Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 35 (Monday, March 2, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 35 (Monday, March 2, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1208-S1215]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 240, which
the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

House Message to accompany H.R. 240, an act making
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other
purposes.

Pending:

McConnell motion to insist upon the Senate amendment, agree
to the request by the House of Representatives for a
conference, and authorize the Presiding Officer to appoint
conferees.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

The Israeli Prime Minister's Speech To Congress

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, our strongest and most loyal ally in the
Middle East faces a growing existential threat under the specter of a
nuclear Iran. I am deeply troubled that our President's solution won't
work. Rather than enforcing punitive measures that would stem Iran's
nuclear progress, this administration has opted for a policy of
conciliation that does nothing to curb this growing threat. All the
while, the threat to Israel grows stronger every day.

Now more than ever the Congress and the American people must stand
with our Israeli allies to ensure the safety and security not only of
our two nations, but the Middle East as a whole. Far from being a
political stunt, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to
a joint session of Congress provides our Nation with a vital
opportunity to demonstrate our unyielding resolve to stand with Israel
and oppose Iran's development of nuclear weapons.
To demonstrate our solidarity with Israel, Congress should complement
the Prime Minister's address with the threat of sanctions that properly
secure both of our countries against the Iranian threat. We must
achieve three commonsense objectives:
First, we must prevent Iran from developing or otherwise acquiring
nuclear weapons.
Second, we should reaffirm that Iran does not have an inherent right
to enrichment and reprocessing capabilities and technologies under the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Third, we must seek to reverse the development of Iran's illicit
nuclear infrastructure and bring Iran into compliance with all United
Nations Security Council resolutions.
President Obama has failed to realize that Iran poses a serious
threat to the West, and our response to that threat must be equally
serious. Prime Minister Netanyahu understands the precariousness of the
current situation, and he is doing his best to help us here in the
United States understand. As the Prime Minister stated: ``I am going to
the United States not because I seek a confrontation with the
president, but because I must fulfill my obligation to speak up on a
matter that affects the very survival of my country.''
The Prime Minister has good reason to be concerned. According to the
Heritage Foundation, since the Obama administration began to relax
sanctions after an interim agreement was implemented, the Iranian
economy grew by an estimated 4.6 percent in the first quarter of Iran's
calendar year--the first time it has grown after shrinking for the last
2 years under sanctions.
As we lose leverage by relaxing sanctions, we must not forget the
most likely reason Iran agreed to negotiations in the first place was
economic restrictions. When the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is
reported to have said after the announcement of the Joint Plan of
Action that ``the centrifuges are spinning and will never stop,''
should we curtail our efforts in the one area that appears to give Iran
pause?
Times such as these require strength of purpose, which is why we
should clearly lay out a series of sanctions that will be imposed on
Iran if negotiations fail. We should provide for short but reasonable
periods of time for Congress, and, therefore, the American people, to
consider if the Obama administration has succeeded in accomplishing the
three objectives necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear
weapons.
Tomorrow, the Congress will hear from Prime Minister Netanyahu. In
his message, I believe, he will tell us how we together can confront
the growing Iranian threat. This is the time to rally as one Nation
with one of our strongest allies to ensure a safe and secure world.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, tomorrow we will gather in the House
Chamber to listen to an address from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. I welcome Prime Minister Netanyahu to Capitol Hill and
eagerly await his speech. It is expected that he will paint a very
vivid and very real picture of the danger a nuclear Iran poses not just
to Israel but to the international community as a whole. This threat
seems of little concern to the administration--so little, in fact, that
the President almost immediately dismissed the idea of meeting with
Prime Minister Netanyahu while he is in Washington. This is
disappointing, to say the least.
Instead of taking the opportunity to join with us to reaffirm our
support for the State of Israel, the administration has chosen to send
the wrong message to our strongest ally in the region. Unfortunately,
this has become a pattern. While the administration's official policy
has been supportive of Israel, actions speak louder than words, and
regrettably this administration's actions are often too quiet. This has
not always been the case. During his first term, President Obama fought
Palestinian efforts to delegitimize Israel at the U.N. He made clear
that such tactics were counterproductive to the peace process and that
the Palestinians would put their relationship with us in jeopardy if
they sought action against Israel at the International Criminal Court.
Many Israelis are rightfully concerned that we will not have their
backs when the Palestinian Authority becomes a full member of the
International Criminal Court and follows through on this threat. I
raised this issue with Secretary Kerry during an Appropriations
Committee hearing last week, reminding him that the law explicitly
prohibits funding for the Palestinian Authority if they initiate or
actively support an International Criminal Court investigation into
alleged Israeli war crimes. The Secretary said that the Palestinian
Authority's actions amounted to a ``terrible exercise in judgment'' but
stopped short of saying they have violated the law in a way that
triggers the cutoff of aid.
Three-quarters of this body--Republicans and Democrats alike--don't
see it that way. We sent the Israeli people a strong bipartisan message
of support when we called on Secretary Kerry to suspend economic aid
while the State Department reviews the Palestinian Authority's actions.
According to Secretary Kerry's response at the hearing, the State
Department will wait to see what the Palestinians do after the first of
April before making a decision on economic aid. By then it might be too
late.
This is exactly why the people of Israel are uneasy with the ongoing
nuclear negotiations. The same administration that once spoke out
forcefully against these types of tactics now plays a game of wait-and-
see with the Palestinians, somehow expecting them to be an honest
partner this time around.
Israel's lack of confidence in the administration's support is
certainly understandable. Let's not forget that this same
administration employs high-level officials who publicly disrespect our
ally, including at least one willing

[[Page S1209]]

to use derogatory language to call Prime Minister Netanyahu names
during a media interview. Every time that happens, the administration
carries on as though these breaches of diplomatic protocol are
irrelevant to the U.S.-Israeli relations. The administration sees these
actions as having no bearing on the deteriorating state of relations
between the two heads of state. Yet, if Prime Minister Netanyahu dares
to speak up, the administration labels Israel a problem child--case in
point: the President's National Security Adviser calling this upcoming
address from Prime Minister Netanyahu ``destructive of the fabric of
the relationship.'' Accepting an invitation from the Speaker of the
House to address Congress on the severity of the nuclear threat posed
by the regime in Tehran is only destructive for U.S.-Israeli relations
in the President's eyes because he wants to keep Congress in the dark
about the ongoing negotiations. This administration seems intent on
doing just that.
Not content with the message the Prime Minister is likely to deliver,
the administration has moved from actively trying to subvert his
address to Congress. According to the Associated Press, the Obama
administration is actively considering ways to undermine the Prime
Minister's visit. Why is that? Could it be that the Prime Minister sees
the flaws of any agreement the Paris talks will yield, and does the
administration want to keep this from Congress?
As the talks extend on and Tehran engages in more delay tactics, it
is apparent that the Obama administration is pursuing a weaker deal
with Iran that will allow the country to continue its illicit nuclear
program. This agreement has become a must-win for President Obama, so
he is willing to concede key requirements that Congress and members of
his administration have previously outlined in order to get the
Iranians to sign on the dotted line. Any agreement will be a victory in
the Obama administration's eyes.
Our longstanding policy that the Iranian regime must abandon its
nuclear ambitions is itself being abandoned. As former Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger noted in his recent testimony to the Armed
Services Committee, the Paris talks have long moved from eliminating
Iran's ability to enrich uranium to limiting and monitoring a smaller
program that would be unable to produce the material for a warhead in
less than a year's time. This is a far cry from the starting point
Secretary Kerry once argued when he said: ``No deal is better than a
bad deal'' with Iran. Now we seem to be moving the goalposts from the
dismantling of Iran's nuclear program to containing it. That is not
what the President told us these talks were going to accomplish. That
is not what six U.N. resolutions intended to prevent. That is certainly
not something this Congress should allow to happen without our say.
Nothing short of full elimination of Iran's nuclear program could
honestly be considered a victory. If these talks fail to produce an
agreement that requires that of Iran, Congress must have the authority
to reject it.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, in an hour and a half the Senate will vote
on the House request to go to conference on the Department of Homeland
Security appropriations bill. This push by House Republicans to go to
conference is the very definition of an exercise in futility. I have
been very clear for days now that we will not go to conference. The
majority knows that, and the Speaker of the House knows that. Senate
Democrats will not support going to conference because it would be
totally counterproductive.
House Republicans have no intention of using that conference to craft
legislation that will pass both Houses of Congress, and in so doing
they would make sure we had a shutdown of Homeland Security, and that
would be very bad for the country.
House Republicans want to take a bill that they negotiated, a bill
that was written by House and Senate Republicans and Democrats last
December--it was a bipartisan, bicameral bill, and now they want to
take that bill and turn it into something that cannot pass. That won't
happen. We will not be a party to yet another charade by House
Republicans because that would inevitably shut down Homeland Security
and put our Nation at risk--and that is an understatement.
The Senate should reaffirm our bipartisan vote last Friday for a
clean bill to prevent a shutdown. We had 68 votes. We can do it again,
and we should do it again. That vote will happen at 5:30 p.m. this
afternoon.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Cloture Motion

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
insist upon the Senate amendment, agree to the request by the
House for a conference, and authorize the Presiding Officer
to appoint conferees with respect to H.R. 240, an act making
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other
purposes.
Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Tom Cotton, John Barrasso,
Bob Corker, Susan M. Collins, Michael B. Enzi, John
Hoeven, John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham,
Shelley Moore Capito, Deb Fischer, Thad Cochran, Orrin
G. Hatch, Joni Ernst, John Boozman.

Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum
under rule XXII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam 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. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Israeli Prime Minister's Speech To Congress

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, during the 2012 Presidential campaign,
President Obama made a claim. His claim was: ``I have Israel's back.''
This week President Obama and his administration are turning their back
on Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and they are doing it
right here during the Prime Minister's visit to Washington.
While he won't have a meeting in the White House, he will have a very
supportive audience right here on Capitol Hill. The Prime Minister will
receive a warm welcome from Members of Congress who are concerned about
Israel's security and the value of this very important relationship.
In his speech to Congress tomorrow, the Prime Minister is going to
address the ongoing negotiations with Iran over illicit nuclear
programs. If President Obama's past negotiations with our adversaries
are any guide, Israel is right to be apprehensive. The Obama
administration started negotiating with Iran more than five years ago.
A series of increasingly tough sanctions have damaged the Iranian
economy and have finally convinced them to discuss their nuclear
program seriously. In 2013 the President announced his 6-month interim
agreement. The United States would suspend enforcement of some of the
sanctions that had brought Iran to the table. In exchange the Iranians
would freeze and reverse specific elements of their nuclear program.
This was supposed to provide time for a final agreement to be
negotiated within a year. That 6-month interim agreement has now
extended to 17 months.
President Obama mishandled these negotiations from the very beginning

[[Page S1210]]

by conceding Iran's right to enrich uranium. In my opinion the
President is compounding the problem as he chases the comprehensive
agreement maybe to justify his Nobel Peace Prize. Information has
leaked out occasionally about the negotiations. Each time there seems
to be another point on which the United States has given in to the
Iranian position. Iran has gotten about $10 billion in much needed hard
currency since signing the interim agreement. It has gotten additional
income from the suspension of other sanctions. We have no way to stop
Iran from using this money to support terrorists around the world or to
prop up Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
What I heard, along with a number of Senators who went to Saudi
Arabia a little over a month ago to meet with some of the Free Syrian
Army, is that the freedom fighters from Syria who had come down to
Saudi Arabia to meet with us said that this is exactly what Iran is
doing with some of the money gained from the relief of sanctions. They
are using it to prop up al-Assad and also to fund Hezbollah and Hamas.
The Obama administration has said its goal is to keep Iran 1 year
away from being able to construct a nuclear weapon. That is the same
level the administration said Iran was at in 2013 when sanctions were
still fully in force. Apparently, the Obama administration is aiming
for a final deal that suspends sanctions on Iran and does not constrain
its nuclear program any more than it was before the interim agreement.
Let me be clear. If the Obama administration allows Iran to continue
with its illicit nuclear program, the global community will be less
safe, less stable, and less secure. Any treaty that we sign with Iran
must be accountable, enforceable, and verifiable. So far, it doesn't
appear to me that the Obama administration is negotiating a deal that
would meet that standard.
The administration has also undermined Israeli security in other
areas as well, specifically, when it comes to Middle East peace
negotiations with the Palestinians. U.S. law prohibits sending any
money to international organizations that admit the Palestinians as a
state. The idea was to support the peace talks by letting the two sides
work out their differences without others putting their thumb on the
scale. So it was a problem when the Palestinians sought and received
recognition as a full member state in the United Nations group UNESCO.
This happened in 2012. That is the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization. The Palestinians triggered that
law, and that stopped U.S. money from going to UNESCO. In every budget
request since, President Obama has tried to restore the money in spite
of the law. This would excuse the Palestinians and the United Nations
from the consequences of their actions. It sends a signal that the
United States does not, in fact, have Israel's back.
Vice President Biden said: ``Don't tell me what you value. Show me
your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.''
By that standard, it is obvious that President Obama does not value
supporting Israel in the international peace negotiations. National
Security Advisor Susan Rice said just last week that Prime Minister
Netanyahu's visit is too partisan and ``destructive of the fabric of
the relationship'' Israel has with the United States.
Members of Congress disagree. We welcome the Prime Minister. We are
eager to show our support, and Republicans will continue to push for
additional sanctions to keep the pressure on Iran. We intend to do all
that we can to ensure that the vital alliance between the United States
and Israel remains strong.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time under the
quorum calls this afternoon be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Wasteful Spending

Mr. COATS. Madam President, last week I came to the floor to launch
what I have called Waste of the Week. I will put my prop up here. Waste
of the Week is designed to provide awareness in simple ways to our
colleagues here, how we can look at government spending that doesn't
stack up in terms of something that is needed. Perhaps it was needed at
one particular time, or perhaps it is something the taxpayers shouldn't
be paying for in the first place.
I would like to raise awareness, and I am going to do that each week.
This is my second week. This evening I wish to present the second Waste
of the Week. Last week we talked about the $6 billion that could be
saved if we simply fixed a program that was duplicating checks to
taxpayers who only qualified for payments from one of those programs,
not both. If you are disabled and can't work, you can qualify for
Social Security disability. Alternatively, you can qualify for
unemployment insurance if you can work, but you are not able to find a
job. You can qualify for unemployment insurance, but you can't get
both. You either can work, or you can't work. Here are two Federal
programs that shockingly cost the taxpayers $6 billion.
This is the second week of Waste of the Week, and I would like to
talk about duplication in government. While it is a little harder to
put a specific fiscal number on the savings, clearly we can save the
taxpayer money and start this process. We can do this even in small
ways to reduce our debt and deficit and not load all this debt on our
children and grandchildren. We have tried the big stuff for years, and
I was directly engaged as much as I possibly could be the last 4 years,
all to be rejected by the President. Let's at least look at the smaller
stuff and do something to get started with this process of getting us
back on track to fiscal health.
What we have found is there are 52 separate programs that provide
workplace training, financial instructions, and preparation for people
so they can find a job--52 separate programs. You have to ask yourself,
how in the world did we ever get to 52? I think some stems from good
intentions. They'll say let's get a training program put together
through some agency in the government that can better prepare people
for employment and job opportunities.
The Small Business Administration puts one together, and the
Department of Agriculture says we ought to have a training program, the
Department of Commerce says we should have a training program, and then
a Member of Congress says, you know, that is a good idea, I would like
to propose that, too.
Over the years we have come up to 52 programs that provide workforce
training. Obviously, this is ripe for reform and there should be
consolidation for the benefit of the taxpayer.
I was pleasantly surprised to learn the President's 2016 budget
incorporates a measure that doesn't deal with all 52, but it starts
with 6 major programs and recommends consolidation. I am not often
standing here on the Senate floor commending the President for taking a
positive step in dealing with our debt and deficit. He refused to do
that on any kind of major basis in the last 4 years. But here is his
2016 budget, we can start with six programs to consolidate that--
programs that primarily do business and trade--affect business and
trade agencies as well as other related programs.
I am quoting from the budget, ``integrating the Government's core
trade and competitiveness functions into one new Department.'' Well,
surprise of surprises, I am here promoting something the President has
put in his budget.
Let me specifically state what these consolidations would affect. It
includes the Department of Commerce's core business and trade
functions. It includes Small Business Administration programs, the
Office of U.S. Trade Representative, the Export-Import Bank, the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the U.S. Trade and
Development Agency. Each of these six, as outlined by the President's
budget, can be consolidated into one program.
What does that save? It means saving on all the rent or the purchase
or the cost of the property for the government to house six different
programs

[[Page S1211]]

with six different administrators, six different sets of employees and
bureaucrats and personnel, computers, phone costs--on and on it goes.
They continue to metastasize and grow.
Now let's put a price on this so I can add this to my thermometer
here. We're in the process of trying to save the taxpayer $100 billion
and last week we came up with $5.7 billion of savings. This week it is
much smaller at $200 million, though it is not chump change. It is $200
million estimated savings by consolidating these 6 programs. Around
here that is deemed a small number. To the people I represent in
Indiana, that is a lot of money. We say, well, the government is
spending that? No, the government is spending taxpayer money to provide
duplication of programs. We think it will ultimately save a lot more as
we go forward and define additional consolidations down the line.
We are going to put a little more red on the chart to represent
savings. This thermometer will keep rising and rising as I come down
here and present the Waste of the Week. Mr. President, $200 million in
savings can be achieved simply by consolidating programs that are
duplicating each other in terms of what they are providing.
We can't solve all of our country's debt and deficit problems
overnight, but we can take needed steps to identify those that the
government's own accounting agencies--independent of Republicans and
Democrats--have identified as wasteful money. Let's get this money back
to the taxpayer. Let's eliminate this money to reduce our debt so our
children and grandchildren don't have to pony up more and let's end up
with a much more efficient and effective Federal Government.
With that, I finish this week's Waste of the Week and look forward to
being here next week for another iteration.
I yield back my time, if there is any left.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Lynch Nomination

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this weekend the United States will mark
the 50th anniversary of the march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama.
Those of us who are not old enough to remember 50 years ago have read
the history. Those of us who were old enough at that time saw what
happened at that historic march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge five
decades ago. Scores of courageous Americans refused to be silent about
the need for equal protection under the law. This was a case where
their blood, sweat, and tears helped move our Nation toward a more
perfect union. One of those who actually shed blood--in fact, nearly
died on that march for freedom and equality--is one of my closest
friends in Congress, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia.
Last Thursday I was so proud when Congressman Lewis came to the
Senate Judiciary Committee room to see a vote on the historic
nomination of Loretta Lynch to serve as our next Attorney General. He
said he was compelled to come because this was no ordinary markup and
this is no ordinary confirmation. When the Senate finally confirms her,
Loretta Lynch will be the first African-American woman to serve our
country as Attorney General.
She is extraordinarily qualified for the job. The letters and
testimony I have received from law enforcement and both Republican and
Democratic prosecutors attesting to how good she is, are amazing. I
urge the Senate to consider her nomination immediately and confirm her
this week. She has waited much longer than any modern nominee ever has
for this position.
But as I urge her confirmation, I cannot help but reflect on the fact
that Ms. Lynch's confirmation will be another step toward realizing Dr.
Martin Luther King's dream that people in our country would be judged
by the content of their character. Loretta Lynch's life epitomizes that
dream.
She was born in Greensboro and was raised in Durham, NC. She is the
daughter of a fourth-generation Baptist preacher and a school
librarian. I have met Reverend Lynch. He is an amazing and inspiring
man. Her parents instilled in her the American values of fairness and
equality, even when those around them were not living up to those
values. Ms. Lynch has spoken about riding on her father's shoulders as
a child to their church, where students organized peaceful protests
against racial segregation. The freedom songs and the church music that
went hand-in-hand with those protests undoubtedly made up the
soundtrack of her childhood. The Judiciary Committee was honored to
have her father, Reverend Lorenzo Lynch, with us not only at both days
of her historic hearing in January but also with us last Thursday as
the Committee considered his daughter's nomination.
Throughout Loretta Lynch's life, those who encountered her
intelligence and tenacity have not always been prepared to accept her
and her impressive accomplishments. But each time they didn't accept
it, the content of her character has shone through and led her to even
greater heights.
In elementary school, administrators did not believe that Loretta
Lynch could score as high has she did on a standardized test. They
demanded that she retake the test. She did, and she scored even higher
the second time. In high school she rose to the very top of her class,
which would have made her the first African-American valedictorian.
School administrators, however, decided that even though she had earned
the title, it would somehow be too controversial. So, they decided she
must share the honor with two other students, one of whom was white,
even though she was the one who scored the highest. This didn't hold
her back. She kept going forward. She went on to graduate with honors
from Harvard College and then earned her law degree from Harvard Law
School.
This has been the story of Loretta Lynch's life. While some are not
ready to embrace her distinction, she just marches forward with grace
to prove that she is even stronger and more qualified than her
detractors can imagine. Even though she was required to be better than
those who were holding her back, she didn't let that stop her. She just
kept going forward. She has dedicated the majority of her remarkable
career to public service and we are fortunate as a nation that she
wants to continue to serve.
The President of the United States announced that Loretta Lynch would
be nominated to be our Nation's chief law enforcement official on
November 8th.
Right after this announcement, Senate Republicans made clear that
despite the urgent challenges facing this country, they would object to
even begin consideration of her nomination during the lame duck period.
So Loretta Lynch's historic nomination waited. As she prepared for her
confirmation hearing, she stayed focused on her current position and
continued to lead a dedicated team of prosecutors to bring terrorists
and serious criminals to justice in New York.
Ms. Lynch was finally called before the Judiciary Committee at the
end of January. She had more poise and credibility than any nominee I
have seen in my four decades in the Senate. Any reasonable observer of
her hearing, which lasted almost 8 hours, would conclude that she was
beyond impressive and that she possesses the leadership, intellect, and
wisdom needed to help keep our country safe. After the hearings,
Republicans submitted an unprecedented number of written questions to
Ms. Lynch, even though every member had been allowed ample time to ask
live questions at her hearing. Even members who had already publicly
declared that they opposed her confirmation continued to submit scores
of questions.
But now, 114 days have passed since Ms. Lynch was nominated. She has
been made to wait longer than any one of the previous five Attorneys
General--five Attorneys General in both Democratic and Republican
administrations. And for what reason? So that those who have already
said they oppose the nomination can try to score additional political
points? When Ms. Lynch is told she must continue to

[[Page S1212]]

wait longer than any of the modern Attorneys General, that she must
wait for her confirmation vote, I am reminded that those dedicated to
the fight for civil rights have long heard their detractors tell them:
Just be patient. We can't give you your rights yet. Just be patient.
Just wait your turn.
Well, come on. No Member of this body--of either party--would ever
stand for anyone saying: Notwithstanding your qualifications, wait your
turn.
Ms. Lynch grew up hearing her family's stories about the Jim Crow
South. She knows the meaning of injustice. She would never compare the
partisan political games being played with her nomination to the epic
struggles her family faced.
But as we in this Chamber reflect this week to honor those Americans
who marched in Selma and the role our Department of Justice played in
the civil rights movement, it should not be too much to ask just how
much longer Loretta Lynch has to wait. How much longer does this woman
have to wait before she can become the next U.S. Attorney General? In
these perilous times, our Nation deserves to have its chief law
enforcement officer considered without further delay.
At the Judiciary Committee's markup last week, Senator Durbin spoke
passionately about the ``solemn, important, and historic moment''
before us in considering Ms. Lynch's nomination. His comments were
moving, and they appealed to our responsibility as Senators to uphold
the Constitution and provide advice and consent on the President's
nominees. We can do so this week by confirming Loretta Lynch.
We have played politics with too many things already in the young
days of this 114th Congress. From the spending bill the House
Republicans refused to take up to fund the Department of Homeland
Security, to the nomination of this highly qualified woman to serve as
the Nation's chief law enforcement officer, we can no longer put
national security at risk just for the sake of a few talking points or
a second or two on a television program.
So I call on my friend, the majority leader, to simply set a date for
her confirmation. Do not leave the American people wondering if this
extremely qualified woman will get a timely vote. Treat her like every
previous Attorney General nominee. The Nation faces too many challenges
to play politics with this important nomination.
Too long some in this body have told her: You have to wait. You have
to wait your turn. You have to wait.
No, she has proven her qualifications. She shouldn't have to wait any
more than those who went before her. Set an up-or-down vote. Let's
confirm her nomination.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, here we are again where we were last
Monday with about 5 days left before funding runs out for the
Department of Homeland Security. So if it feels like ``Groundhog Day,''
it is because it is ``Groundhog Day,'' and we just can't keep playing
those kinds of games with this agency's funding.
Those who are blocking action on the funding bill for the Department
of Homeland Security have a clear choice: Are they going to prioritize
politics or are they going to prioritize national security?
Last Friday the Senate passed a bill with 68 bipartisan votes--a bill
that fully funds the Department of Homeland Security without any
controversial riders attached to the bill. I am ever hopeful that the
House will follow our lead and immediately take up that clean Senate
bill. We cannot, we should not replay the chaos we saw last week. The
brinksmanship really needs to end. It is time for Congress to pass the
Department of Homeland Security funding bill.
Whether it is threats to the Mall of America in Minnesota, plots
foiled by DHS and the FBI in New York City, attacks on our cyber
networks, or threats at our Nation's borders, we live during a time
when the safety and security of this country are at risk. We cannot
play politics with the agency that is tasked with keeping us safe, and
we shouldn't play politics with the funding that supports our first
responders--the very people who are there anytime something happens in
our States and our local communities. What must our enemies think when
they see Congress fighting over whether to keep the Department of
Homeland Security open?
Last week DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson wrote a letter to the
congressional leadership, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record the letter from Secretary Johnson.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Department of

Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, February 26, 2015.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader McConnell, Minority
Leader Reid, and Minority Leader Pelosi: Thank you for your
leadership and efforts to pass a clean, full-year
appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security.
As you know, our funding expires tomorrow at midnight. I
write to explain to Members of Congress the real and
substantial consequences of a failure to pass a full-year
appropriations bill by that deadline.
As an initial matter, it must be noted that a potential
shutdown of the Department comes at a particularly
challenging time for homeland security. It is stunning that
we must even contemplate a shutdown of the Department in the
current global context. The global terrorist threat has
become more decentralized and complex. Terrorist
organizations are now openly calling for attacks on Western
targets. Yesterday's arrests in New York City highlight the
threat of independent actors in the homeland who support
overseas terrorist organizations and radical ideology. We are
working hard to stay one step ahead of potential threats to
aviation security. Last year at this time, the spike in
migrant children began to appear at our border; we are
deployed to prevent this situation from recurring, and to
address it aggressively if it does. The Nation is in the
midst of a very cold, harsh winter, and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency is working with states impacted by record
snowfalls.
Here are just some of the consequences for homeland
security if the Department's funding lapses and we shut down:
First, about 170,000 employees will be required to work,
but will not get paid for that work during the period of a
shutdown. This includes our Coast Guard, Border Patrol
agents, Secret Service agents, Transportation Security
Administration officers, and others on the front lines of our
homeland security. These working men and women depend on
biweekly paychecks to make ends meet for themselves and their
families. For them, personally, work without pay is
disruptive and demoralizing. Even worse for our people are
the public statements by some that make light of a shutdown,
which disregards DHS employees' personal sacrifices and
dedication to our Nation's security.
Second, approximately 30,000 men and women of the
Department must be furloughed and sent home without pay. Our
financial management, human resources, procurement and
contracting, and information technology teams--the
institutional backbone of the Department--will be reduced by
90 percent, from over 2,000 to just 208 people. My own
immediate headquarters staff will be cut by about 87 percent.
Our Science and Technology team, which is intensely focused
on developing non-metallic explosive detection capabilities
as well as other technologies to counter threats to aviation,
will be cut 94 percent, from 448 to 26 people. Our Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office, which is our Nation's primary
research and development lead for development of advanced
nuclear detection technologies and technical forensic
capabilities, will also be cut 94 percent, from 121 to just 7
people.
Third, contracting services across the Department,
including those for critical mission support activities, will
be disrupted and/or interrupted altogether. Depending upon
the length of a shutdown, contract awards and major
acquisitions could be impacted. In the event of a shutdown,
negotiations to construct the United States Coast Guard's 8th
National Security Cutter will be delayed, potentially leading
to an increase in costs.
Fourth, our $2.5 billion-a-year grant-making to state,
local, tribal, and territorial governments, to assist them in
preventing, responding to or recovering from terrorist
attacks, major disasters and other emergencies, remains at a
standstill (it has already stopped because the Department is
currently funded by a Continuing Resolution). Of particular
note, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Emergency
Management Performance Grants, which

[[Page S1213]]

contribute 50 percent of the salaries of state and local
emergency management personnel, cannot be funded.
Fifth, public assistance disaster recovery payments to
communities affected by previous disasters will grind to a
halt. Though these payments are funded with prior-year money,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's staff that
processes them must be furloughed.
Sixth, depending upon the length of a shutdown, DHS will no
longer be able to support state and local authorities with
planning, safety, and security resources for special security
events such as the Boston and Chicago Marathons.
Seventh, depending upon the length of a shutdown, work to
complete construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense
Facility in Kansas, which will replace the aging l950s-era
Plum Island facility in New York, could be disrupted.
Eighth, new hires across the Department must be halted,
disrupting critical missions to secure the border, protect
millions of daily airline passengers, strengthen security at
the White House, and deploy new ICE investigators. Routine
attrition hiring would cease across the Department, seriously
undermining our homeland security frontline staffing needs.
Our plans to increase CBP staffing at our ports of entry by
2,000 officers, and to maintain the Transportation Security
Administration's workforce of airport screeners and air
marshals will be undermined. Our plans to hire additional
Secret Service uniformed officers and special agents will
also be disrupted.
Ninth, without funding, all training at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Centers will cease. Up to 2,000 local,
state, and federal law enforcement trainees from across the
country will be sent home.
Finally, as I have noted many times, mere extension of a
continuing resolution has many of the same negative impacts.
A short-term continuing resolution exacerbates the
uncertainty for my workforce and puts us back in the same
position, on the brink of a shutdown just days from now.
I urge Congress, as soon as possible, to pass a clean,
full-year Fiscal Year 2015 appropriations bill for the
Department of Homeland Security.
The American people are counting on us.
Sincerely,
Jeh Charles Johnson,
Secretary.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, the following is a quote from the letter
the Secretary wrote:

It is stunning that we must even contemplate a shutdown of
the Department in the current global context. The global
terrorist threat has become more decentralized and complex.
Terrorist organizations are now openly calling for attacks on
western targets.

The Secretary also noted how taxing the current funding crisis has
been on the agency and the employees who put their lives on the line
every day to protect the Nation. He said the following in his letter:

These working men and women depend on biweekly paychecks to
make ends meet for themselves and their families. For them,
personally, work without pay is disruptive and demoralizing.

I can't imagine anyone here thinks people should be expected to go to
work--many of them putting their lives on the line--without getting
paid. Last week DHS officials had to prepare shutdown plans. They had
to give employees notice that they might be furloughed or they might
not get paid.
At a time when resources should be spent protecting the Nation,
spending them dealing with a possible shutdown just doesn't make sense.
None of us would run our households that way. The private sector
doesn't run business that way. We shouldn't run government that way.
Instead of focusing on critical missions such as securing the border,
counterterrorism efforts, and maritime security, DHS officials have
been consumed with the threat of a shutdown of their agency. That is
not the way we should be doing business. It is making our Nation less
safe.
It is time for the House to end this brinksmanship. It is time for
the House to vote on the bipartisan bill the Senate passed last week.
We came together in the Senate under the leadership of Senator
McConnell and Senator Reid, and I applaud their working together across
party lines to pass a bill that funds DHS for the rest of the year.
That is what the American people expect of us. They expect us to work
together to address the challenges facing this country. They want us to
get things done, not to play politics and certainly not to jeopardize
our country's safety and security.
I hope that the House will follow the Senate's lead, that they will
pass a bipartisan bill to keep the Department of Homeland Security on
the job for the remainder of this year.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, this afternoon we will vote on whether to
go to conference on H.R. 240. For Senators who want to return to
regular order, this is their chance. Regular order is the opportunity
to offer, to have debate on, and to vote on amendments.
We have already established on earlier legislation that the majority
party is willing to return to regular order and to offer an open
amendment process. So part of establishing that regular order process
is, as I say, the opportunity to offer amendments, to have a debate,
and to vote. It is that process which should and has historically
produced the best legislation not only here in the Senate but in the
House--in this Congress--on behalf of the American people.
Another part of regular order, though, is conference committees. When
the House passes a bill and the Senate passes a bill and there are
differences in the bill, how do we resolve the differences in the bill?
We go to a conference committee. So that is what is before us right
now. This vote is simply to send H.R. 240 to a conference committee so
the House and the Senate can work on the legislation.
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle filibustered H.R. 240.
Only when amendments were limited to one amendment did they allow us to
proceed to the bill. That is unfortunate, but clearly it was done to
protect the President's Executive order on immigration.
The irony is that the President's overreach should not be a partisan
issue. Our forefathers created a system of checks and balances in our
Constitution to protect the rights of our citizens. The legislative,
the executive, and the judicial branches all have a role to play in
this system of checks and balances. When one branch exceeds its
authority, the others have an obligation to check that overreach, an
obligation to protect the rights of our citizens.
That is exactly what has happened in this situation. The President's
Executive order on immigration exceeds his authority as the leader of
the executive branch. Now a Federal district court in Texas has issued
an injunction to stay the President's action, and that stay is in place
while the lawsuit against the President's action which has been filed
by 26 States is adjudicated. That is our role too. Just like the States
stepping up when the President has overreached his authority, just like
the Federal court stepping up when the President has exceeded his
authority, that is our role too--to protect the legislative power,
which is solely the power of the legislative branch, solely the power
of Congress.
So I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to send H.R.
240 to conference to see if we can find common ground. That is, after
all, regular order for the Congress.
I again remind our colleagues that this bill provides full funding
for the Department of Homeland Security. Let me once again summarize
some of that funding. The bill provides $10.7 billion for Customs and
Border Protection, CBP, including record levels of personnel, tactical
infrastructure, and technology in air and maritime assets. It provides
$5.96 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, and
maintains a record 34,000 adult detention beds and 3,828 family
detention beds. The bill strongly supports the vital missions of the
Secret Service and provides for cyber security efforts. It provides
more than $10 billion for the Coast Guard for its many missions,
including search and rescue. Since homeland security is a national
effort, the bill continues critical funding for grant programs to State
and local firefighters, emergency managers, and law enforcement. The
bill also provides for research and development, TSA's aviation
security screening operations, the Federal law enforcement training
centers, and E-Verify, which supports businesses across the United
States in hiring legal workers.
But in addition to that funding, we also need to check the Executive
action of the President on immigration. That is what our system of
checks and balances under our Constitution is all about. That is the
opportunity we have--to send this bill to conference with the House to
find a solution. Let's

[[Page S1214]]

do that. Let's find a solution. Let's return to regular order in the
Congress.
Mr. President, 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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I encourage the Senate to vote to send
the Homeland Security appropriations bill to conference with the House.
That should be the order of business. We have been wrangling over this
bill for 3 months now. The legislative maneuvering has crowded out all
of the real issues before the Senate on this legislation.
We should have debated and voted on the President's actions, the
Executive orders which provoked this entire situation. On multiple
occasions Members on the other side of the aisle have voted unanimously
to avoid having that debate. First, four times they voted over the
course of 3 weeks to refuse to even consider House-passed funding bill
legislation. Their bill was passed by the other body in plenty of time
to avoid the shutdown that currently consumes the Senate.
This won't be the last time during this Congress that the House and
Senate disagree on an appropriations bill, but it should not be the
last time the legislative branch disagrees with the executive branch
and vice versa. Soon we will begin consideration of the fiscal year
2016 appropriations bills. Each of these bills will prompt differences,
but we should have opportunities for robust debates on these
differences. That is all I am suggesting. We can proceed to conference
with the House in a timely manner on the bills. Doing so will help
provide opportunities for orderly and direct resolution of differences
as reported by the various committees. We have done too little of that
in recent years, and it has been detrimental to the legislative
process.
I urge the Senate to support the motion to accept the request for a
conference committee on the Homeland Security appropriations bill.
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. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

cloture motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to insist upon the Senate amendment, agree to the request by the
House for a conference, and authorize the Presiding Officer to appoint
conferees with respect to H.R. 240, an act making appropriations for
the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a
close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Colorado (Mr.
Gardner), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
Wicker).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby)
would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter)
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the
Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), and the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 64 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey

NAYS--43

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--10

Blunt
Brown
Gardner
Kirk
McCaskill
Nelson
Paul
Shelby
Vitter
Wicker
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are
43.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the
bill is not amendable in the Senate and we cannot take further action.
Therefore, I move to table the House message, and I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Colorado (Mr.
Gardner), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
Wicker).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby)
would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter)
would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Missouri (Mrs.
McCaskill), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 31, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 65 Leg.]

YEAS--58

Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Johnson
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley

[[Page S1215]]

Mikulski
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Reid
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--31

Barrasso
Boozman
Burr
Cassidy
Coats
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Grassley
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Lankford
Lee
Moran
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey

NOT VOTING--11

Blunt
Brown
Coons
Gardner
Kirk
McCaskill
Nelson
Paul
Shelby
Vitter
Wicker
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CORNYN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

____________________