[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 33 (Thursday, February 26, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1129-S1134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, with 1 day before the funding expires for 
the Department of Homeland Security, I rise to urge the adoption of a 
clean funding bill.
  It seems we are on a path to ensure that, at least in the Senate, we 
are going to adopt a bill that funds the critical safety and national 
security functions of the Department of Homeland Security without 
extraneous immigration riders. I encourage my colleagues in both 
Chambers to embrace what Members on both sides of the aisle have 
acknowledged is the best way to resolve this issue--avoid a shutdown, 
enact the clean bipartisan Homeland Security bill, and address the 
immigration policies through regular order on the floor.
  By now, we have all heard from a host of people spelling out the many 
negative impacts of a shutdown--our colleagues, Secretary Johnson, 
previous Secretaries, and many of our Nation's mayors. We would be 
unnecessarily disrupting funding which all of our States' emergency 
managers rely on and which allows for programs that function to keep us 
safe and keep people and goods moving securely and efficiently 
throughout our country.
  My home State of Hawaii is 2,500 miles from the closest landmass. It 
hosts the Nation's fourth largest airport for international arrivals 
and is currently responding to and recovering from presidentially 
declared disasters related to lava threats and tropical storms.
  For these and many other reasons, I am concerned that Congress would 
consider risking timely funding for the agencies that keep our airports 
safe, our coasts and waters secure, and provide for critical planning 
and response support to our States' first responders.
  Additionally, I don't think anyone should attempt to trivialize a 
shutdown based on the argument that many Department of Homeland 
Security employees will have to report to work regardless. What an 
insult. For the thousands of Hawaii residents employed by the 
Department of Homeland Security, this is significant. These are middle-
class jobs helping to support middle-class families. These employees 
will still have to make rent, pay a mortgage, buy gas, food, childcare 
and the like, and the Coast Guard's men and women will have to report 
for duty--not for pay. We owe them better than that. We shouldn't 
subject these families to uncertainty about their next paycheck.
  Our path forward is actually totally simple: pass the original 
funding bill that was negotiated in good faith by both parties and both 
Chambers last December. Because of where we are right now, it is 
important to remember that the underlying Department of Homeland 
Security funding bill was the result of a bipartisan negotiation and 
compromise between both Chambers and both parties.
  That means we have to resist the temptation in either Chamber to make 
political decisions that have no chances of success in the Senate or 
would be vetoed by the President. For example, reinserting partisan 
immigration riders into this bill is a nonstarter. The Senate has not 
wavered on this point, and that dynamic is not going to change.
  Let's just do our jobs. Let's fund the Department of Homeland 
Security, and

[[Page S1130]]

then we can debate comprehensive immigration policy any time the 
leadership desires to bring it to the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, tomorrow, on February 27, the Department 
of Homeland Security will run out of money and be forced to at least 
partially shut down. This is the Department responsible for protecting 
America against terrorism. It faces a government shutdown in about 24 
hours.
  Last year the congressional Republicans insisted that when we pass 
the overall Federal budget we cut out of it the Department of Homeland 
Security and not fully fund the Department. They insisted on this so 
they could enter into a debate with the President over the issue of 
immigration, and the House of Representatives sent us funding for this 
Department contingent on five anti-immigration riders going after the 
President's position on immigration. They have created an artificial, 
unnecessary, dangerous funding crisis.
  I have come to the floor over the last several weeks while this has 
been under consideration in the Senate urging the passage of a clean 
appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. I was 
heartened yesterday by the overwhelming vote of 98 to 2 to move toward 
passing this clean appropriations bill. It appears we have finally come 
together on a bipartisan basis to fund this critical agency at the 
eleventh hour.
  Sadly, there is no response from the House of Representatives as to 
whether they will even consider the timely funding for this Department, 
so we run the real risk we will have to shut down this Department and 
put America at risk as a result. That is unfortunate because we know 
how important this Department is and we know the threats are real.
  It was just last weekend when we disclosed intelligence gathered that 
there were extremist groups threatening the malls of America. There 
were specific threats to malls that were owned by Jewish enterprises, 
whatever that meant, but that is what they said. That is what we are up 
against. We see it around the world, real terrorism and real extremism, 
and now the question is, Does the Speaker of the House see this threat? 
Do the Republicans who are in the majority in the House see this 
threat? Do they see it enough to want to fund this critical agency?
  This morning on television there was an interview of one of the 
Republican Congressmen from Alabama. He said: No, this is really a 
debate about the Constitution, not about convenience.
  Convenience? I don't understand that word when we talk about 
protecting America from terrorism. This is not a convenience, this is a 
necessity. This is part and parcel of why we exist as a Congress--to 
keep America safe.
  So now the ball is in the court of the Republicans in the House. I 
think we will pass a clean bill here, and I think it will be 
overwhelmingly positive and bipartisan.
  What is the issue that is sticking in their craw over there that 
troubles them so much that the House Republicans would jeopardize 
funding the agency assigned to keep America safe? It is the issue of 
immigration, particularly Executive orders issued by the President.
  One particular part just absolutely gnaws at them as they think about 
the possibility the President's order of 2012--the so-called DACA 
order--will be carried out in the future. What is that order? It is an 
order which said: If someone was brought to the United States as a 
child--an infant, a toddler, a small child--undocumented, and they went 
to school in this country and they have no criminal record, we are 
going to give them a chance to stay here and not be subject to 
deportation. They can go to school here, they can work here, and they 
are protected by the President's Executive order--the so-called DACA.
  The Republicans in the House hate this idea like the devil hates holy 
water. They can't understand why these young people who had no 
wrongdoing in coming to this country should be given this chance, and 
they are prepared to shut down the Department of Homeland Security if 
we don't relent.
  I come to the floor regularly to tell stories about these young 
people, and today I want to tell you the story of one of these 
DREAMers. Her name is Maria Ibarra-Frayre. She was brought to the 
United States from Mexico at the age of 9, grew up in Detroit, MI, and 
is an excellent student. She spent a lot of her spare time in community 
service and as a member of the National Honor Society, the Key Club, 
and the school newspaper. She volunteered twice a week tutoring middle 
school students, performed over 300 hours of community service, and 
graduated from high school with a 3.97 grade point average. There 
aren't too many of us in the Senate who can boast that kind of grade 
point average.
  Maria was admitted to the University of Michigan, one of the top 
State colleges in the Nation. She couldn't attend because she is 
undocumented. Instead, she entered the University of Detroit Mercy, a 
private Catholic school. She was elected vice president of the student 
senate. She also helped found the Campus Kitchen, taking leftover meals 
from the school cafeteria and delivering them to seniors who had 
difficulty staying in homes.
  She participated in the alternative spring break, where she spent her 
vacation time helping those in need. One year, she went to South 
Carolina and helped rebuild an elderly couple's house, and another year 
she worked with the homeless in Sacramento, CA.
  Maria graduated as valedictorian of her class, with a major in 
English and social work. After graduation, her options were limited 
because she was undocumented. I might add that she didn't have a penny 
of government assistance going through college--undocumented students 
don't qualify. But she dedicated herself to community service and 
volunteered for the Jesuit Volunteer Corps, a Catholic nonprofit 
organization.
  Then in 2012 President Obama issued his order to give protection to a 
young person like herself. She was able to get a temporary work permit 
to work in the United States. She didn't run out and get a high-paying 
corporate job. She continued her community service, and now she is a 
full-time program coordinator for the Jesuit Volunteer Corps. She has 
applied to graduate school for social work. She wants to become an 
advocate for victims of domestic violence.
  She wrote me a letter and talked about this Executive order which 
many House Republicans can't wait to rescind and defund. Here is what 
she said:

       DACA means showing the rest of the country, society, and my 
     community what I can do. I have always known what I'm capable 
     of, but DACA has allowed me to show others that the 
     investment and opportunity that DACA provides is worth it.

  If the Republicans have their way, Maria will be deported. Having 
spent the majority of her life in this country, pledging allegiance to 
that flag, singing our national anthem--the only one she knows--they 
want her out of this country as quickly as possible.
  America is better if Maria can stay. People will get a helping hand 
from her as they have throughout her entire life. I cannot understand 
this mean-spirited political strategy that cannot wait to deport this 
wonderful, amazing young woman from America. And 600,000 young people, 
many just like her, are only asking for a chance to make this a better 
Nation.
  I hope that we do have a debate on immigration. I hope Members of the 
Senate and Congress will reflect on the fact that we are a nation of 
immigrants. Our diversity is our strength. Young people such as this 
who come to America make us a better Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago I came to the Senate floor to 
speak on an amendment which I had hoped would provide a framework that 
would accomplish three goals:
  First, to provide funding for the Department of Homeland Security so 
that it could perform its vital mission of protecting the people of our 
country;
  Second, to put the Senate on record as opposing the President's 
extraordinarily broad immigration actions

[[Page S1131]]

issued by Executive order in November of 2014;
  And, third, to ensure that individuals who were brought to this 
country as children and qualify for treatment under the June 2012 
Executive order on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals--the so-
called DREAMers that Senator Durbin has just spoken of--could continue 
to benefit under that program.
  I am very pleased that it looks like we are moving forward on a bill 
to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. We had a very strong 
vote on that yesterday. Indeed, I have not heard a single Senator on 
either side of the aisle say that we should shut down the Department of 
Homeland Security. Each of us recognizes its vital mission.
  As someone who served as the chairman or ranking member of the 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for a decade, I 
certainly understand how vital the mission of this Department is.
  I am keenly aware, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, of the 
threats against our country and the risks that we face from those who 
would do us harm.
  At the same time, as members of the legislative branch, we have an 
obligation to speak out and to register our opposition when we believe 
that the President has exceeded his grant of Executive authority under 
the Constitution in a way that would undermine the separation of powers 
doctrine. I wish to read what a constitutional scholar has said about 
the President's Executive order and how far the President could or 
could not go. This is what this constitutional scholar says:

       Congress has said ``here is the law'' when it comes to 
     those who are undocumented. . . . What we can do is to carve 
     out the DREAM Act, saying young people who have basically 
     grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. . . . But 
     if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be 
     ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very 
     difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option.

  Who was that constitutional scholar? It was the President of the 
United States, Barack Obama. He said this in September of 2013. 
President Obama got it right back then. I believe that he was within 
the scope of his Executive authority when he issued the 2012 Executive 
orders that created DACA, which allowed for the DREAMers to stay here.
  Let me also make clear that I am a supporter of comprehensive 
immigration reform. While I was disappointed that immigration reform 
legislation of some sort did not become law when we passed it a few 
years ago, I reject the notion that its failure can serve as 
justification for the actions taken by the President last November. He 
simply cannot do by Executive fiat what Congress has refused to pass 
regardless of the wisdom of Congress's decision. Such unilateral action 
is contrary to how our constitutional system is supposed to work, and 
it risks undermining the separation of powers doctrine, which is 
central to our constitutional framework.
  That is really what this debate is about. It is about the proper 
constitutional constraints on unilateral Executive action. It happens 
to be an Executive action that deals with immigration, but it could be 
an Executive action on any other issue. That is why it is important 
that we draw those lines.
  Indeed, the legislation I proposed, which we will be voting on at 
some point, is fully consistent with the court ruling in Texas, which 
my colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, is very familiar with and 
knows much more about than I do. But it is fully consistent with that 
ruling which lets stand the 2012 Executive order but stayed the 
implementation of the 2014 Executive order. There is a difference.
  Now, I consider the Senator from Illinois to be an excellent Senator 
and a dear friend, and it truly pains me to disagree with his analysis 
of my amendment. I know that he acts in good faith. But there are 
either misunderstandings or misinterpretations or just plain 
disagreements. So I would like to go through some of the points that he 
has made about my amendment.
  One of the chief objections of the Senator from Illinois to my bill 
is that it strikes provisions of the November 2014 immigration action 
that would expand--that is the key word; it would expand--the 2012 DACA 
Program to add certain individuals who are not eligible under that 
program.
  He talks about expanding the age limit, for example.
  Now, let's take a look at exactly what the criteria are for DREAMers 
under the 2012 Executive order. These are criteria that were praised by 
my friend from Illinois and numerous other Senators on the Democratic 
side of the aisle when the President issued his Executive order. I, 
too, agree with these criteria.
  In order to qualify, an individual has to have come to the United 
States under the age of 16, has to have continually resided in the 
United States for at least 5 years preceding the date of this 
memorandum, and has to be present on the date of the June 15, 2012, 
memorandum.
  The individual has to be currently either in school, have graduated 
from high school, have obtained a general education development 
certificate or has to be an honorably discharged member of the Coast 
Guard or our military. In addition, the individual has to have a pretty 
good record. The person cannot have been convicted of a felony offense, 
a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses or 
otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety. And they 
cannot be above the age of 30.
  These are reasonable criteria that the President came up with.
  Frankly, I am not enthralled with the one that allows for multiple 
misdemeanors, and the Executive order also states that the individual 
cannot have multiple misdemeanors. The form that is used by DHS says 
the individual can have up to three misdemeanors. I personally would 
require an absolutely clean record. But these are reasonable criteria, 
and these are not changed by the Collins bill in any way. The 2012 
Executive order stands.
  So the argument of my friend from Illinois is focused on the fact 
that he wants an expansion of these criteria and to add other 
categories of individuals, and that is what the November 2014 
immigration action does. It has nothing to do with the status of the 
individuals who were allowed to stay in this country as a result of the 
2012 Executive order. My amendment protects the 2012 Executive order 
and those who benefited from it.
  So we have a sincere disagreement over what is appropriate to be done 
by Executive action and what needs to be done by legislation. Even 
though I support many of the policies that are in the 2014 Executive 
order, I just don't think the President can unilaterally proclaim those 
changes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. COLLINS. If the Senator's question is a brief one, I will be very 
happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I will make it very brief. If the Senator acknowledges--
and I believe she does--that the President had the authority in 2012 to 
issue an Executive order under DACA and to spell out the criteria, 
which includes, at the very bottom of her chart, that the person is not 
above the age of 30, why does the Senator disagree with this situation: 
someone who was 29 years old in June 2012, eligible for DACA, the 
Executive order, and now it is 2\1/2\ years later, and the President 
tried to amend in November 2014 that last line to expand it so that 
those who have aged out would still have a chance because Congress has 
not acted otherwise. Why would the Senator from Maine draw that 
distinction saying that the President has the authority to write this 
order but not the authority to amend this order?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am happy to respond to the point made 
by the Senator from Illinois.
  The point is that the President's 2014 Executive order goes far 
beyond those who would ``age out,'' in his words; it adds entirely new 
categories of people. In fact, the estimates are that some 5 million 
undocumented individuals would be covered by the 2014 Executive order. 
Should the President unilaterally be allowed to make that kind of 
Executive order, that kind of change in our immigration law? The court 
has said no, and I believe the court is right about that. In fact, when 
these criteria were issued in 2012, the Senator from Illinois said in a 
press release as recently as June of last year, before the November 
Executive order, that this was a smart and lawful approach.

[[Page S1132]]

  So the answer is, how do you draw the line, and what is the 
appropriate role of the executive branch vis-a-vis the legislative 
branch? And I say that as someone who believes and hopes that later 
this year we will take up a comprehensive immigration bill, and I hope 
to be able to support it again. But this is an issue of what is the 
proper role of Congress vis-a-vis the President under our 
constitutional system. And I was not surprised when the Texas court 
kept the 2012 Executive order but blocked the 2014 Executive order.
  There is another issue the Senator from Illinois has raised that I 
think is a very important point to make. He has said that my bill could 
bar some of those who received the ability to stay in this country 
through the 2012 Executive order from renewing their status.
  That is simply not how I read the Executive order, and I think it is 
very clear. Let's look at the 2012 Executive order. This is what it 
says. This is what Janet Napolitano talked about in ``exercising 
prosecutorial discretion.'' The June 15, 2012, DACA Executive order 
grants deferred action ``for a period of two years''--here are the key 
words--``subject to renewal.'' So there is nothing in my amendment that 
prevents children and young adults--people up to age 30--from getting a 
renewal of the deferred status that they have been granted through this 
Executive order. It says it right there: ``subject to renewal.''
  But let's look further at the data. This is on DHS's Web site. 
According to the data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
the government has renewed more than 148,000 2012 applications as of 
the first quarter of this fiscal year, and many of them were completed 
before the November 2014 Executive orders were even issued.
  So there is nothing in my bill that prevents the renewal of those 
individuals who received this status. It is very clear--148,000 of them 
have had their applications renewed.
  The Senator from Illinois has said that I would prevent DHS from 
issuing a memorandum that allows for the renewal. There is no need for 
such a memorandum; otherwise, 148,000 of these young people would not 
have been able to get a renewal--and before the 2014 Executive order 
was even issued.
  The Senator has also said that my bill calls into question the very 
legality of the 2012 DACA order because it is a ``very similar program 
to the 2014 Executive action.''
  To restate my basic point, my bill does not affect the 2012 DACA 
Program. It is substantially different from the 2014 Executive order. 
In fact, if you read the language of the 2014 Executive order, it 
embraces that distinction. It specifically states that it does not 
rescind or supersede the 2012 DACA order.
  Let me say that again. The 2014 Executive order specifically states 
that it does not rescind or supersede the Executive order that was 
issued in 2012. Instead, it says it seeks to supplement or amend it.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HOEVEN. The Senator from Texas.
  Ms. COLLINS. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Maine on 
this issue, and in her typical diligence and attention to detail, I 
think she has shown that the objections to a vote on the Collins 
amendment, which would be scheduled for Saturday unless moved up, are 
not well-taken.
  I would ask the Senator from Maine whether her interpretation of the 
President's Executive action in November of 2014 is any different from 
what the President himself said 22 different times, when he said he did 
not have the authority to issue such an Executive action?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if I could respond to the senior Senator 
from Texas, he raises an excellent point. I would bring up a quote that 
is just one of those 22 quotes in which the President has said over and 
over again that he would like to do more on immigration, that he was 
very disappointed the House didn't take up the comprehensive 
immigration bill but that his hands were tied. I believe at one point 
he even said, ``I am not a king.''
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further 
question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Maine--you 
are not alone--and the President is not alone--in stating your 
objections to the 2014 order. Your amendment would seek to get a vote 
and to put Senators on record. Is the Senator aware that there are a 
number--perhaps seven or eight Senators on the other side of the aisle 
who at different times around the November 2014 order said they were 
uncomfortable with the President taking this authority unto himself? In 
other words, I think the junior Senator from Maine was one who said 
that while he may agree with the outcome, this is not the right way to 
do it. Are you familiar with the fact that there are many of our 
Democratic friends who have expressed similar concerns about the 
illegality of the President's Executive action?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it doesn't surprise me that there are 
both Democratic Senators and Republican Senators who are extremely 
uncomfortable with what the President did last November because it is 
so outside of the scope of his authority as President that I think that 
most of my colleagues, in their hearts, on the other side of the aisle 
must have qualms and misgivings about what the President did. In fact, 
I would almost guarantee that if a Republican President had exceeded 
his Executive authority to that degree, there would have been an 
uproar. So I think this is important in terms of our protecting the 
checks and balances that our Founding Fathers so wisely incorporated 
into the Constitution. And I do believe there are even more Senators on 
the other side who may not have said what they were thinking but who 
really do have qualms about it even if they agree with the policy.
  We need to distinguish between the policy--whether or not some 
Members agree with the policy; some Members don't--but the question is, 
Does the President's frustration with Congress's failure to pass 
immigration reform allow him to unilaterally write the law?
  The Senator from Texas is a former Supreme Court justice in Texas, 
and through the Chair I would pose that question to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. I have to say to my friend, the Senator from Maine, that 
the Constitution is written in a way that divides government's 
authority between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. 
And I, of course, agree that there can be no justification on the part 
of the President that somehow Congress hadn't acted enough or quickly 
enough or expansively enough to justify the extension of his authority 
under the Constitution.
  I wish to ask my friend from Maine another question in order to drill 
down on her earlier point. It seems to me that the Senator from 
Illinois, the distinguished minority whip, is making the suggestion 
that we are mad about people benefiting from this Executive action, 
which, to my mind, could not be further from the truth. We all 
understand the aspirations of people wanting a better way of life and 
to have opportunities, but isn't it true that when we all take an oath 
to uphold the constitutional laws of the United States--whether you are 
the President or a Senator--we have a sacred obligation to make sure no 
branch, including the President, usurps the authority of another branch 
or violates those constitutional limitations?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas, who has a fine 
legal mind and has served on the Texas Supreme Court, is exactly right.
  Moreover, I wish to read what President Obama himself said about the 
very point the Senator from Texas made about the oath when we held up 
our right hand and were sworn into this body, and the oath the 
President took when he became President. Here is what the President 
said in July 2011:

       I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books . . . Now, 
     I know some people want me to bypass Congress and to change 
     the laws on my own . . . But that's not how our system works. 
     That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our 
     Constitution is written.

  President Obama had it exactly right when he stated that reality.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

[[Page S1133]]

  Mr. CORNYN. The Senator from Maine has been very patient with me. If 
I could ask two final questions.
  Given the 22 different public statements the President of the United 
States himself said about his lack of authority to do what he did in 
November of 2014, given the reservations publicly expressed and 
reported by a number of Members on that side of the aisle about what 
the President has done, and given the fact there are 11 Democratic 
Senators who come from States that filed a lawsuit to block the 
President's Executive action, can the Senator from Maine understand why 
the Democratic minority would try to block the Senator's amendment, 
which would put all Senators on record as to whether they agree with 
the President when he said that 22 times, whether they agree with the 
court that issued the preliminary injunction, and whether they agree 
with their own States that participated in this litigation to block the 
implementation of this unlawful order?
  Can the Senator think of any reason why they would try to block or 
defeat the Senator's amendment and put all Members of the Senate on 
record?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, to respond to the Senator from Texas, I 
hope that will not happen. I have put forth a way forward for this 
body. I want to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is 
fully funded throughout the fiscal year. I want to ensure that we do 
not overturn the 2012 DACA Executive order, which is narrow enough that 
it does not raise the very troubling issues the Senator from Texas has 
so eloquently outlined. But I do believe it is important for each of us 
to take a stand against the President's overreach here. This is 
important. This matters.
  It is our job to protect the Constitution and to uphold our role, and 
that is what I am trying to do here--accomplish those three goals--and 
that is what the Senator from Texas is discussing.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I could ask the Senator from Maine one 
final question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. My friend has been enormously patient with me. We are 
trying to drill this issue down here so all of the Members of the 
Senate understand exactly what the Collins amendment does and does not 
do.
  We have talked about the fact that not only are there Members of the 
Senate who are on record saying what the President did was an 
overreach, there are 11 Democratic Senators who come from States that 
filed a suit claiming irreparable damages to their States and will have 
an opportunity to vote for the Collins amendment--hopefully here soon.
  I wish to ask the Senator: There is one part of what the President's 
Executive order does that, to me, stands out above and beyond the 
constitutional issues, and that is the ability of people who have 
committed domestic violence, child exploitation, sexual abuse, and 
child molestation to somehow get kicked back to the end of the line 
when it comes to being repatriated to their state.
  For example, we all understand, as I said earlier, immigrants come 
here for a better life. We all understand that. We would hope they 
would come and play by the rules as opposed to not playing by the 
rules. Why in the world would the President want to reward, in effect, 
people who have committed domestic violence, child exploitation, sexual 
abuse, and child molestation by moving them down to a second-tier 
status of priority when it comes to repatriation?
  Is the Senator familiar with what I am referring to? Perhaps my 
friend can enlighten us further on that.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am familiar with the issue the Senator 
from Texas refers to, and I kept a provision included in the bill that 
we will be voting on at some point, on that issue. It seems to me, if 
you are a convicted sex offender, why do we want you in this country?
  The irony is that just this week the Senate Judiciary Committee held 
a hearing on sex trafficking, and we heard heartbreaking stories of 
very young girls who had been abused by men, who had been taken from 
State to State, coerced into prostitution. I do not want 
those individuals, if they come from another country, to be allowed to 
stay here. All 20 of the women of the Senate requested this hearing 
from the Judiciary Committee, and the Senator from Texas and the 
Senator from Minnesota have bills that deal with this kind of human 
trafficking. We are trying to send a message that these individuals 
should be a high priority for deportation, but I want to make it clear 
that contrary to allegations that have been made about my bill--and, 
frankly, it is a completely specious argument--there is nothing in my 
bill that deprives the Department of Homeland Security of the authority 
it needs to pursue those who would seek to harm our country--those, for 
example, who are terrorists or belong to gangs or pose some sort of 
public safety or national security threat.

  Indeed, the public safety threat is big enough to cover the people we 
are talking about, but we think they merit special mention in our bill. 
Why would we want to keep someone in our country who is deportable, who 
is a sex offender, who has been convicted of child molestation or 
domestic violence? It makes no sense.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I could close with a followup question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator from Maine for her leadership on this 
important amendment. To me it is unthinkable that Senators would block 
a vote on the Collins amendment at some point in the process this week 
because what it does, as the Senator has pointed out, is basically 
reinforce what the President said himself 22 different times when he 
said he didn't have the authority. It reaffirms what the Federal 
District Court held in Brownsville recently, and which 26 States filed 
suit on. I share the Senator's bewilderment, really, at how on one hand 
we can be condoning people coming into the country and showing 
disrespect not only for our immigration laws but compounding that 
disrespect with these heinous offenses, such as domestic violence, 
child exploitation, sexual abuse, and child molestation, particularly 
after we voted unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 
bipartisan basis these anti-trafficking bills the Senator spoke about.
  I want to close by thanking the Senator and the women of the Senate 
for leading us toward passage of this anti-trafficking legislation, but 
to also point out, once again, the complete unacceptability of this 
idea that somehow we are going to play games by blocking the Collins 
amendment vote and somehow condoning the same conduct on one hand and 
on the other hand we are condemning them through the passage of this 
anti-trafficking legislation.
  I thank the Senator and the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his 
contributions to this very important debate. I believe he helped to 
clarify a lot of important issues that I hope Members on both sides of 
the aisle will consider as they cast their votes.
  I am for comprehensive immigration reform. I have voted that way. 
That is not what this is about. My bill simply prevents the executive 
branch from usurping the legislative power by creating categorical 
exceptions from the law for whole classes of people. That power belongs 
to Congress. Whether Congress was wrong or whether Congress was right, 
it does not give the President the authority to write the law on his 
own, and that is what he has done with his November 2014 Executive 
order.
  I wish to make two other points before I close. The first point is 
there is nothing in my legislation that in any way undoes the more 
limited 2012 Executive order that applies to the DREAMers--nothing. It 
doesn't prevent them from being renewed nor does it take away their 
status. There is nothing that changes that Executive order. The first 
version of the House bill did, and I opposed that provision and it is 
not in my bill.
  The second point I will make is that this debate is not about 
immigration. It really is about the power of the President versus the 
powers delineated in our Constitution for Congress and the judicial 
branch.
  I will close, once again, with President Obama's own words, because 
he

[[Page S1134]]

got it right back in September of 2013. He said:

       Congress has said ``here is the law'' when it comes to 
     those who are undocumented . . . What we can do is to carve 
     out the DREAM Act--

  And that is what he did with his 2012 Executive order.

     saying young people who have basically grown up here are 
     Americans that we should welcome . . . But if we start 
     broadening that--

  Which is exactly what he did in his 2014 Executive order.

     then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I 
     think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's 
     not an option.

  That is why the court stayed the implementation of the 2014 Executive 
order.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                             Net Neutrality

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a historic 
decision by the Federal Communications Commission. It was a 3-to-2 
decision in a landmark case that will go down as a way to protect an 
open Internet economy. Consumers all across America should applaud this 
decision--and I know they will in the Pacific Northwest--because we 
will be protecting an aspect of our economy that has created thousands 
of jobs and millions of dollars.
  This decision, known as Net neutrality, simply says that cable 
companies and telecom companies cannot artificially charge more on the 
Internet, thereby slowing down traffic or making a two-tier system in 
which some applications would be given access to faster service and 
others not, based on what they paid for.
  This is an important decision because it champions an open Internet 
economy that has built so many new aspects of the way we communicate, 
the way we educate, and the way we continue to transact business around 
the globe. In 2010 the Internet economy accounted for 4.7 percent, or 
approximately $68 billion, of America's gross domestic product. Next 
year that Internet economy is expected to pass $100 billion and 
comprise 5.4 percent of our country's estimated $18 trillion GDP. So in 
6 years the Internet's value has climbed over 30 percent.
  What this decision says is: Let's protect the Internet. Let's not 
artificially tax it, let's not artificially slow it down, and let's not 
artificially create two tiers of an Internet system and stymie 
innovation. So many of us now know and enjoy the benefits the Internet 
provides when we buy a Starbucks coffee and use an app to pay for it or 
use an app to get on an airplane--and so many other ways that we 
communicate in an information age. Slowing all that down by just one 
second causes big problems and curtails an economy of growth.
  We all know we have questions about the way cable companies and phone 
companies charge us for data. Let's make sure the Federal 
Communications Commission does its job by overseeing those companies 
that might want to charge more for those services than they need to 
charge. Let's keep an open Internet. Let's have Net neutrality be the 
law of the land.
  I applaud the FCC for this historic decision today.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

                          ____________________