Ohio State graduate, we enjoyed playing
you guys this year and look forward to next year--maybe you guys will
get some revenge next year.
To Pam, Josiah, and Anna, thank you for sharing your husband and dad
with us. He has done extraordinary work for our country and for a lot
of communities. We are proud of him, and I bet that you are as well.
Finally, I say to Don Marfisi--on behalf of my colleagues, Democrats,
Republicans, and a couple of Independents as well, and the folks who
work here in the Capitol, even the pages who are sitting at the bottom
of the Presiding Officer's desk--we all thank you for what you do for
us every day, for your service, and for your immeasurable generosity to
our great Nation.
I also wish to thank Alejandro Mayorkas. Ale is the Deputy Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security. We were meeting with a number
of employees at the Department of Homeland Security. They were
discussing how to raise morale, although that is not their day job; it
is an additional responsibility they have undertaken. The folks at the
Department of Homeland Security--for the 12 years it has been in
existence--has suffered from low morale, and sadly, still does. I think
that is starting to change.
I am an old Navy guy, and I like to say that things that are hard to
do are like changing the course of an aircraft carrier. I think the
aircraft carrier is starting to turn at Homeland Security.
One of the keys for an organization to do well is to have great
leadership. As the Presiding Officer knows, at the beginning of this
year, there were gaping holes in the top ranks of the Department of
Homeland Security. One of the things Dr. Coburn, the committee, and I
did--when the administration would nominate a candidate with good
leadership skills--was to bring those nominations to the Senate and
debate them and vote them up or down. We have made great progress this
year, and I am grateful to Senator Heitkamp for being so supportive and
a big part of that process.
We have a vote this afternoon on another critical nomination. Sarah
Saldana is a U.S. prosecuting attorney. She leads our operation in the
northern part of Texas and oversees 100 counties in her great State.
She tries to make sure the Federal laws are enforced across her
counties.
She has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary at the Office of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also called ICE. It is a huge job
with tens of thousands of employees who work all across America.
I hope when we debate her nomination--she has been supported very
graciously by John Cornyn, the senior Senator from Texas, who
introduced us to her at our committee hearing--our colleagues will join
together in supporting her nomination.
We have this photograph here, and I said earlier this is Don Marfisi
in the middle, also known as Pam's husband.
I will be coming to the floor about once a month to talk about this
department, which doesn't get the kind of credit it deserves, and the
people who work there don't get the credit they deserve. We are trying
to make sure that changes, and part of changing the course of the
aircraft carrier is to say thanks to the good people at the Department.
Don is one of many employees who deserves our thanks.
In this photograph to my right, this handsome young man is Ethan
Cole. Ethan is the supervisor for the work that Don and these folks do.
We have here Terry Sloan. She is the Deputy Director of the National
Records Center, and we are proud of her and her services. Standing next
to Terry is another TC--we have Tom Coburn, Tom Carper, and Tom Cioppa.
I think when this picture was taken, Tom was the Director of the
National Records Center, and now he is the District Director of the
Chicago District.
Not long ago Ale Mayorkas and a number of Homeland Security employees
were paying us a visit. The reason I mentioned Ale is because of a
story he told us about a visit someone made to NASA headquarters. I
can't recall if it was during the evening or weekend, but it was during
off hours. As they were going through one of the big buildings at NASA,
the visitor came across a guy who was a custodian. The visitor said to
the custodian: What do you do here? The janitor looked him right in the
eye and said: I am helping to put a man on the moon.
The people at Homeland Security, including Don, are helping to ensure
that our country is safe and secure. We are in their debt.
With that, I am looking to see if there is anyone else trying to
speak. I understand the Senator from South Dakota may be emerging from
the Republican cloakroom and looking for a moment to shine. If he
doesn't get out here fast, I will just note the absence of a quorum and
will let him call it off when he gets here.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
New Era in the Senate
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the American people made one thing clear
in November, and it was this. They are ready for change in Washington.
The Senate Republicans are too. In fact, I think even some Senate
Democrats are ready for a change in Washington.
When the Republicans take the majority in January, things will look
very different here in the Senate. The start of our majority will mark
an end to the dysfunction that has characterized the Senate under the
Democrat's leadership. Under Republican leadership, the Senate will
return to regular order.
We will once again empower the committee chairmen to start the
legislative process. Bills will be drafted in committee with input from
Members of both parties before the bills are fully debated on the
Senate floor, and Members of both parties will be able to offer
amendments, which is in strong contrast to the Democratic Senate, where
the minority party has been almost entirely prevented from getting
amendment votes.
History shows us that the Senate functions best when all Members are
allowed to have amendments and votes. In the early years of the Reagan
administration, President Reagan aggressively pursued tax cuts that
faced opposition from Republicans as well as Democrats. However, after
2 weeks of debate and consideration of 141 amendments, the Senate
passed the bill by an overwhelming vote of 89 to 11.
In President Reagan's second term, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 saw 3
weeks of debate on the Senate floor. After the consideration of 109
amendments and 24 rollcall votes, the bill received 97 votes in the
Senate.
These are just a couple of examples of a Senate functioning as our
Founders intended. An open amendment process softens division among
Members and builds bipartisan support for major legislation. The result
is reforms which are not only historic but longstanding.
In addition to returning to regular order, the Senate will also focus
on its oversight responsibilities. Our job is not just to pass
legislation. We also have a responsibility to take a look at all
government programs and existing legislation to make sure the
government is doing its job in the most efficient and effective way
possible.
[[Page S6880]]
Whether it is the IRS targeting conservative groups or a Department
of Veterans Affairs that is failing our veterans, Senate Republicans
will conduct aggressive oversight to hold unelected bureaucrats and
executive branch political appointees accountable for their actions.
Finally, and most importantly, Republicans are going to change the
Senate's priorities. No longer will the Senate's time be tied up with
partisan legislation designed to please the Democrats' far left
constituencies. Instead, Americans' priorities will be our priorities--
jobs, the economy, and the middle class.
As even the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate admitted recently,
Democrats have not done too well at focusing on the people's
priorities.
The senior Senator from New York said:
Unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American
people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our
focus on the wrong problem--health-care reform.
Republicans do not intend to blow the opportunity the American people
have given us. We will get right to work on legislation to create jobs,
grow the economy, and expand opportunities for hard-working Americans.
We will take up the dozens of jobs bills that have passed the House but
have been collecting dust on the Democratic leader's desk here in the
Senate.
We will take up legislation to improve the Keystone XL Pipeline and
the more than 42,000 jobs that it would support. We will work with the
President to reauthorize trade promotion authority to open new markets
to American farmers and manufacturers and make sure that American goods
are competing on an equal playing field internationally.
We will take up legislation to improve flexibility for working
families so Americans can meet their responsibilities at work while
still having the time they need for their families at home. And, of
course, we will take up legislation to address ObamaCare.
The President's health care law is not only making our health care
system worse, it is also hurting our already sluggish economy. Senate
Republicans want to repeal and replace this law with real health care
reforms--reforms that will actually lower costs and improve America's
access to care.
In the meantime, however, we will chisel away at the law's most
damaging provisions--provisions like the medical device tax, which has
eliminated thousands of workers' jobs in this industry and is driving
up the price of lifesaving devices such as pacemakers and insulin
pumps, and the 30-hour workweek, which is forcing employers to cut
workers' hours and wages in order to afford ObamaCare-mandated health
care costs. We will also work to repeal the health care law's
individual mandate. The Federal Government should not be in the
business of forcing Americans to buy a government-approved health
insurance product.
Finally, Republicans will tackle some of the big challenges that need
to be addressed if we are going to put our country back on a path to
long-term prosperity. We want to make our Nation's costly and
inefficient Tax Code fairer and simpler for families and businesses. We
also intend to take up regulatory reform.
Recent regulations released by the President's EPA illustrate just
how pressing the need is to reform our country's out-of-control
bureaucracy. Just one of the recently proposed EPA regulations--the
President's national energy tax--would eliminate tens of thousands, if
not hundreds of thousands of jobs and devastate entire communities. No
executive agency should be able to damage our economy in that way or to
destroy the livelihoods of so many hard-working Americans. It is time
to get America's regulatory agencies under control.
Republicans heard what the American people said in November, and we
are not going to let them down. January 6 marks the start of a new era
in the Senate. The Republican majority will focus on the American
people's priorities: creating jobs, growing the economy, and increasing
opportunity for middle-income American families. We hope the Democrats
will join us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senator from Ohio be allowed to speak directly after the conclusion of
my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Klamath Basin
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise today to address a key
unfinished piece of business that is extremely important to the Klamath
Basin of southern Oregon.
The Klamath Basin Act has still not been enacted as of the close of
this Congress. In that failure, Congress is missing a critical
opportunity to put in place a locally developed solution to a longtime
water dispute. This failure creates a substantial risk of catastrophic
consequences for our ranching and farming families--risks that were
entirely avoidable.
Let me start by telling my colleagues what an amazing place Klamath
Basin is. Klamath Basin is one of the natural wonders of the American
West. It has one of the biggest salmon runs in the Pacific and part of
one of the largest continuous blocks of wild rivers and wildlands on
the Pacific coast. It is one of the most important migration points in
the Pacific coast flyway for bird migration. It is an important place
for duck hunters up and down the west coast.
The Klamath River itself charts a path to the south of Crater Lake--
an amazing natural wonder where a crater created by a very large
cascade volcanic mountain that blew its top--and the California
Redwoods to the south. It connects the Great Basin geology, the
cascading volcanos, and the deep and majestic rivers and canyons along
its way. Amidst this natural wonder, in its basin lies some of the most
fertile and productive agricultural land in the northwest, generating
$600 million a year in barley, potatoes, onions, mint, and, as we can
see in this photo, beef.
The settlement of the Klamath Basin by pioneers from the east and the
subsequent development of farming and ranching in the Klamath Basin has
a storied history. The first White explorer thought to enter the area
was John Freeman, on his way to play a notorious role in taking control
of California during the Mexican-American war. The first White settlers
were the pioneering Applegate family, scouting an easier southern route
for the final stages of the Oregon Trail. Agriculture was, of course, a
major focus of settlement efforts, and even some of the more recently
developed agricultural lands played into key moments in American
history when part of the Klamath Reclamation Project was developed by
the Federal Government and offered as homesteading opportunities to
veterans returning from World War II.
Of course, this region had a history long before settlers from the
East came to it. It was already inhabited by Native communities who
have lived in the Klamath Basin for 10,000 years and who have a deep
connection to this amazing place. The Klamath and Modoc Tribes have
inherited oral histories of the eruption of Mount Mazama 8,000 years
ago, which formed today's Crater Lake. The tribes on the lower river in
California--the Yurok, the Karuk, and the Hoopa--talked about having
firepits in home sites still in use today that have been carbon-dated
as being in human use many thousands of years ago. In the Klamath
County Museum, there is on display the oldest sandals in the world that
we have ever discovered made of sagebrush.
The early history of settlement from the East led quickly to
conflict. John Fremont's expedition led to a violent battle with the
Klamath Tribes. The opening of the Applegate Trail through the basin
led to conflict between the Modoc Tribes and White settlers along the
Lost River. The resulting Modoc War--a dark chapter in our Nation's
persecution of tribes--led to a standoff where the Army held a few
dozen Modoc families under siege in barren, hostile lava beds for
months.
Unfortunately, for too much of recent history, conflict has continued
to define the Klamath Basin.
In the 1950s the Federal Government terminated Federal recognition of
the Klamath Tribes, converting their 2 million-acre forested
reservation into a combination of national forest lands and private
lands.
[[Page S6881]]
In the 1970s conflict erupted between the lower river tribes and
Federal fisheries managers of the tribes' rights to harvest fish they
have harvested for thousands of years. Very soon after, farmers,
ranchers, and tribes initiated litigation over water rights, and that
litigation has been going intensely until very recently. On the one
hand, tribes want to be assured of their rights to continue fishing
practices they have passed down from generation to generation for
thousands of years. Farmers and ranchers want to be sure they will have
the water they need to sustain the operations their families depend on
for success.
For decades the tension over water has been accentuated in times of
drought, culminating most famously in a standoff in 2001 that made
national news. During that 2001 drought irrigation water for the
Klamath Reclamation Project was shut off to protect endangered
fisheries. Thousands of people gathered in Klamath Falls in sympathy
with the farmers. There was civil disobedience, and people were worried
about the possibility of violence.
When Vice President Cheney intervened and guaranteed water deliveries
rather than fish protections, the result was the largest fish kill in
U.S. history. Meanwhile, agriculture was damaged. Families saw major
losses, and some had to sell their farms. There were no real winners.
At the time, many people thought that these issues were intractable
and that the arguments and lawsuits would continue interminably,
perhaps for generations to come. But a number of years ago a group of
leaders in the community had the boldness to start rethinking how they
framed their quest for water and the water wars. Their briefing to me
was one of the first briefings I received as a U.S. Senator. I was
surprised to see individuals representing parts of the community who
had often been bitter enemies together. They were talking about sitting
down and hammering out a different vision for the future to replace the
lose-lose water battles of the past with something different: greater
reliability of water for farmers and ranchers and protection for the
tribes and their fishing rights and better health for the stream. We
had leaders from many different parts of the community sitting down
together because--they said to me: Senator, the only folks who are
winning right now are the lawyers. They wanted to change that.
I was skeptical that groups who had battled for so long could sit
down and work out an agreement. As we say in the West, whiskey, that is
for drinking, and water, that is for fighting. But these folks said: We
are going to pursue a different path.
I pledged that if they were able to develop a solution, I would do
everything I could at the Federal level to help implement it. They
defied the expectation of every cynic by coming up with a remarkable
plan that solved an array of complex problems. The irrigators committed
to reducing the total amount of water they take from the river from a
variety of conservation practices. They are working collaboratively
with the community and the tribes to restore habitat. In exchange, they
get certainty and predictability for guaranteed amounts of water. The
tribes and conservation groups and fishing organizations agreed to stop
challenging these irrigators' water allocations. In exchange, they get
a community partnering to restore natural resources that are of
cultural and economic importance to the tribes and to help them
reacquire some of the land they lost 50 years ago.
Complementing all of this and augmenting the natural resource
restoration is a plan to remove four antiquated dams and open up new
habitat for fish. The private utility that owns these dams agrees that
the best business decision is to remove these dams. So this is a win-
win situation, or actually a win-win-win-win situation.
Let me give an example of this in terms of water looked at from the
perspective of the agricultural community. This chart shows, over a
variety of years--2010 through 2014--what the actual deliveries were in
acre-feet, thousands of acre-feet, 189,000 acre-feet, and what they
would receive in the settlement: substantially more; substantially more
in 2011 and substantially more in 2013. So this also provides more
water for the refuge, and we can see a change of positive water for the
refuge as well.
This is why everyone is coming to the table and finding a path that
works better during difficult times for all of the major goals of water
management in the region.
The deal is a lifeline for farming and for ranching: tens of
thousands of additional acre-feet added and in some cases 100,000 acre-
feet of water in some areas; at the same time, stream flows for fish,
removing obstacles for migration of the fish, improving habitat. It is
a truly remarkable deal.
Community leaders not only developed a visionary agreement, they also
remained dedicated to this agreement during some difficult drought
years in 2010 and 2013 and low water in 2014. So they could have been
shattered, the coalition could have been blown up by these difficult
drought years, but instead they viewed it as reinforcing why they
needed to come to an agreement to save the ranching and the farming and
improve the fish and restore important provisions for the tribes. They
have continued to work together while we here in Congress have not
acted. Also, they worked on an additional agreement to bring in
additional ranchers from the upper basin into the agreement, and that
worked as well. They worked to dramatically reduce the cost of the
habitat restoration investments that the original plan called for. They
drafted a bill with no new spending. The entire agreement was
challenged by the litigation of the water rights in that the
adjudication of these water rights was finally completed and, for the
most part, the Klamath tribes were awarded water rights to time
immemorial.
That is a powerful tool. The tribes could have walked away from the
table. They could have taken this enormous control over water rights
and said the agreement hasn't been implemented; we are walking away and
going to use these water rights with maximum leverage.
They created partnerships. They pledged to work together, as all of
these groups have, advocating not just for themselves but for the
collective future of the community and collective stakeholders.
Quite frankly, this is a remarkable development in what is happening
with all of these stakeholder leaders sticking together. Congress is
key, however, to passing legislation that implements the provisions of
this plan.
It is time for Congress to act. The Senate did its work. The Energy
and Natural Resources Committee held hearings under the leadership
first of Senator Wyden and Senator Murkowski, then under the leadership
of Senator Landrieu and Senator Murkowski. Senator Murkowski, Senator
Wyden, and I were able to negotiate bipartisan revisions of the bill
addressing significant and legitimate concerns that had been raised.
We modified Federal authority related to dam removal and requiring
Governors to sign off and giving Congress a 1-year period to veto a
decision to take out a particular dam. We removed provisions that the
Congressional Budget Office said might contribute to the deficit. The
Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted the bill out of committee
on a bipartisan basis.
The community leaders have gone to work getting even broader
statements of support. The Klamath County Chamber of Commerce endorsed
the bill. The Klamath County Farm Bureau has endorsed the bill. The
Klamath County Cattlemen's Association and the statewide Oregon
Cattlemen's Association have endorsed the bill. The Klamath Falls City
Council has endorsed the bill, and the Oregon Water Resources Congress
has endorsed the bill.
The Senate has been ready to act, but the U.S. House of
Representatives has not. Here we are in the last days of this Congress
unable to complete this bill. So today I am calling upon our leaders in
the House and in the Senate to work together to make this an item of
immediate action when we start our new session in January.
The tribe is held back on enforcing its water rights, and the
stakeholders have stayed together, saying they were
[[Page S6882]]
going to support the multiple provisions for themselves and their
partners. But that cannot last forever. Congress has to act to seal the
deal. Without cooperation, this vision, so carefully, diligently, and
painfully constructed over years of involvement of community
stakeholders, will fall apart. What that will do is put the entire
farming and ranching community in great jeopardy. We can see hundreds
of families lose their water in a matter of months due to Congress's
failure to act.
This community has done everything right. They have put aside
longstanding tensions and conflicts. They sat down time and time again
to work out these complicated provisions. They sought the help of the
Interior Department which came and signed off on the agreement. They
sought the State government and the Governor to sign off on the
agreements. They solicited local support. They put aside damaging
rhetoric during times of intense drought over the last couple of years,
and they hung together. They have done everything we could have ever
asked a group to do to prepare for this legislation to be passed, yet
it has not been passed because the House of Representatives has not
been ready to act.
We must not let this opportunity escape. We must come back in January
with support from the Senate and from the House and complete this deal.
This opportunity might not come again.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize that when
in a region great work has been done to resolve a longstanding
conflict, they need Congress to step in and seal the deal, make the
agreement real, and implement the agreement. We must give it the utmost
attention and help make it happen for the health of the stream, for the
welfare of the tribes, for the success of the farming community, for
the conditions that make ranching a vital component of the Klamath
Basin--for all of these reasons.
I certainly pledge to come back and work toward that end and look
forward for us early next year to not be here on the floor lamenting
the fact we have failed to complete this agreement but to be here
thanking all of those who came together to seize this critical
opportunity.
I yield the floor to my colleague from Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the
Senator from Hawaii be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tribute To Jay Rockefeller
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of my best
friends in the Senate and a long-time public servant whom I greatly
admire, John D. Rockefeller IV.
In 1964, in Athens, OH, President Johnson went to Ohio University,
and he said:
Poverty hides its face behind a mask of affluence. But I
call upon you to help me to get out there and unmask it, take
that mask off of that face of affluence and let the world see
what we have, and let the world do something about it.
Several months later, John D. Rockefeller IV, 27 years old, came to
West Virginia as a VISTA volunteer. Well-educated and well-connected,
Jay Rockefeller could have chosen any career he wanted. But to him, it
was about public service.
This year marks Jay's 50th year in public service. He found himself
in Emmons, WV. Emmons, WV, is a small town. Jay didn't shy away. Jay
didn't keep his distance. He wanted to know the people he was going to
be working with, and he set out to do that. For 2 years, he worked
alongside the people of Emmons for accessible health care, for
education, for opportunities. His work included dismantling and moving
a condemned elementary school from a neighboring town onto a flatbed
truck, and establishing it in Emmons as a community center.
Jay never forgot that, Jay, who in this Chamber sits across the aisle
from me at this desk. I was sitting here 2 weeks ago and Jay was
talking about Emmons. He said going to Emmons--and I will quote from
his farewell speech 2 weeks ago to the Senate:
That set my moral compass and gave me direction. Where
everything in my real life began. Where I learned how little
I knew about the problems people face. I was humbled by that
lesson.
He went on to say:
My time in Emmons was transformative. It explains every
policy I pursued and every vote I have cast. It was where my
beliefs were bolted down. And where my passion met my
principle.
Fifty years ago, Jay learned those lessons. For 50 years, as a VISTA
volunteer, as a State legislator, as the Secretary of State, as the
Governor of West Virginia, and as a Senator for 3 decades from West
Virginia, he learned those beliefs. They were bolted down, and he
practiced those beliefs.
In 1966, he was elected to the West Virginia House. Two years later,
Jay had an opportunity that most people I know would not have refused.
Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated--the Senator from New York at that
time. In June of 1968, the Governor of New York, Nelson Rockefeller--
Jay Rockefeller's uncle--offered that appointment to the U.S. Senate to
Jay Rockefeller. The Governor offered that position to Jay Rockefeller,
and his answer to his uncle was: No, thank you. I want to earn a seat
some day in the U.S. Senate.
That is what Jay set out to do. He reminded us a few weeks ago:
Important undertakings can't be halfhearted. You have to
commit your whole self--almost like pushing a heavy rock
uphill. With both of your hands you push, because if you let
up for a split second with either hand, you and the rock go
tumbling backwards into the abyss.
Jay had a chance to prove that in this body over 20 years ago. He
pushed that rock uphill to fight to protect retired coal miners'
promised health care benefits. It is easy for Members of this Senate
who have good titles, who are well paid, who dress like this, who don't
really need to go out and listen to the public very much, to forget
people like union coal miners or nonunion coal miners.
He called this ``the greatest moment of my career.'' Jay threatened
to keep the Senate in session. He was going to do whatever it took--22
years ago, over Christmas, over New Year's, whatever it took--to make
sure his colleagues didn't leave town before passing the 1992 Coal Act.
Because of his legislation, more than 200,000 coal miners and their
families have kept the benefits they were promised.
He spearheaded efforts to ensure workplace safety. I have talked to
Jay after coal-mining disasters when miners are killed in one of the
most treacherous, difficult, and dangerous jobs we can imagine. I can
see the pain in his face because he knows people who work in the mines
and he has listened to them.
When Lincoln's staff wanted him to stay in the White House and win
the war and free the slaves and preserve the Union, Lincoln used to
say, I have to go out and get my public opinion bath. That is what Jay
did. A son and grandson of privilege, Jay understood that he served the
public best when he got his public opinion bath and when he went out
and listened to people. He fought against unfair trade practices, and
he fought against tax policies that shipped jobs overseas. He
reinvigorated the steel caucus, fighting for an industry that clearly
has been victimized by unfair trade practices.
Most importantly in Jay's career--and the thing I think he is most
proud of--was another lesson he learned in Emmons, WV. He learned that
many of the community school-aged children had never been to a doctor,
they had never seen a dentist before because their families simply
didn't have the money. Because of that, Jay made accessible, affordable
health care for children part of his lifelong mission. He believes that
health care is a right and not a privilege.
He championed Medicaid expansion, and he championed this new health
care law. It has Jay Rockefeller's fingerprints all over it. That is
why hundreds of thousands of people in my State are grateful to Jay
Rockefeller, because hundreds of thousands of people in Ohio now have
health insurance who didn't have it before. Hundreds of thousands of
families have benefited for a couple of decades because their children
had health insurance. Again, this is because of Jay Rockefeller.
In 1997, he devoted much of his time and career at that point to help
write the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP. Because of CHIP, 8
million
[[Page S6883]]
children across this country--some of them in Emmons, WV, and some of
them in my hometown of Mansfield, OH--now have access to health care,
health care that they would not have otherwise. He continues that fight
always on health care.
I want to close with this. I have seen a lot of Senators come and go.
I have seen a lot of Members come and go. I have seen a lot of public
officials come and go. There can be a shortage of humility in these
jobs. As Members of the House and Members of the Senate, sometimes we
are a little puffed up about our titles and about the power that many
of us have, and we are caught up in the way we are treated. People are
often obsequious to Members in Congress, and all of that.
What stands out to me--it is even more remarkable when you consider
his family and what he came from--is Jay Rockefeller's humility. Here
is the best example, I think. I found out almost by accident what Jay,
as a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, would do regularly
during his time in the Senate is he would send all the staff away, he
would send the press away, and he would go to someone's home or
community center or rec center or labor hall and he would sit with a
number of veterans and listen to their stories. He would take notes and
help those individually who might need help. Most importantly, he was
listening to their stories.
It reminds me of another story from Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln's staff
watched him, during one of his public opinion baths, talk to a number
of people who were pushing him on something that mattered to them
personally.
His staff wanted to send them away. Lincoln said, ``No, I am not
going to do that.'' Then Lincoln said--about these people who were
talking to him, ordinary citizens outside the White House or anywhere
else the President of the United States may have been--Lincoln said:
They don't want much. They get so little. Each one considers his
business of great importance. I know how I should feel if I were in
their place.
I can see Jay Rockefeller meeting with veterans, many of whom had
never been thanked for their service. Many of them were suffering from
wartime injuries from their time in the service, coming back to West
Virginia and eking out a living. I can see Jay Rockefeller saying the
same thing: They don't want much. They get so little. Each one
considers his business of great importance. I know how I should feel if
I were in their place.
Going back 2 weeks ago to Jay's farewell speech across the aisle at
this desk, he called upon us to remember that ``our north star must
always be the real needs of the people we serve.'' Jay used his
farewell speech to exhort us to do better on behalf of miners, on
behalf of veterans, on behalf of single parents, on behalf of children,
on behalf of sick people, people who do not always get a fair shake in
life.
He found his north star in public service, a career he chose because
he wanted a mission to complete, a cause to believe in, a dream to
follow. He found that mission. He found that cause. He found that dream
in Emmons, WV, in 1964. It never left him. That is my friend Jay
Rockefeller. For all of that we are so grateful.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I rise today in support of the
nomination of Sarah Saldana to serve as Director of the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE.
Before I proceed, I would like to thank the good Senator from Ohio
for his tributary remarks regarding Jay Rockefeller, an uncommon man of
the people.
Prior to supporting Ms. Saldana's nomination in the Judiciary
Committee, I did have a chance to meet with her. Growing up in a large
family near our southern border in Corpus Christi, TX, Ms. Saldana
managed to overcome hardship and become the first Latina U.S. Attorney
in Texas history.
Sarah Saldana is fully qualified to serve as ICE's Director. She is a
senior Federal law enforcement official for a border State district
that spans almost 100,000 miles. Ms. Saldana has been on the ground in
Texas and fully understands the complexities and challenges we face
with our immigration system.
Republicans and Democrats agree that our immigration system is
broken. Until recently, we also agreed, Republicans and Democrats
alike, that Sarah Saldana needed to be confirmed as the Director of
ICE. However, now Republicans are playing politics with this nomination
to a critical homeland security agency. ICE is responsible for
important law enforcement issues that make us all safer and has been
without a permanent Director for over a year.
ICE's 19,000 people are responsible for enforcement of our
immigration laws, for drug interdiction, for fighting child
exploitation, and for keeping us safe from national security threats.
The Senate needs to do its job and let Sarah Saldana get to work as the
permanent Director of ICE. I understand that some of my colleagues on
the Republican side now oppose Sarah Saldana because of the President's
Executive order on immigration.
President Obama's Executive action allows millions of fathers,
mothers, and students to step out of the shadows, pass background
checks, work legally, and pay their taxes. The President's action is
rooted in the reality that our immigration system is broken and that we
need to exercise prosecutorial discretion on who to go after with our
limited resources.
As Director of ICE, it is Ms. Saldana's responsibility to focus on
homeland security resources on deporting felons and other criminals who
have crossed our borders. It is simply not possible for the Federal
Government to remove all 11 million undocumented persons in this
country.
That is another point on which most Republicans and Democrats agree.
We have to prioritize the resources we have. That is what the
President's order does. It prioritizes deporting felons, not families.
Let me repeat that: Deporting felons, that is all we need to do, not
breaking apart families. President Obama's action is grounded on
precedent and Executive powers.
Every single President since Eisenhower has used Executive action to
provide discretionary relief from deportation. Nonetheless, the
President's critics have relentlessly attacked the legitimacy of his
action. Some of my colleagues have emphasized that we must enforce our
immigration laws and secure our borders in their opposition to Ms.
Saldana.
Ironically, my Republican colleagues are opposing the nomination of
the Director of an agency responsible for these very things: securing
our border and enforcing our immigration laws. Some Republicans do not
even want to fund the Department of Homeland Security at all.
Those who are concerned about immigration enforcement and border
security should ask themselves: How does opposing Sarah Saldana's
nomination and putting DHS funding in question make our borders more
secure? How do these actions ensure effective enforcement of our laws?
They do not.
If you want to truly and permanently address our broken immigration
system, we need Congress to work together to pass comprehensive
immigration reform, which the American people overwhelmingly support.
It has been over a year since comprehensive immigration reform was
passed on the Senate floor. Congress must continue working to pass
commonsense, humane reform that puts families first.
As the President himself has said, Executive action does not replace
congressional action. To those in Congress concerned with what he has
done, we need to step up. We need to pass comprehensive reform. But in
the meantime, we need to confirm Sarah Saldana so she can get on with
the job at ICE.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on her nomination.
Order of Procedure
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now recess until 2:15 p.m.;
that following the 2:30 p.m. votes, the clerk report Executive Calendar
No. 1150, the Blinken nomination, and the time until 5 p.m. be equally
divided in the usual form, with all other provisions of the previous
order remaining in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________