[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 171 (Thursday, November 19, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8119-S8124]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 2577, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2577) making appropriations for the
Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban
Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Collins/Reed amendment No. 2812, in the nature of a
substitute.
Collins/Reed amendment No. 2813 (to amendment No. 2812), to
make a technical amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Terrorist Attacks Against France and Syrian Refugees
Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I wish to speak about Friday night for a
few moments. In Connecticut, on Friday night the world really did stop.
Thousands of people in my State watched their television set or their
smartphone as images like this one poured in from the blood-soaked
streets of Paris: horrific reports, scores dead, more badly wounded.
Deep down, in Connecticut, we ached deeply for Paris's loss. Maybe it
is because for those of us who hail from the former colonies, we feel a
special sense of brotherhood with the French. In my boyhood town of
Wethersfield, CT, I grew up a stone's throw from the tavern where
Washington and Rochambeau met to plan their campaign against the
British. We pain for France because of 250 years of friendship and also
because we know, unfortunately, exactly what they are going through.
That ominous sense of familiarity and that perverse bond among nations
that have been visited by mass terrorist attack are part of the reason
why we ached so acutely on Friday night, over the weekend, and into
this week.
But also, these pictures cause us pain because we fear this isn't the
end of the mass slaughter. We grieve because the massive scale of this
particular attack, on a nation that already had its antenna tuned for a
potential attack, made us realize how vulnerable we still are today to
a similar assault. The threat of another large-scale extremist attack
just became so much more real for millions of Americans who had,
frankly, begun to settle into an understandable comfortable
complacency, a decade and a half since that last major terrorist attack
just miles from Connecticut's border.
In Connecticut, to be honest, people are mad and they are scared.
Having watched all of this coverage, I understand why. But images such
as this also move the people of my State. These are two little kids,
Ralia and Rahaf, 7 and 13 years old. This is where they sleep at night,
on the streets of Beirut. They went there from Damascus after their
mother and their brother were killed by a grenade. Along with
[[Page S8120]]
their dad, they have been sleeping on the streets for over a year.
Rahaf, who is 13, says she is scared of the ``bad boys'' in Beirut on
those streets at night. When she talks about that, Ralia starts crying.
I don't want to cast with a broad brush all of the people of my
State, but I think I can safely say that their hearts ache for pictures
like this, for images such as the one of the 3-year-old boy--just about
the same age as my youngest son--who washed up limp and dead on the
beach in Turkey. My neighbors are not comfortable living in a country
that simply turns its back on little kids who have been ravaged by
torture and rape, dying from barrel bombs and executions and slipshod
escape vessels.
There has been a lot that has disturbed me about the debate here in
Washington, across the country, and on the cable news channels since
Friday's massacre: the hyperpartisanship, the concern for one religion
over another, the refusal to wait for facts before jumping to policy
conclusions.
Maybe what has disappointed me the most is the suggestion that the
people in my State or the people of this country or this Congress need
to make a choice between acting on concern for this image or acting out
of concern for this image. The suggestion is that if your priority is
protecting us from a Paris-style attack, you can't show compassion for
those two little kids. If you want to show compassion for these
innocents, then you compromise national security.
Here is the truth: Not only are these two priorities not mutually
exclusive, they are actually interdependent. There is simply no choice
to be made between protecting this country and helping the victims of
terror. We can take steps together--Republicans and Democrats--to make
sure terrorists do not get into this country, and we can continue in
the best traditions of America to be, as our Statue of Liberty says, a
home for ``your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.'' How do I
arrive at this conclusion that we can do both, that we can protect our
country and respond to the victims of terror in Syria? First, I asked
the questions my constituents are asking: How can we be sure refugees
fleeing Syria aren't going to pose a risk to the security of the people
who live in my State in Connecticut?
Yesterday I sat through two exhaustive briefings to seek the answer
to this question, and here is what I learned. There is no one who comes
to the United States, in any immigration category, that receives a more
comprehensive and exhaustive background check than refugees:
biometrics, international background checks, interviews, fingerprints--
a process that takes anywhere from 18 months to 2 years to make sure we
get it right. It is exhaustive, and it is probably why of the nearly
2,000 Syrian refugees who are resettled in the United States this year,
not a single one has been connected to terrorist activity. The other
reason for this, as I learned yesterday, is because the profile of the
refugees we are prioritizing for entry into the United States tells the
story as well. We largely bring women and children, the frail and the
sick, those who have been beaten, raped or tortured by terrorists--the
ones who simply cannot survive in the refugee camps. It means that of
all the Syrians who are already here, only 2 percent of them are young,
single males. We aren't bringing into the United States the type of
people who fit the profile of those who could pose a danger to us.
The second reason I have concluded that ending the refugee program
really will not make us safer is because of conversations I have had
with experts about the nature of ISIS itself. I don't think you can
argue that ISIS has been contained. Paris showed us ISIS can be lethal
anywhere, anytime. Over the past year, ISIS has proffered two
narratives to its recruits. The first is that this so-called caliphate
is expanding. It is an unstoppable, inexorable force that challenges
young Muslims to get on board now before it overtakes them by force.
The second is this narrative that there is a war between the West that
is left over from Iraq, left over from Afghanistan, left over from the
aftermath of Sykes-Picot, left over from the Crusades. It is this idea
that the Western World is out to destroy the East, they argue, and we
have to fight for our survival.
The first narrative is still strong, but it is not strong as it used
to be. ISIS isn't expanding its territory in the Middle East anymore.
They have 25 percent less territory than they did last year at this
time. The second initiative now actually becomes more important, and
the Paris attacks are evidence of this. Indiscriminate attacks on
civilians in a place like Paris are designed, in part, to provoke a
response from the West to feed this argument over a clash of
civilizations. That doesn't mean we shouldn't respond, it doesn't mean
we shouldn't respond forcefully, but it should wake us up to the
reality of the necessity of this us-versus-them narrative that is
essential to the growth of ISIS. The story of the Christian world's
marginalization of the Muslim world is the nourishment that feeds the
growth of ISIS.
That is what makes our response to the Syrian humanitarian disaster
interwoven into our strategy to defeat ISIS. Turning our back on those
who have been tortured and raped and battered and beaten by Bashar al-
Assad, after having welcomed massive refugee flows from Cuba and
Vietnam and Bosnia, feeds straight into this radical Sunni argument
that we are at war with Islam. Imagine the glee in Raqqa when they see
postings of American politicians arguing we should take Syrian refugees
but only the Christian ones and not the Muslim ones. That is a story
line that is an ISIS recruiter's dream.
None of this is to suggest we shouldn't be taking the fight to ISIS
in Syria and Iraq. I have been a vocal supporter of the thousands of
bombing runs by American planes, of our efforts to support the Iraqi
Army and the Peshmerga as they seek to kill as many ISIS fighters as
possible. Fighting ISIS inside Syria and Iraq is absolutely necessary
in order to defeat them. So we engage in that fight with the knowledge
that our involvement may also help with recruitment. We weigh the
benefit against the cost and we fight.
When it comes to turning away the victims of terror inside Syria, if
we are able to build a system that screens out any Syrians who pose a
threat to the United States, then the meager benefit can never outweigh
the costs of feeding this anti-Muslim narrative. Now that narrative is
more important than ever to sustain ISIS.
Here is the most important point to make. The people I represent
don't believe we can just stand still in the wake of Paris, even if
they believe the screening program is robust enough. They may be
convinced of this, but they are certainly right that we can't accept
the status quo. My worry over the past week is that this hyperfocus on
the refugee program that has only brought in 2,000 immigrants last
year--mostly women and children--misses the forest for the trees.
The Visa Waiver Program brings in 20 million people a year--not
2,000--20 million people. It has background checks, too, but nothing
like what is applied to refugees. There is a good reason for this
difference, because the countries that are part of the Visa Waiver
Program are our allies--countries we can generally rely on--but with
several of the Paris attackers bearing EU passports, making them
eligible for the Visa Waiver Program, this sense of security we have
had with these countries has been shattered. If we want to have a real
conversation about changing our immigration laws to better protect this
country, then focusing on 20 million lightly vetted visitors rather
than 2,000 highly vetted visitors sounds like the better approach.
There is absolutely room to make the Visa Waiver Program stronger.
There are a myriad of security information sharing agreements between
the United States and Europe and among countries within Europe that
have not been executed. Now is the time to demand that these
agreements, like the umbrella law enforcement agreement between the EU
and the United States, be executed, be signed. Now is the time for both
the United States and Europe to require that every EU nation modernize
their protocols for uploading law enforcement and anti-terrorism
information onto the databases that we use to compile our no-fly list.
If these agreements aren't signed or these protocols aren't updated,
then we need to consider whether an unreformed Visa
[[Page S8121]]
Waiver Program is still in our national interests.
If our goal is really to keep America safe from infiltration of
terrorist groups, this reform is the most important one we can make to
our immigration system, and it should bring together Republicans and
Democrats.
Every day that I go home to my 7-year-old and my 4-year-old, I am
reminded that my most sacred duty here is to enact policy that keeps
them safe and keeps my constituents safe. The hundreds of calls and
emails that my office has received since Friday reinforces for me this
commitment, but I live in a nation like no other. I live in the United
States of America, a nation that in the late 1800s had emerged from
Civil War to become a beacon for the oppressed and the repressed all
over the world and millions showed up on our shores--people like my
Irish and Polish ancestors--and a nation that was spreading its wings
over the world, beginning to understand the impact for good that we
could have. It was during that time that the poet Emma Lazarus called
America ``The New Colossus.'' The feeling was that we were capable of a
greatness, a bigness of both achievement and heart that the world had
never witnessed and exceptionalism, one that still burns bright today.
The argument that America cannot both protect itself and protect
those who are fleeing terrorism feels so small. It feels so contrary to
this idea of exceptionalism that has been at the foundation, at the
root of the American story. It feels very weak. In fact, the moments
where we have made choices solely out of fear to marginalize others are
moments we now regret. We interred Japanese Americans in camps because
we were at war with Japan or hesitated to take Jewish refugees fleeing
the Nazis out of fear that some might be spies. In hindsight those
measures did not reflect on who we really are as a nation.
The America I live in does not settle for false choices that make
America look and feel small or powerless. We can save the terrorized
and protect ourselves from being terrorized at the same time. In fact,
we have to do the former to accomplish the latter. In doing so we can
come together as a Congress and as a country to make good policy and to
recall that sense of American exceptionalism that caused Emma Lazarus's
poem to end up on a statue that was sent as a present to the United
States from France as a reminder of our unbreakable bond with them.
I yield the floor.
Ms. COLLINS. 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. 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.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2
p.m. today, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the
following nominations: Calendar Nos. 366 through 371; that the Senate
vote on the nominations without intervening action or debate; that
following disposition of the nominations, the motions to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or
debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that
any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record;
that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and
the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, for the information of our colleagues,
we are making good progress in clearing a number of amendments that
have support on both sides of the aisle. I expect we will be able to
proceed with an amendment offered by Senator Cornyn and Senator Reid
shortly, and in the meantime 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. CORNYN. 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. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment in order to call up my amendment No. 2844.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, over 1,000
Americans have called my office in the last couple of days, and they
are very concerned about admitting people from the Middle East when we
are not sure what their intentions are. The Boston bombers were here
under the refugee program, and two Iraqi refugees came to my State with
the intent to buy Stinger missiles.
I have asked for a very simple amendment. I ask unanimous consent to
have an amendment placed in the queue for a vote that lets the American
people vote on whether we want to bring more people here from the
Middle East and whether we are doing an adequate job of screening these
people. I think having a vote on that is a reasonable request, and
therefore, until I am allowed to have a vote for which I think the
American people are clamoring, I will continue to object.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent to bring
forward my amendment to limit and end the subsidized housing for new
people who come here from the Middle East. My amendment is No. 2843,
and I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to set aside the current
business and bring my amendment forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, on behalf of myself and the ranking
member of the subcommittee, Senator Reed, I object. We are in a process
where we are trying to clear amendments, and we are making good
progress on this bill. I understand Senator Paul has raised an issue
that is issue, but it does not belong on this bill and indeed would
result in this bill not progressing.
We are trying to get back to regular order on the appropriations
process. With cooperation, I am confident we could finish this
important appropriations bill today. We could show the American people
that we can govern and fund essential transportation and housing
programs that are included in this bill. By and large, we have had
excellent bipartisan cooperation. I was hoping we could move to the
amendment offered by the Senator from Texas--a member of the Republican
leadership--and cosponsored by the Senate Democratic leader. It is an
amendment that I believe we could dispense with quickly, and we would
then be able to continue to work through the amendments on this bill.
Since the amendment from the Senator from Kentucky would grind this
bill to a halt and does not belong on this bill--and there will be
other opportunities to deal with this issue because the House is going
to be passing legislation this week dealing with the issues raised by
the Senator from Kentucky--I will object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The majority whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I agree with the senior Senator from
Maine and the bill manager that the concerns Senator Paul has raised,
which are shared by many of us as far as the adequacy of the screening
process for the refugees coming to our country, is a serious matter. It
is a matter, as the Senator from Maine has said, that will be voted on
today, and my prediction is that there will be broad bipartisan support
for the additional security measures contained in that bill.
This is a transportation bill, and it is very important for us to get
our work done, and unfortunately that is appearing more and more
difficult.
If I could say a word about my amendment because this is an important
matter to me and to my State, as well as to other States. My amendment
would direct the Secretary of Transportation to conduct cost-benefit
determinations for new airports which are seeking entry into the
federal
[[Page S8122]]
tower program but have been unnecessarily prohibited by the Federal
Aviation Administration. The FAA's current moratorium on accepting new
airports negatively impacts airport sponsors that have already
submitted their applications to the FAA, including the North Texas
Regional Airport in Grayson County, TX. I know there are airports like
that around the country, which is why this amendment has such broad
bipartisan support.
This amendment would simply require the Secretary of Transportation
to process applications that have already been submitted--in some cases
years ago--but have been punished by this arbitrary administrative
delay. It would not have any negative impact on any current contract
tower airports and would only allow new airports to be admitted to the
program if funds are available.
I am grateful to Senator Collins and Senator Reed for their favorable
consideration of this amendment, and I hope we can work through the
objection raised by the Senator from Kentucky so we can process this
legislation and pass it in the near future.
National Adoption Month
Madam President, on another note, I wanted to say a few words about
National Adoption Month.
Yesterday, Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, convened a very important hearing on the subject of
international adoptions; specifically, ensuring that the process--which
at times can be bogged down in bureaucratic redtape and take an
excruciatingly long time to complete--remains a priority for this
administration.
Last year, if my recollection serves me correctly, there were about
22,000 intercountry adoptions. In other words, there were families here
in the United States who wanted to adopt these children who, in many
circumstances, have very poor prospects in the countries where they
were born.
As I said, this is National Adoption Month. I am glad Senator
Grassley enabled us to highlight the challenges of people who are
trying to adopt children from, for example, the Democratic Republic of
the Congo. There are about 400 adopted children the government of the
Congo will not release. Yesterday, many of us, on a bipartisan basis,
met with the ambassador and asked: What is the way forward for these
families and these children, many of whom are in pretty poor
circumstances back in their home country.
Americans, of course, adopt not only children from their local
communities or their State, but from literally around the world. It is
something we ought to encourage. Devoted parents who make the decision
to adopt ought to be commended for providing an opportunity for a
better life for a child in need and for providing support and the love
that all children need and deserve.
One of the things that struck me yesterday during the hearing, as we
heard from the State Department, are the numerous protections that are
embedded within the adoption process to ensure that these
internationally adopted children are placed in safe homes and how
important they are for protection of these children. These measures
include commonsense safeguards such as thorough background checks,
intensive interviews with potential parents, multiple visits to the
child's future home, and, of course, proper vetting of other people who
will be living under the same roof. This is important for the
protection of this adopted child.
This is a process that puts safety and the interests of the child
first, and I think we would all agree that is exactly where that
priority should stand: the best interests of the child first.
So while it was reassuring to me to hear about these rigorous
requirements that our government has put in place to protect these
adopted children, I was reminded that protecting children during the
placement process should not be just limited to when we are talking
about adoptions. Over the last two fiscal years, more than 95,000
unaccompanied children have crossed our southern border without legal
permit, the large majority of them making a perilous and deadly journey
across thousands of miles from Central America. We can only imagine the
horrible circumstances that parents must see and the poor prospects for
their own children's future for them to turn them over to essentially
criminal organizations that will then ferry them, if they are lucky,
from their country of origin through Mexico and into the United States.
But the surge of which we are all familiar--again, 95,000 unaccompanied
children in just the last 2 years--has exposed the vulnerability of our
southern border to human smugglers and transnational criminal networks.
As a matter of fact, I asked one of the witnesses at the hearing
yesterday: Are the same criminal organizations that engage in human
trafficking and illegal immigration and illegal importation of drugs--
are they all the same people?
He said: Absolutely.
I don't know how we can turn a blind eye to some of the illegal
immigration issues and to say we are completely outraged at the drug
trafficking going on between our countries or the human trafficking
going on between our countries when, in fact, that activity is being
conducted by exactly the same criminal organizations that have one
interest in mind, and it is not the best interest of the child. It is
money. They view children as a commodity just as they view drugs as a
commodity.
Yesterday's hearing showed us that the lack of border security can
cause a humanitarian crisis that endangers the lives of children who
were turned over by their parents and then smuggled into the United
States. We know from numerous reports and testimony that children on
this journey are preyed upon in the form of human trafficking, rape,
and even murder. Many of them don't even make it here because they are
killed along the way, held hostage, perhaps for ransom, or otherwise
assaulted. To this day, we still have no idea how many children and
parents have perished during this unprecedented surge across our
border. Once these children arrive here in the United States, I think--
I would hope--we would all agree that it is our joint and collective
responsibility to do what we can to protect them and ensure that they
are no longer preyed upon by criminals and human traffickers.
Current law requires that within 72 hours of being located by law
enforcement officials, a child be placed in the protective custody of
the Department of Health and Human Services so they can be protected
from the danger of abuse and exposure to forms of violence.
Unfortunately, current law also requires that these children be
released, sometimes even to nonfamily members, sometimes even to
noncitizens, without any assurance or systematic protections that they
are being sent into a safe environment--certainly nothing even remotely
approaching the sort of care and precautions that we use when it comes
to international adoptions.
As I heard yesterday, the administration is capable of making these
assurances in the context of international adoptions, so why would we
not take steps to ensure that the same level of protection is there for
these unaccompanied children?
During the surge of these children across our border in 2014, I stood
right here and I posed two very important questions: Could anyone in
the administration say with certainty that the children being released
from U.S. custody were leaving with an actual family member? Believe it
or not, there is no legal requirement that these children be turned
over to an actual family member. Also, could the administration say
with certainty that none of these children have been handed over to an
adult with a criminal record?
The answer to both of these questions was and continues to be no, and
that ought to shock our collective conscience. Sadly, we don't know how
many of these children have fallen into the wrong hands.
Earlier this year, four individuals were indicted for their
involvement in a trafficking ring that smuggled unaccompanied
Guatemalan children into the United States and forced them into slave
labor at egg farms in Ohio. These children faced horrific conditions,
including long work hours, abuse, threats, and exploitation. But even
more shockingly, many of these children could have been spared if the
Federal Government and the Department of Health and Human Services had
an adequate system for screening and vetting the nongovernmental
sponsors for these unaccompanied children. None of
[[Page S8123]]
the protections--none of the protections--that are available for
international adoptions have been applied here to protect these
children.
The human traffickers in this case that I mentioned were able to gain
custody of these children by simply showing up at an HHS shelter,
telling the U.S. Government that they were family friends, and
submitting a fake family reunification application. This is
unacceptable, and it is our duty to these children to make sure that we
do a better job of protecting them, just as we do in cases of
international adoption.
I know that our colleague from Ohio, Senator Portman, in his
oversight role in the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs is taking a hard look at this process through which we move
unaccompanied children out of protective custody and into the hands of
potential danger--not even family members, not even citizens, no
criminal background check, and absolutely no way to know what the
government is turning these children over to. I look forward to
reviewing the findings of his forthcoming report, and I hope we can
make efforts to implement his recommendations.
Last Congress, I was proud to be the author and sponsor of a piece of
legislation that we called Helping Unaccompanied Alien Minors and
Alleviating National Emergency Act--or the HUMANE Act--which would
require all potential sponsors of unaccompanied children to undergo a
rigorous biometric background and criminal history check. This is
bipartisan legislation. Though there is certainly more we can do to
ensure an acceptable screening process, I believe that the protections
in my legislation are a good start and would make a difference.
So I urge my colleagues, or anybody else who may be listening, as we
reflect on National Adoption Month and the appropriate protections we
put in place for international adoptions, to think about these almost
100,000 other children who have crossed our borders over the last few
years and who were afforded none of the protections that we afford
adopted children.
I truly hope we will take a comprehensive look at the concerns I have
raised here today.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Immigration Reform
Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, last November, faced with Congress's
failure to act, President Obama, through Executive action, took a
courageous and practical step on immigration. Like every President
since President Eisenhower, President Obama exercised his legal
authority to prioritize U.S. immigration enforcement and make our
system more fair and just. The most significant parts of the
President's Executive actions were those intended to keep families
together and give more people the opportunity to come out of the
shadows.
The President announced an expansion of the successful Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. He also created a new
Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents
called DAPA. DAPA allows the undocumented parents of U.S.-born children
to stay in this country with their families.
Since its creation in 2012, DACA has given nearly 700,000
undocumented young people the opportunity to pursue their dreams
through education and jobs. Sixty percent of DACA recipients have been
able to find new jobs, contributing to our tax base and our economy.
Experts estimate that DACA recipients will contribute $230 billion to
our GDP over the next decade.
Together, the expanded DACA and DAPA programs will mean that around 5
million more individuals will be able to work legally, pay their taxes,
and care for their families.
While the President's actions generated a great deal of support and
excitement, they also generated opponents who challenged these actions
in court. These court challenges resulted last week in a Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals ruling that further delays help for these 5 million
people in our country. As Judge Carolyn King stated in her very strong
dissent in the Fifth Circuit case, ``a mistake has been made.''
The administration is acting to swiftly appeal this decision to the
United States Supreme Court. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will
find that the President's actions are lawful and that justice for
millions of workers and families will eventually be served. We cannot
continue to be inactive in Congress while millions of people remain in
the shadows. Yet, here we are.
Today, politicians--from Presidential candidates to sitting
Governors--appeal to our Nation's fears in arguing against any
meaningful reform of our broken immigration system. Conjuring up
shadowy images fuels these fears--violent gang members from South
America, terrorists from the Middle East. In their divisive rhetoric
and in their rush to build walls and close our borders, they neglect
the faces of those they demonize, and they forget the facts.
The National Academies of Sciences recently released an authoritative
look on how immigrants assimilate into the United States. That report
paints a very different picture from what you will hear from
Republicans on the campaign trail. For example, the Academies found
that neighborhoods with more immigrants have lower rates of crime and
violence than comparable nonimmigrant neighborhoods, and foreign-born
men are incarcerated at \1/4\ the rate of native-born Americans.
Today's immigrants are learning English just as fast as prior waves
of immigrants; only our schools aren't equipped to help them as well as
they should be. Eighty-six percent of first-generation male immigrants
have jobs, as do 61 percent of women. In fact, immigrant men with the
lowest education levels are more likely to have jobs than comparable
groups of nonimmigrant men.
These paint a very different picture than gang members and
terrorists. In fact, it is clear that immigrants are an asset to our
communities and our Nation. The vast majority of people come to America
seeking a better life for themselves and their families. They work
extremely hard and in many cases under very difficult circumstances.
Despite our country's being a nation of immigrants and the great
benefit immigration has meant to our culture and economy, immigration
remains a difficult issue in America.
Just last month we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Immigration
and Nationality Act of 1965. Prior to President Johnson's signing that
law, the United States had a racially discriminatory quota system. In
fact, prior to 1965, Asians were essentially excluded from immigrating
to the United States. The 1965 law wasn't perfect, but it moved our
system forward by focusing on family reunification--not racial quotas
amounting to racial discrimination--as a guiding principle.
Since the 1965 law, our Nation has benefitted greatly from the
millions of immigrants from all over the world who have come here.
Immigrants have built vibrant communities, become titans of industry,
expanded American arts and music, and strengthened our public
institutions. Their positive contributions have changed America and
what it means to be an American.
No matter how toxic the immigration rhetoric may be right now, we
can't stop pushing to improve our broken system. President Obama's
Executive actions were neither a complete nor a permanent solution for
immigration reform, but they were positive steps forward. It has been
more than 2 years since the Senate passed its comprehensive immigration
reform bill with 68 bipartisan votes. I was proud to have worked on
this bill as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Sadly, the House refused even to consider the bill--even after
Republicans released their immigration principles, acknowledging the
brokenness of our immigration system. Congress remains deeply divided,
and there is still no indication that we will be able to pass
comprehensive immigration reform any time soon, leaving 11 million
people in our country in the shadows.
[[Page S8124]]
As the only immigrant serving in the Senate today, I remember very
well my mother's courage in bringing her three children to this country
so that we could have a chance at a better life. That is what
comprehensive immigration reform will mean to the 11 million people
living in the shadows in our country--a chance for a better life for
themselves and their families. These are mothers, fathers, sisters,
brothers; and they are neighbors and friends. They are not looking for
handouts. They are looking for the chance for a better life, and that
is the universal appeal of our great country.
As leaders, we need to act to make real for these millions of people
the promise of America. We need to pass comprehensive immigration
reform soon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to leave the
bill for a couple of minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I would yield to the Senator from
Oklahoma for the purpose of explaining an amendment that he has at the
desk, and a modification--a very good amendment, I might add.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Madam President.
It is my intention to ask to set aside the pending amendment for the
purpose of considering the Inhofe amendment No. 2820, and I want to
explain what this is.
Today the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the FAA
are working on the next generation radar system. We have talked about
this for a long period of time. I think the Senate knows that this
Senator has been active in aviation for a long time, and this is
something we have been working on together. The next generation radar
system, called Multi-function Phased Array Radar, or MPAR, is comprised
of individual radar stations capable of both air traffic tracking and
weather surveillance.
The new system will replace the multiple systems separately
maintained by the FAA and NOAA and allow the consolidation of the
number of discrete radar sites in the United States by about a third
and yet do a more thorough job.
To support the development of the next generation radar, it is
important for the FAA and NOAA to be working together and one not
getting out in front of the other one. For that reason--and I think my
junior Senator, who is going to be working on this, agrees--there is
some concern that the FAA is getting out in front of NOAA on the
selection of technology to meet both goals. We would clarify that in
the amendment.
What I will be asking for is the consideration of amendment No. 2820,
as modified. The modification is at the desk now, expressing the sense
of the Senate that the FAA and NOAA continue to work together so that
one agency doesn't get out ahead of the other and ensuring that the
priorities of both agencies are met. Sometimes you have to get involved
with the bureaucracies when there is more than one working on it.
At the proper time, I will be wanting to do that. There is a courtesy
being extended to another Member to be involved perhaps in this.
So with that, I will yield the floor and be prepared to offer my
amendment.
Ms. COLLINS. I want to thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his
courtesy to one of our colleagues who is on his way to the floor to
repeat an earlier ritual that we went through when one of our
colleagues attempted to make an amendment pending.
So in deference to that colleague, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Madam President, I spent some time on the floor a few
minutes ago explaining an amendment that I have. It is amendment No.
2820, as modified. The modification is at the desk. It is one of those
things where there is no opposition at all.
We are trying to get to a new radar system that is--it is rather
complicated. It will end up saving a lot of money and letting other
people in other parts of the country--all over the country--have the
radar capability they don't have today. So it is something I know that
no reasonable person would object to.
Madam President, for that reason, I ask unanimous consent to set
aside the pending amendment to call up my amendment No. 2820, as
modified with the changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, the biggest issue of the day is how we
protect ourselves from terrorism. My amendment goes to the heart of the
matter.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. PAUL. Are we sufficiently vetting those who might come here and
attack us from the Middle East?
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. PAUL. I don't think we are. The two Boston bombers were here
during the refugee program. Two Iraqi refugees came to my hometown----
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, Parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PAUL. Of Bowling Green, KY.
Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PAUL. I have an amendment that is not only pertinent----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. PAUL. To the biggest issue of the day. I have an amendment that
is germane.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. PAUL. For those who make a mockery of this process by saying we
are going to have regular order, we are not going to have regular
order----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. PAUL. Until we address the issues of the day on a germane
amendment.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________