[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.

                          ____________________