[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.

                          ____________________