[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S907-S910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to H.R. 240.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 5, H.R. 240, a bill 
     making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other 
     purposes.


                           Clay Hunt SAV Act

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last night I joined Members of both 
parties to recognize the latest bipartisan achievement for the American 
people.
  The Clay Hunt SAV Act, which will provide important support to our 
Nation's veterans, passed the House and Senate with overwhelming 
bipartisan support. It is on its way to President Obama's desk, and I 
am confident he will sign it.


                             Keystone Bill

  Mr. President, today the House of Representatives is expected to pass 
yet another bipartisan bill for him to sign, the Keystone jobs bill. It 
is just common sense. That is why this bipartisan legislation already 
passed the Senate with support from both parties. That is why labor 
unions support it, and that is why the American people support it. 
Americans know construction of this infrastructure project would pump 
billions into the economy and support thousands of good jobs. They also 
know America could achieve this with, as the President's own State 
Department has indicated, minimal environmental impact.
  Americans are urging President Obama not to interfere in the review 
process for political reasons any longer. Americans are urging the 
President to finally heed scientific conclusions his own State 
Department already reached. Let American workers build this 
infrastructure project. Sign this jobs and infrastructure bill.
  Powerful special interests may be demanding that the President veto 
Keystone jobs, but we hope he will not. If the President does 
ultimately bow to these special interest demands, that is a discussion 
we can have then. But either way Americans should know this: The new 
Congress will not stop pursuing good ideas.
  This new majority is committed to refocusing Washington on the 
concerns of the middle class, and the passage of bipartisan bills such 
as Keystone, Clay Hunt, and Keystone jobs shows we are doing just that.


                Department of Homeland Security Funding

  Mr. President, on a different matter, Democrats are blocking Homeland 
Security funding in order to defend Executive overreach the President 
has said himself, on many different occasions, he didn't have. As I 
indicated yesterday, this is the reason the Senate can't move forward, 
so it needs to come to an end. This is the simplest and most obvious 
way it can.
  Many Democrats previously indicated opposition to the kinds of 
overreach described by President Obama himself as unwise and unfair. So 
all they have to do is back up those words with some action. If 
Democrats claim to be against overreach and claim to be for funding the 
critical activities of the Department of Homeland Security, then there 
is no reason for them to continue their party's filibuster.
  So vote with us to allow the Senate to actually debate Homeland 
Security funding instead. We have already offered a fair and open 
debate that would allow for amendments from both parties. If the bill 
needs to be amended, that is when it could be, when we actually get on 
the bill and offer amendments.
  This is about Democrats being confronted with a choice: filibuster 
funding for Homeland Security to protect overreach of President Obama 
himself, referred to as ``ignoring the law'' or allow the Senate to 
debate, vote, and amend the very funding they claim to want.


                              AUMF Funding

  Mr. President, one final and critically important matter. This 
morning we received the President's proposed authorization for the use 
of military

[[Page S908]]

force against ISIL and its affiliates. It was clear from the outset 
that a successful military campaign to defeat ISIL would require a 
multiyear effort, so it is certainly in order for Congress to debate an 
authorization such as this.
  Because Congress must meet its responsibility to decide whether our 
military should use force, the Senate will review the President's 
request thoughtfully. Individual Senators and committees of 
jurisdiction will review it carefully, and they will listen carefully 
to the advice of military commanders as they consider the best strategy 
for defeating ISIL. Because this decision demands such serious 
consideration, I want our Members to have an early opportunity to 
discuss the President's request. That is why later today our 
conference, the Republican conference, will meet for a discussion led 
by Senators Corker and McCain.
  I yield the floor.


               Recognition of the Acting Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Paul). The assistant Democratic leader is 
recognized.


                           Necessary Absence

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am standing in today for the Democratic 
leader, Senator Reid, who is absent for a medical procedure. He was 
with us yesterday and will be returning after the break. We wish him a 
speedy recovery. He has gone through quite a bit after the accident 
that he endured on January 1, and we wish him the very best and quick 
recovery.


                Department of Homeland Security Funding

  Mr. President, we are going to have a chance to do something this 
week that is important, to fund the Department of Homeland Security. 
This was a department created after 9/11 for obvious purposes. We never 
want America to be vulnerable again to that type of extremist terrorist 
attack and all the death and destruction it brought with it.
  So on a bipartisan basis we created this Department. Twenty-two 
different agencies were merged into one so we would have a common 
effort to keep America safe and secure, and the Department of Homeland 
Security has done a great job. Secretary Jeh Johnson, who is currently 
the leader of that agency, is an extraordinarily gifted, talented man, 
and he is doing his best to keep America safe.
  We should do everything we can to keep it safe, too, and that means 
the Senate and the House of Representatives need to do their job when 
it comes to the Department of Homeland Security.
  As everyone knows, when we talked about funding the agencies of 
government this past December after the election, there was only one 
agency, one department, which the Republicans singled out and said we 
will not properly fund this one department.
  What was it? The Department of Homeland Security. I don't understand 
this.
  If the Department of Homeland Security has the singular 
responsibility of keeping America safe, why would we risk the security 
and safety of America by not properly funding the Department? But the 
House Republicans insisted on that position and Senate Republicans 
backed them up.
  Why would they jeopardize America's security over the funding of DHS? 
So the Republicans could engage in a political debate over President 
Obama's immigration policy. It is an important debate. It is a worthy 
debate. There is no reason we shouldn't engage in this debate. But why 
would the Republicans insist that this debate be at the expense of 
funding the Department of Homeland Security? It doesn't make any sense. 
In fact, we are running a great risk by what we call continuing 
resolutions instead of regular budgetary appropriations for the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  Secretary Johnson has talked to us about what is going to happen if 
we don't properly fund the Department of Homeland Security. There are 
grants that are given through DHS to fire departments and police 
departments across America to train their personnel, to upgrade their 
equipment, and to be ready, God forbid, for the next challenge that 
faces America.
  Yet the Republicans insist on stopping that grantmaking to the local 
police departments in your community and mine--and to the fire 
departments--so they can engage in a debate with the President over 
immigration.
  What is it about the President's immigration policy that infuriates 
the Republicans? Could it be that the President has said he wants to 
prioritize deportations in America so that we, in fact, are going to 
deport those who are the most dangerous in the United States? I hope 
that is not it because the President's position is something most 
Americans would endorse, heartily endorse.
  Could it be they object to the President's proposal that those who 
are here undocumented--parents of American citizens and parents of 
legal residents--that those who are here undocumented step forward, pay 
their taxes, submit themselves to a criminal background check in order 
to have a 2-year temporary work permit? I doubt many Americans would 
disagree with that. It would mean these tax-paying workers would be 
checked, and if there is any problem, deported.
  The Republicans want to stop that. They disagree with the President's 
Executive order. I think we ought to have that debate but not at the 
expense of funding the Department of Homeland Security, but that is 
their position.
  So in 16 days the Department of Homeland Security runs out of money. 
The Department entrusted with keeping America safe from terrorism runs 
out of money.
  What are we going to do about it? There is something very easy we can 
turn to. It is on the Senate Calendar of Business. It is on every desk 
on the floor or available to every Senator: S. 272, a bill introduced 
by Senators Shaheen and Mikulski to make the appropriations for the 
Department of Homeland Security to give them the budget they need to 
protect America. It takes out all of the immigration riders insisted on 
by the House and takes us down to the basics.
  So are we going to fund the Department of Homeland Security?
  Well, the Republican majority leader has insisted he will stand in 
the way of funding DHS unless we can get into this political debate 
about immigration. I think that is shortsighted.
  Senator Reid came to the floor a few days ago and said: We are 
prepared to engage in this debate on immigration--but not at the 
expense of the Department of Homeland Security. We have had three votes 
on the floor of the Senate and this effort by the Republicans has 
fallen woefully short in every single vote to receive the 60 votes 
necessary.
  So why does the majority leader insist on sticking with this 
approach? It is hard to explain. It could be that within his own 
caucus--and maybe he personally thinks that the efforts of the 
President to protect certain people from deportation are just plain 
wrong.
  One of those efforts is one I heartily support myself. It is called 
DACA. DACA was an Executive order issued by the President in 2012. In 
that Executive order the President said those who are eligible under 
the DREAM Act would be given protection from deportation.
  The DREAM Act was a piece of legislation I introduced 14 years ago 
which said: If someone was brought to America as an infant, a toddler, 
a small child, and they stayed in America, had no serious criminal 
issue, finished high school, and they were prepared to enlist in the 
military or go on to college, they would get a path to legalization. 
That is what the DREAM Act said. It has never become law.
  But these young people, we estimate 2 million nationwide, are left in 
limbo. They came to America, were brought to America at an early age, 
grew up in America, went to American schools, pledged allegiance to our 
American flag, sang our national anthem, and believed they were 
Americans. Then they were told, sorry, but you don't have the necessary 
documentation. You are not here legally.
  So they are left in limbo. They have nowhere to turn. Under the laws 
of the United States they are subject to deportation. President Obama 
said on a 2-year basis we will protect these young people from 
deportation. They will have a background check, they will pay their 
fees, and on a 2-year basis they can live in America without fear of 
deportation and work in America or go to school in America. Those are 
the DREAMers. That is the DACA provision which the Republicans are 
opposing in the House of Representatives. It

[[Page S909]]

is the provision which the majority leader insists we vote on before we 
can fund the Department of Homeland Security.

  I think it is instructive to introduce these DREAMers to Members of 
the Senate who may not know who they are, and I want to introduce two 
of them today: Nelson and John Magdaleno. Nelson is on the left in the 
suit, and John is on the right on his graduation today. They were 
brought to the United States from Venezuela when Nelson was 11 and John 
9 years old. They were both honor students at Lakeside High School in 
Atlanta, GA. In high school John was the fourth highest officer and 
commander of the Air Honor Society in his Junior ROTC.
  Nelson and John both went to the Georgia Institute of Technology, one 
of the most selective engineering schools in America. In 2012 Nelson 
graduated from Georgia Tech with honors and a major in computer 
engineering.
  President Obama established the DACA Program shortly after Nelson 
graduated from Georgia Tech. Thanks to DACA, Nelson has been working 
since 2012 as a computer engineer for a Fortune 500 semiconductor 
corporation.
  John also received DACA in 2012, while he was still a student at 
Georgia Tech. He then worked for 2 years as a researcher in a 
biomedical engineering lab at Georgia Tech, researching glaucoma, one 
of the leading causes of blindness.
  In 2014 John graduated from Georgia Tech with a major in chemical and 
biomedical engineering and with the highest honors. He is now working 
as a process engineer with a Fortune 500 company.
  Nelson Magdaleno wrote me a letter, and here is what he said:

       To me DACA means an opportunity to be able to live my 
     dreams and contribute to society in ways that I could not 
     have imagined. DACA means one of my life goals, owning my own 
     company, could be a possibility in the future. DACA means a 
     chance. DACA means the American Dream.

  His brother John wrote, and here is what he said:

       I consider an American to be someone who loves, and 
     wholeheartedly dedicates themselves to the development of 
     this country. From age nine, I have made the United States my 
     home, and it has made me the man I am today. I proudly call 
     myself an American.

  When you hear the stories of these two young men, who attended 
college and finished without any government assistance or loans, who 
worked hard to get their degrees in challenging fields such as computer 
engineering, who went to one of the best schools in America, who now 
have talents and skills that create opportunities not only for 
discovery but for innovation and entrepreneurship, I wonder: What are 
the Republicans thinking when they say these two individuals don't 
belong in America, that they need to be deported, that they need to be 
sent back to Venezuela, a country neither of them really knows. Is that 
the answer to America's future? Is it to export the most talented 
minds, the hardest working individuals, and that the amazing 
achievements they have made in their lives are to be ignored? I don't 
think so.
  I think Americans by and large believe in fairness. Fairness says we 
will not hold the children of the parents who were responsible for 
wrongdoing responsible themselves. If you are pulled over for speeding, 
you may get a ticket. But it would be fundamentally unfair to give one 
to the child sitting in a car seat in the car. They weren't driving. 
These kids weren't driving either. Their parents came to America 
without any permission from the children. But they set up a life here 
and they made a good life here. Should we now penalize these children 
because their parents came to America?
  That doesn't make sense. Frankly, it doesn't represent what this 
country is all about. We are a nation of immigrants, and the immigrants 
who come here make a difference. They bring not only a determination 
for a better life, but they are risk takers. They leave it all behind 
from wherever they were. They come to America and risk it all in the 
hopes they will have a better life and, even more importantly, that 
their children will. That is who we are. That is what America is all 
about and has been from the beginning of time.
  Why would we turn our backs on this heritage? Why would we ignore the 
opportunity these young people bring? That is the Republican position, 
at least the one stated by the House of Representatives. It has been 
summarily rejected now three different times on the floor of the 
Senate. Yet the majority leader comes to us today and says he may do it 
again.
  This is not fair to the Department of Homeland Security, it is not 
fair to John and Nelson, and it is not fair to this country. Let us do 
the right thing. Let's fund the Department of Homeland Security before 
we leave for any recess. Let's get it done so that Department can 
protect America.
  The majority leader talked about what we have achieved here--the 
Keystone Canadian pipeline act, which was the highest priority of the 
Senate Republicans. TransCanada, a Canadian corporation, would be able 
to transport oil from Canada to a refinery in Texas and then export it 
from the United States. There are benefits of construction, of course, 
and 35 permanent pipeline jobs, of course. But in the end the refined 
oil coming in from Canada will not benefit the American economy. We had 
an amendment on the floor that would address that very issue, and every 
single Republican said we will not vote to keep that refined oil 
product in America.
  We also suggested that if we are going to build a pipeline in 
America, we use American steel. Let's put American workers to work at 
the steel mills to make the steel that is necessary to build the 
pipeline, and that too was rejected by the Republicans. They said no, 
insisting on American steel won't be part of this so-called pipeline 
jobs projects.
  Well, I think there are better ways to get the economy moving forward 
and to create more jobs. One of them is infrastructure, and I am sure 
we will debate it at a later time.
  The other thing mentioned by the majority leader was the Clay Hunt 
bill, which was a bill that was needed and important, related to 
veteran suicide, and it passed overwhelmingly, to no one's surprise.
  Why was this bill held up in the previous Congress? There was an 
objection to bringing the bill to the floor by a Republican Senator--by 
a Republican Senator. There was no obstruction in passing this bill on 
the Democratic side, and I am glad it passed. I know the President is 
about to sign it.
  The other thing I want to mention is that it is unfortunate we are 
leaving this week for the 1-week Presidents Day recess. We are leaving 
at a time when the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be Attorney General 
of the United States is still pending. She has been pending, I 
understand, longer than any nominee for Attorney General in recent 
history.
  I went through the hearing with her and there was no opposition--
none. They asked the witnesses who were brought in if any one of them 
objected to her being Attorney General, and not one would raise their 
hand. There were no objections. There is no objection to this woman 
serving our Nation. She has been the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern 
District of New York. She has done an amazing job. Why are they holding 
her up? What is the purpose in this? We should approve her nomination 
before we leave this week.


                       Pullman National Monument

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, a Chicago neighborhood that has played a 
significant part in our country's African-American and labor history is 
being recognized next week in an exciting way. Next Thursday President 
Obama is going to declare the Pullman Historic District on the South 
Side of Chicago a national monument. This is the first time a unit of 
the National Park Service would be established in Chicago.
  This designation is the result of a collaborative effort by the 
businesses, residents, and organizations of the Pullman area in Chicago 
to restore and preserve this unique community. The people who are part 
of the Pullman legacy helped shape America as we know it.
  The Pullman neighborhood includes almost 90 percent of the original 
buildings the railcar magnate George Pullman built a century ago for 
his factory town to build railroad cars. It was the birthplace of the 
Nation's first black labor union, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car 
Porters.

[[Page S910]]

  Pullman workers fought for fair labor conditions in the late 19th 
century, and Pullman porters helped advance America's civil rights 
movement.
  During the economic depression of the 1890s, the Pullman community 
was the catalyst for the first industry-wide strike in the United 
States, which helped to lead to the creation of Labor Day as a national 
holiday. The Pullman porters are credited with creating the African-
American middle class.
  I have supported this designation for some time and have introduced 
legislation with my colleague Senator Kirk and with Congressman Robin 
Kelly to make the site a national historical monument.
  Alderman Anthony Beale of Chicago's 9th Ward has worked hard to 
garner support for the recognition of Pullman. Many others in Chicago 
helped advance the proposal: Eleanor Gorski, with the Chicago 
Department of Planning and Development; David Doig, president of 
Chicago Neighborhood Initiatives, Lynn McClure and LeAaron Foley with 
the National Parks Conservation Association, and many others who drew 
attention to the historical significance of this neighborhood.
  The Pullman national monument will be an important addition to the 
current National Park System. It highlights stories from communities 
that are rarely represented in other national parks. The park's urban 
location on Chicago's South Side makes it easily accessible to millions 
of people by public transportation--again setting Pullman apart from 
other national parks.
  The National Park Service is associated with national wonders such as 
geysers and forests. Urban national parks are few and far between. With 
this designation, the Pullman neighborhood is joining the ranks of the 
National Mall and the Statue of Liberty as national parks accessible in 
urban areas. The monument will also provide an opportunity for tourism 
and job creation--much needed in this community.
  It is only right that Pullman be preserved and honored as a part of 
our National Park System. I commend the President for this decision to 
showcase the prominence and legacy of Pullman in our Nation's history.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time 
is reserved.

                          ____________________