[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 59 (Monday, April 18, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2110-S2121]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2015
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 636, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 636) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations,
and for other purposes.
Pending:
McConnell (for Thune/Nelson) amendment No. 3679, in the
nature of a substitute.
Thune amendment No. 3680 (to amendment No. 3679), of a
perfecting nature.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority whip.
Immigration
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me first thank the minority leader,
Senator Reid, for his kind words about the DREAM Act, which I
introduced 15 years ago.
[[Page S2111]]
This was a piece of legislation that came about because a mother
called my office in Chicago. Here was her family story.
She brought her two kids to America from Brazil. They actually
started off in Korea, but they came through Brazil and came to
Chicago--mother, father, and two kids. The father had the ambition of
starting a church. There are a lot of Korean churches around Chicago
and around the country, and his dream was to start a Korean-American
Church. His dream never came true. He continued to pray and read the
Bible, but he didn't work much. It was up to mom to go to work.
She went to work in a dry-cleaning establishment in Chicago. If you
have been around the great city I am honored to represent and go into a
dry cleaners, most of the time Korean families are running them. They
are working around-the-clock, and are the hardest working people
imaginable.
Mom went to work in the dry cleaners and the kids struggled because
there wasn't much money coming in. One of their girls, Tereza, heard
about a program in Chicago called the MERIT Music Program. It is a
program that is available for low-income families of kids in public
schools. The lady who left the money for it said to give them
instruction in musical instruments and help them buy the instruments.
Tereza Lee heard about this when she was a little girl and decided to
sign up for it and to practice the piano. Well, guess what. She turned
out to be a prodigy. She was amazing. For her the MERIT Music Program
was like an opening to another part of the world she had never seen.
She participated in recitals. Sometimes they told me they had to give
her a key to the Merit music offices because she wanted to stay and
practice until late at night. It was tough for her getting through high
school. She tells the story, when she was interviewed in the local
press, that sometimes she didn't have a lunch to take to school or any
money to buy food. She would wait until the other kids left, and she
would go through the wastebasket and look for food they had left
behind. That is how tough it was. But because of her skill at playing
the piano, she was given an opportunity. She was accepted into the
Juilliard School for music in New York and at the Manhattan School of
Music conservatory to pursue the piano. She was that good.
When she and her mom started filling out the application, they
reached that point where it said this: What is your nationality? What
is your citizenship?
Her mom said: Tereza, I don't know. We came here on a visitor's visa
way back when you were 2 years old, but I never filed any papers for
you.
She said: Mom, what are we going to do?
Her mom said: We are going to call Durbin's office.
So they called the Senate office. We looked into it. The law in the
United States was very clear for 17-year-old Tereza Lee. She had to
leave the United States for 10 years and apply to come back in--leave
for 10 years. She came here at the age of 2. She did not do anything
wrong.
She did everything right. She finished high school, against the odds.
She developed a talent, against the odds. She was accepted at one of
the best music schools in America, and our law very clearly said:
Leave; we don't want you. If you want to try to come back in 10 years,
that is your business.
I don't think that is right. That is why 15 years ago I introduced
the DREAM Act. It said: If you are one of those kids brought here under
the age of 16, have finished high school, and have no serious criminal
issues, we are going to give you a chance. Go to college or join the
military and we will give you a path to ultimately getting to the back
of the line but becoming a citizen of the United States--the DREAM Act.
When I introduced this bill to solve Tereza Lee's problem, I used to
give speeches about it all around Chicago. A funny thing would happen.
When I would finish the speech and go back to my car, sometimes at
night, there would be somebody waiting by my car. As I got closer, it
turned out to be a very young girl, usually, maybe with her friend.
They would wait to make sure no one was around. The young girl would
say to me: Senator, I am one of those DREAMers. I am undocumented. My
mom and dad are scared to death that they are going to be deported, and
then I will be deported. I hope you can pass this.
Well, time passed. We called the bill on the floor and called it in
the House. We have never been able to make it the law of the land.
Sadly, the reality is that there are probably 2.5 million young people
living in America who would qualify under the DREAM Act to be given a
chance to become legal--2.5 million.
What happened to Tereza Lee? I have to finish that story. She ended
up going to the Manhattan School of Music. Two families stepped
forward--families that had befriended the Merit music program in
Chicago. I know one of them well. They said: This girl is too good. We
can't waste her talent. We will pay for her education.
They did so out of pocket. She did not qualify for any Federal
assistance because she is undocumented. So Tereza finished school and
played in Carnegie Hall. Now she is about to complete her Ph.D. in
music. She is living in Brooklyn, NY. She is a mom with a little girl.
She married an American musician so she is legal--finally. That is her
story. Thank goodness this determined young girl stuck with it. We have
to stick with it too.
The people who want to turn away these 2.5 million DREAMers ought to
take a minute to meet them--just to meet them and to understand what it
is to be a young person in America going through all the challenges of
adolescence and all of the challenges that might be brought to you in
your community or by our family and knowing in the back of your mind
that at any moment, someone can knock on the door and tell you that you
have to leave this country and that you are not here legally.
They do it, and they fight every single day for a chance and a dream
so that someday they will become part of the only country they have
ever known. These are kids who, just like the Senate a few minutes ago,
got up every day in the classroom and pledged allegiance to that flag,
the only flag they have ever known. They do not view themselves as
Mexican or Korean. They view themselves as Americans.
The question is this: How do we view them? Do we view them as an
asset to America or do we view them as a problem--a problem that should
be thrown away and deported? You are listening to the Presidential
campaign. We all are. I am not going to go into detail about some of
the terrible things that have been said, but I just wish some of the
haters, some of the people who want to turn on these young people,
would meet them. Come and meet them. Hear their stories.
I think even the hardest, coldest heart would be moved by them.
Across the street--you can see it through the window--is the Supreme
Court building. It was about 12 years ago that we decided to do
something in the Senate that I thought was a great idea. Every 2 years,
when there is a new class of Senators, we have a dinner with the
Justices of the Supreme Court. We do it at their place. It is right
across the street. We line up in the entryway there--the beautiful
marble entryway. There are tables set up, each of us sits at a table
with one of the Justices.
I can remember one of the early times I went over there. I shared the
table with another Senator, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, a
legendary Member of the Senate and former President pro tempore of the
Senate. He served here for decades and carried the Constitution around
in his breast pocket. In his great days he could recite poetry nonstop.
He was a real believer in the Senate. He wrote the history of the
Senate, one that probably will never be matched. I shared a table with
him in the Supreme Court for one of these dinners.
I said: Isn't this a beautiful building?
He said: It sure is.
I said: How often do you get over here, Senator Byrd?
He said: This is my first time.
I said: You have been in the Senate for 40-plus years, and this is
your first time? Why?
He said: Well, it is a separate branch of government. We must respect
them. They had never asked me to come over.
Well, I see it a little differently. I go across that street because,
yes, it is a separate branch of government, but it
[[Page S2112]]
is one that we should understand and respect, as I hope they understand
and respect Congress on this side of the street. So this morning I did.
I went over for an argument before the Supreme Court. There was a huge
mob out in front of the Supreme Court because the case that was being
considered is one that affects millions of lives in America--Texas v.
United States.
The question is this: What are we going to do with people like Tereza
Lee, whom I just described earlier. You see, what happened 6 years ago
is that I joined with Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana and
wrote a letter to President Obama saying: If the Congress is not going
to change the law to make it possible for these young people to stay in
this country, would you issue an Executive order that allows them, at
least on a temporary basis, to stay in the United States?
Within a year or two, the President agreed to do it. He created what
is known as the DACA Program. It basically says that young people like
Tereza Lee, whom I described earlier, can step forward, identify
themselves to our government, submit themselves for criminal
investigation, and pay a filing fee of around $500, I believe it is. If
they do, they will be given the right to stay in the United States on a
temporary renewable basis for 2 years or 3 years.
That is what DACA is all about--so that young people can pursue their
lives at least with the understanding that for a few years, they don't
have to worry about that knock on the door. Oh, if they get a job, they
have to pay their taxes. If they go to college, they are not going to
get a penny from this government. We don't help them pay for their
college education.
The President did it. I applauded him for doing it. So far, 700,000
young people just like Tereza Lee have signed up for protection under
DACA. We estimate that the total universe of young people eligible is
about 2.5 million. So the President attempted to extend the DACA
Program. He said: We need to address the problem with their parents.
Many of these parents have children who are U.S. citizens and legally
in the United States, but they are undocumented and subject to
deportation.
So the President said, in what is known as DAPA: The parents of these
kids can come forward, submit themselves to a criminal background check
with fingerprints and all, pay a filing fee of around $500, and then
they will be allowed, on a temporary, renewable basis, if they keep
their noses clean, to work in this country.
If they are going to work in this country, they have to pay their
taxes. Well, that is what the President suggested. As soon as he made
these two proposals to extend DACA and to create this other program for
the parents, a lawsuit was filed. It was led by the State of Texas, and
25 other States, I believe, joined. That is the case before the Supreme
Court today.
Before I get into the details of that case--and I want to say a word
about it on the floor this afternoon--let me say one other thing. What
Senator Byrd told me about not going across the street was not only
respect for that institution of the Supreme Court, but as a Senator he
was basically saying that we need to respect their right to be above
politics. We want to make certain that that branch of government is
above politics, that they apply the law and interpret the Constitution
in a nonpolitical way.
Sometimes I read their decisions and think they have gone political
on us. But the goal is to make sure they are preserved from becoming
political. This morning, when I went before the Supreme Court, I did
not face nine Justices, only eight. Antonin Scalia, who passed away a
few weeks ago, created a vacancy that has not been filled. Why has the
Senate failed to fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court? Because within
hours of the untimely death of Justice Scalia, the Republican leader,
Senator McConnell, who was here a few moments ago, announced publicly:
We will not fill this vacancy on the Supreme Court.
That is important to remember. It is the first time in the history of
the United States of America--the first time in the history of the
Senate--that the Senate is refusing a hearing for a Presidential
nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. It has never happened
before--never.
Oh, the Republicans argue: Well, if the shoe were on the other foot,
I am sure you Democrats would do exactly the same thing. I call their
attention to the year 1988. Republican President Ronald Reagan, with a
vacancy on the Supreme Court, submitted the name of Anthony Kennedy to
the Senate. A Republican President was filling a vacancy on the Supreme
Court, and he submitted the name of his nominee.
The Senate, then controlled by the Democrats, gave Anthony Kennedy a
hearing, a strong vote, and sent him over to the Supreme Court. So when
the shoe was on the other foot, we did not play politics. But now we
are. So I faced eight Justices over there as that argument was made
this morning. I thought to myself: If they end up in a 4-to-4 tie--and
that can happen--it will be chaos and confusion across America, with
different courts and different districts having different
interpretations of the same law.
How did we get into this mess? Because the Republican majority in the
Senate has decided: We are not going to appoint anyone to fill this
vacancy. Their argument is this: Let the American people speak to
filling this vacancy in the Presidential election. Let them decide
whether it will be a Democrat or a Republican President filling this
vacancy.
There might be some value to that argument if President Obama, in the
last election, when he was running for reelection in 2012, had been
running for a term of 3 years. You can argue then that this fourth year
he was not entitled to be President. But you know what. It turns out
that he was running for a 4-year term. It turns out he won by 5 million
votes. It turns out that when it comes to being Commander in Chief and
President of the United States, he has all the powers vested in him by
the Constitution, even in the fourth year. Isn't that amazing--4 years
as the President? That is what the American people decided, but only to
be overruled by the Republican majority in the Senate.
Sorry, Mr. President, they say, you only get 3 years. Maybe we give
you 3 years and 2 months, but you sure don't have the right to try and
fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, even though the Constitution
explicitly says in article II, section 2: The President shall appoint a
nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Their argument is that
you may think you are President when it comes to the Supreme Court, but
the Senate Republican majority thinks otherwise.
I sat down with Merrick Garland. He is the proposed nominee to fill
this vacancy. He is chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court, which is a
high position in the judiciary. He was born in Illinois, so I come to
his nomination with some prejudice, but he is an extraordinary person.
People have said: Well, why didn't the President choose a woman? Why
didn't the President choose an African American? Why didn't he choose a
Hispanic? Why didn't he choose someone from India? Why did he choose
this man?
I think he chose him for an obvious reason: He is clearly qualified.
Even Republican Senators have said nice things about him publicly. Many
of them have said they refuse to even meet with him, will not even sit
in the same room with him. Some have agreed to, but many have said no.
Senator McConnell said: I won't meet with him because he is not going
to get a hearing and he is not going to get a vote.
It is time for us to fill that vacancy. It is time for us to accept
our constitutional responsibility and show respect for the document we
all swore to uphold and defend when we took the oath of office. It is
time to fill that vacancy and put nine Justices on the Supreme Court to
avoid the uncertainty, confusion, and chaos which might otherwise
emerge.
I wish to say a word about the case before the Court this morning.
This was a case--United States v. Texas--a legal challenge, as I
mentioned earlier, to the President's immigration policy, filed by 26
Republican Governors. I believe this lawsuit has no legal merit. It is
driven by political hostility toward President Obama and his
immigration policy.
I was proud to join an amicus brief signed by 39 Senators on our side
of the aisle and 186 House Democrats in support of the administration's
decision
[[Page S2113]]
on immigration. The President is on very solid ground in this case. I
am hoping and confident that the Supreme Court will rule in his favor.
As an initial matter before the case proceeds, the States that filed
this lawsuit have to show they will be harmed by the President's
immigration policy. Otherwise, they really don't have any standing to
sue. It turns out that exactly the opposite is true. The President's
policy allowing people to work here on a temporary basis under his
Executive orders will create a huge benefit to the American economy.
Over the next 10 years, in the State of Texas alone--and they brought
the lawsuit; at least started it--the President's immigration action
would increase that State's gross domestic product by more than $38
billion and increase the earnings of all Texas residents by $17.5
billion. They argue that the President's immigration policy would cost
the State of Texas money. It turns out that exactly the opposite is
true.
Even if the States have standing to sue, the Supreme Court repeatedly
has held that the Federal Government has broad authority to decide
questions of immigration. Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed earlier,
wrote the opinion for the Court striking down Arizona's controversial
immigration law. Listen to what he said:
A principal feature of the removal system--
Removal of people who are not eligible to be in the United States--
is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. .
. . Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces
immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to
support their families, for example, likely pose less danger
than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime.
This administration's immigration policy is not just legal, it is
smart and realistic. The President has said simply: We should
prioritize. We have limited resources. We can't deport all those who
are here undocumented. If we are only going to deport some, let's pick
those who are a danger to the United States.
The President has focused on those who have been convicted of serious
crimes or pose a threat to our security. And shouldn't he? As Commander
in Chief, shouldn't that be his highest priority, to make sure anyone
who is a danger to the United States is gone? He knows he can't deport
all even if he wished to, so he focuses on those who may be a danger to
the United States--prosecutorial discretion. The Department of Homeland
Security only has enough funding to deport a small fraction of
undocumented, so the President wants to focus the limited resources on
those who could do us harm. That is just common sense.
At the same time, the President said that we should not waste our
resources on deporting young immigrant students who grow up in this
country, such as Tereza Lee, whom I mentioned earlier, or tear apart
families by deporting the parents of U.S. citizens. The President's
policy is focused on deporting felons, not families--criminals, not
children.
In November of 2014, President Obama established this program, DAPA,
Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent
Residents. Under DAPA, undocumented immigrants who have lived in the
United States for more than 5 years and have American children would be
required to come forward, register with the government, pay a fee, go
through a criminal background check and a national security background
check, and pay their taxes.
If the government determines these parents have not committed any
serious crimes and don't pose any threat, this Executive order says: On
a temporary, renewable basis, they will not be targeted for
deportation.
President Obama also expanded the DACA Program for children, as I
mentioned earlier, at the same time. Why did he do that? Because for
years Republicans in Congress have refused to consider legislation to
fix our broken immigration system.
On the floor of the Senate on June 27, 2013, I joined a group of
seven other Senators--four Democrats and four Republicans in total. We
had worked for months to construct a bipartisan, comprehensive
immigration bill. We had to give a lot. There were things in that bill
which I didn't like at all and things which some of the Republican
Senators didn't like, but it is the nature of legislation and
compromise that that happens.
We brought the bill to the floor for a vote after a lengthy markup in
the Senate Judiciary Committee, and dozens of amendments had been
offered. The Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform legislation
on June 27, 2013, 68 to 32--more than 2 to 1. That bill would have
strengthened border security, protected American workers, and
established a tough but fair path to citizenship for 11 million
undocumented immigrants who were then currently living in our country.
What happened to the bill after it passed the Senate? I take you back
to how laws are made and your civics course. It went across the Rotunda
to the House of Representatives, which was under Republican control.
The majority in the House of Representatives refused to call the bill,
refused to even bring it to the floor for a debate, and refused to
offer any substitute. They did nothing--nothing, despite our broken
immigration system. In the face of this, the President was left with no
choice.
For the good of the American people, he used the authority given him
as President to try to make some reforms to our immigration system. The
Center for American Progress has studied what the President proposed,
and they say that over the next 10 years, if these two programs--DACA
and DAPA--were passed, the gross domestic product for my home State of
Illinois would increase by $15 billion and the earnings of Illinois
residents would increase by almost $8 billion. Could your State use
that--more economic activity, more people paying taxes to the Federal
Government and to your State? Virtually every State could use that.
It is unfortunate that these bills have been blocked by the Senate,
and now they are trying to block them in the Supreme Court.
I see Senator Cornyn is on the floor, and I will close by telling a
story about another DREAMer. I have done this quite a few times. My
staff has done a lot of work on it. I thank them all for it. These
stories really say a lot more than I ever could in a speech. They tell
us what was at stake before the Supreme Court of the United States this
morning.
This attractive young woman is Vasthy Lamadrid. Her family came to
the United States from Mexico. She was 5 years old. They came here with
nothing. They moved into a home with four other families, so a lot of
the kids slept in the same room.
Despite their poverty, Vasthy felt safe and excelled in school. Math
was her best subject. She had nearly perfect scores on standardized
tests. English was tough, but then she discovered a series of books
called ``Goosebumps.'' If you have kids or grandkids, I bet you have
heard of that one. She became an avid reader and mastered the English
language.
By middle school, Vasthy was placed in the gifted program. That is
where she discovered her love of engineering. She was a student in the
Engineering Pathway at Bioscience High School, where she received the
Young Entrepreneurs Award, made the principal's list every semester,
and played tennis. She was an active volunteer, working with such
groups as Girls For Change, CompuGirls, E-Tech, Hospice of the Valley,
and St. Joseph's Hospital. Vasthy also helped younger kids in her
neighborhood by tutoring them in math and tennis.
Vasthy went on to attend Arizona State University. Because she is
undocumented, she didn't qualify for a penny of government assistance,
and she had to pay out-of-State tuition despite the fact that she had
lived her entire life in the United States, in Arizona.
Then something extraordinary happened. Counting on the generosity of
the American people, Vasthy decided to crowdfund her college education.
She shared her life story online and asked people to contribute to help
her pay her tuition. Well, it worked. She is currently in her second
year of college. In the first semester, she made the dean's list with a
3.79 GPA in the Ira Fulton School of Engineering.
Thanks to DACA--the Presidential Executive order--she is able to
support herself. She has also made time to continue to volunteer for a
club called
[[Page S2114]]
STEM Academy mentoring young children. She volunteers with the Arizona
Immigration Refugee Service as an English teacher. As a result of her
volunteer work, she has decided she wants to become a science teacher.
Can we use more science teachers in America? You bet.
This is what she said in a letter she wrote:
DACA signifies to me a chance to show that I belong here--
that inside I am an American. It represents an opportunity to
show that my parents' sacrifice was worth it. I love this
country and want to one day become a citizen and continue to
give back to the community. I don't need that journey to
become a citizen to be easily given to me, but I'd hope that
the journey is fair.
Vasthy and other DREAMers have so much they can give to America.
I don't understand the Republican Party when it comes to the issue of
immigration. We are a nation of immigrants. My mother was an immigrant
to this country. I am a first-generation American and proud of it. It
is my honor to serve and represent a great State like Illinois. I know
what her journey was like. She was brought here at the age of 2 from
Lithuania. I know what her early life was like as she struggled to try
to make sure there was food on the table, first for her mom, sister,
and brother, and then ultimately for her own family. That is my
family's story, but it is a story that is repeated over and over again.
There is something in the DNA of immigrants who are willing to risk
everything in this world to go to a country where they don't even speak
the language because they know they will have an opportunity here, and
they bring something with them. That is why they light up the
scoreboard in Silicon Valley with all of these new inventions and new
corporations with thousands of employees that make us an economic
success in many fields. That is why we should think twice about those
who condemn immigrants in this Nation of immigrants.
I am confident the Supreme Court will uphold the President's
immigration actions. Then I hope, after they have done this, that the
Republicans in Congress will finally decide to return to the table and
work on a bipartisan basis for comprehensive immigration reform.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am always impressed with the
distinguished Democratic whip and his eloquence, but he is telling the
American people that we have to choose between being a nation of
immigrants or a nation of laws. The fact is, we don't have to make that
choice; we can be both. But we can't do it when we have a President who
simply believes he can do an end run around the U.S. Constitution.
In fact, according to Pew, about 3.5 million people could claim the
benefits of the President's unlawful Executive action, receiving work
permits, driver's licenses, and Social Security numbers. While we are a
compassionate country, we are a nation of immigrants, that is not the
kind of decision the Constitution gives to a single political actor,
even if he is the President of the United States.
So there is a right way and a wrong way. And I realize the
distinguished Democratic whip believes that just because they can't get
what they want when they want it, the President can then resort to this
end run, but thankfully that is not the view of the courts. The U.S.
Federal district court in Brownsville, TX, issued an injunction against
the President's Executive action. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed that injunction, and now the Supreme Court of the United
States heard arguments in the case this afternoon.
This is really more than just about immigration. This is whether,
under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Constitution we have
lived under for lo these many years gives the President unilateral
authority without the approval of Congress, the elected representatives
of the people, and in flagrant disregard for the laws that are already
on the books.
The heart of the case the Court heard today is about stopping a
President who said: I have a pen and I have a phone. And even though
the American people have given Republicans a majority in both Houses
and obviously forced the President to deal with a Republican conference
to come up with consensus legislation, the President said: Forget that.
I am not about trying to achieve bipartisan consensus on anything. If I
don't get what I want, I am going to jam it through the system and hope
the courts don't stop me. So it is not just about immigration, it is
about the Constitution itself.
There are perhaps 22 different times, by my count, where the
President of the United States acknowledged he didn't even have this
authority. I remember in a speech he gave to La Raza, an interview he
gave on Univision, the President denied he had the authority, which
now, miraculously, our Democratic friends think is clear-cut under the
law. How can that be? It cannot be.
I remember specifically being at a meeting where the President
invited the leadership of both the House and the Senate to the White
House after the 2014 election. Many may recall that leading up to that
point, there had been a lot of rumors about the President issuing an
Executive action, but he had not done so. I remember specifically
sitting there in the White House with some of my colleagues from the
House and the Senate, where then-Speaker Boehner said to the President:
Please, Mr. President, don't do this. Don't poison the well. Don't make
it impossible, by such a polarizing action, for us to build consensus
on the building blocks of immigration reform where we could actually
agree.
I remember Majority Leader McCarthy making the same comment. I joined
in and reiterated the same point. The President, defiant, told us he
was going to go ahead and do it.
There are a lot of conversations people are having today across the
United States. I had some of those earlier today during some visits
with people who were just wondering how to explain the political
environment in America today. What I tell them is that this seems
unprecedented in my experience. People are so angry. People are so
scared. People are frightened and worried about the next generation.
And for the first time in my memory, parents are doubting whether their
children will enjoy the same sorts of freedom and prosperity that we
enjoy today. That is a tragedy.
My parents were part of the ``greatest generation.'' My dad was a B-
17 pilot in the Army Air Corps, even before the Air Force came into
being. On his 26th bombing mission over Nazi Germany, while he was
flying in the 8th Air Force out of Molesworth, England, he was shot
down and captured as a prisoner of war for 4 months. Fortunately, that
was toward the tail end of the war. Even though he was injured in his
parachute jump--not seriously, as it turned out, although he had some
disability associated with that later in life--he managed to survive
that and even survived an appendectomy by a fellow prisoner of war when
he had appendicitis in a POW camp. It is amazing.
I always thought my dad had nine lives. Even though he passed away at
the very young age of 67, he survived countless occasions when surely
he could have lost his life, including those occasions of jumping out
of a burning B-17 plane over Germany and an appendectomy in a POW camp
at the hands of a fellow prisoner of war.
The reason my parents and all of our parents sacrificed so much and
risked so much and worked so hard is that they believed in the promise
of America--the promise that exists only when the law is respected,
when people in high office are bound by and obligated to and held
accountable to the same laws that govern the most humble among us. That
is what America is all about--a country where people, if they work hard
and play by the rules, can achieve their dreams. I think that is the
reason America seems so polarized today. People have sort of jumped
outside the usual paradigm of political calculation where you are a
liberal or you are a conservative or you are somewhere in the middle.
People have sort of jumped that track, and we are seeing something
entirely different on the left and on the right. I think the reason is,
in part, because of a President who believes he is not bound by the
Constitution and laws of the United States.
People are frightened because they have seen over the last 7 years--
even though the President was stopped legislatively after the
Affordable Care Act
[[Page S2115]]
was passed and after Dodd-Frank was passed and then stopped by the
electorate giving the Republicans a majority in the House and in 2014 a
majority in Senate--that this President will not be stopped by the
voters. That is the determination he made, and this Executive order is
exhibit 1 because he said: I don't care what the voters think. I don't
care what the American people think. I don't care what the Constitution
says. I don't care that what Congress says should be the law of the
land. I am going to do it the way I want to do it. Frankly, that is
scary stuff when you are talking about the Commander in Chief, the
leader of the free world, and the sort of power that goes along with
that.
Rather than heed the warning--or I would really call it the plea of
leaders in the House and the Senate after the 2014 election--the
President decided to go around Congress and try to essentially change
the law, giving work permits to people who were illegally present in
the country, giving them driver's licenses, even giving Social Security
numbers to an estimated 3.5 million people. How can the President do
this when Congress is deadlocked? Well, he did it. And that is a
question the Supreme Court is going to have to decide.
At the time, the President called it a middle-ground approach. He is
a master of rhetoric. The problem is the facts belie his words. The
fact of the matter is this was a constitutional scorched-earth tactic.
And more than anything else, it eroded public confidence in Congress's
ability, working with the White House, to get anything constructive
done in the area of immigration.
The Acting President pro tempore is, of course, from the great State
of Oklahoma, and he went to school in Texas. He understands what I
understand: We have a large Hispanic population in Texas--about 38
percent. But we are a very diverse State. Many people are surprised
when I tell them the third most commonly spoken language in Texas today
is Vietnamese--Vietnamese. Can you believe that? We also have a large
Indian American population.
We are a very diverse State, and the main reason for that is we still
represent that land of opportunity that America used to be, where
people can come, work hard--those of modest means, with little on their
backs and maybe nothing in their pockets--and achieve something and
live the American dream. So I resent, I really do resent, the
distinguished Senator from Illinois trying to tell us the President was
only trying to do something that was good for Texas. He doesn't have a
clue. In fact, if we were to follow the policy choices of the
leadership in Texas, the country would be a heck of a lot better off
when it comes to taking advantage of our energy resources, when it
comes to taxes, reasonable regulation, and a willingness to try to
accommodate those who invest capital and create jobs. To me, that is
the single biggest difference between where I live in Texas and what I
see across our country and what is coming out of Washington, DC. There
seems to be an attitude here in Washington of how many more obstacles,
how many larger impediments can we place in the way of those who invest
the capital and those who are creating the jobs and still expect the
American dream to be alive.
Believe me, we have tested it. The Obama administration has tested
it, and what it has produced is disaster. It has produced a health care
system that, rather than making health care more affordable, has made
it more expensive, has caused people who liked their coverage to give
up their coverage only to buy something that had a deductible that has,
in essence, made them self-insured. It has created stagnant wages. It
has created stagnant economic growth.
There are not a lot of problems we have in this country that couldn't
be mitigated, made better, if we just saw our economy growing again,
instead of the sort of anemic and flatlined growth we have seen since
2008.
My predecessor in the Senate, Mr. Phil Gramm, has a Ph.D. in
economics from Texas A&M University. He has made the point that,
historically, what you see after a recession like the one we saw
following the fiscal crisis in 2008 is a V-shape recovery. In other
words, you hit the bottom and you bounce up and you grow quickly
because basically you have worked the problems out of the system. But
what we have seen since 2008 is a U-shaped recovery, if you could even
call it that. It is pretty close to flat, where the economy is growing
at less than 2 percent, which is not fast enough to keep people fully
employed. And we still have--although the unemployment rate has dropped
down, we still have the smallest percentage of people participating in
the workforce that we have had in the last 30 years. Many people have
simply given up, retired early, or made other arrangements. This is a
serious matter.
The Supreme Court heard arguments today. We know there are currently
eight members of the Supreme Court. I heard the distinguished
Democratic whip complain about the fact that we have decided to allow
the voters to choose in November the President who will make the choice
to fill the Scalia vacancy. Well, the fact of the matter is, it is
simply too important to allow President Obama, given his penchant for
lawlessness and usurpation of constitutional authority--to give him the
chance to stack the Supreme Court in favor of a Court that would likely
rubberstamp his actions and those of future Presidents for the next 25
years.
The hypocrisy is rich, listening to our Democratic colleagues. These
are the folks who invented the judicial filibuster. They invented the
judicial filibuster. They did that when President George W. Bush was
President. As controversial as the nomination of Clarence Thomas was, I
believe he was confirmed with 52 votes--not 60 votes but 52 because
nobody dreamed back then that Senate rules would allow the minority
party to insist on 60 votes to confirm a President's appointee.
We know that after the election where the Democratic majority lost
that majority, in a lameduck session they jammed a number of appointees
onto the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in an effort to pack that court
to match the ideological picture they wanted. Again, this is the second
most important court in the Nation, which they believed would be more
inclined to rubberstamp the overreaching by the Obama administration.
We are all familiar with the Biden speech in 1992 when, as chairman
of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he suggested it would be perhaps
inappropriate to confirm a Presidential nominee in the waning days of
that President's term.
We saw the Harry Reid speech in 2005, where he said it is the
President's prerogative to appoint, but the Senate is not obligated to
grant consent to that nomination. Actually, I agree with Senator Reid
back then, but not today, when he has taken the exact opposite
approach.
Then there is Senator Schumer, the heir apparent to the Democratic
leadership in the Senate, who said, in 2007, 18 months before George W.
Bush left office: I think there ought to be a presumption against
confirmation.
To listen to my Democratic colleagues complain about the decision we
have made to let the voters vote for the President who is going to fill
that vacancy and to watch them--well, it looks like crocodile tears to
me, and it smells like hypocrisy.
As we have said, the Supreme Court of the United States heard
arguments today in a case brought by the State of Texas and other
States that would otherwise be compelled to grant work permits, issue
driver's licenses and Social Security numbers to people illegally
present in the United States who did not comply with our laws. I am
confident the Court will find that the States have suffered real harm
from the standpoint of the constitutional notion of standing; in other
words, you have to have standing before you can sue. Basically, it
means you have to show real or potential harm if the Court doesn't act.
I am confident the Court will find standing.
But the Court will do one of two things. Either the Court will affirm
by being split 4 to 4 or all eight Justices could write in favor of the
Fifth Circuit decision to let the injunction stand or, if the Court
deems that this issue needs to be held over until the Court has all
nine members, after the first of the year, that is a decision the Court
can make.
This is a very important issue, and I am glad the Court is taking it
up. We
[[Page S2116]]
need to know--we need to know whether we remain a nation of laws as
well as a nation of immigrants. The whole idea our Democratic
colleagues have foisted on us that somehow we have to choose between
those two is a false choice. It is a false choice. We are both. We
aren't one or the other. America has always been made better by people
who have risked coming to the United States because they weren't
satisfied with what they had or where they lived, but the day we begin
rewarding people who do this in disregard of the laws is the day we
begin to no longer be a nation of laws, and that is a legacy and a
treasure we should not squander.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Nebraska.
Tax Reform
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise to discuss an issue of
importance for Nebraskans and Americans all across this country; that
is, the need for comprehensive tax reform.
It is no secret the current Tax Code is overly complex and outdated.
Any American can tell you how frustrating it is to file a tax return.
Our Tax Code is riddled with deductions, exemptions, credits,
exclusions, preferences, and loopholes that make it nearly impossible
for anyone without a degree in tax law to understand.
At the same time, we should recognize that some progress has been
made. Thanks to the work of Chairman Hatch and members of the Senate
Finance Committee, many important updates to the Tax Code were made
permanent at the end of last year. In particular, increasing the
deduction limit and making permanent section 179 of the Tax Code was an
important step. This section allows small businesses to deduct from
their taxes certain depreciable business assets. My constituents told
me annual uncertainty about whether section 179 would be renewed made
it very difficult for them to plan, to invest, and to grow their
businesses. Making this provision permanent reduced the ambiguity that
had plagued Nebraska's small business owners and operators.
Although we have made some progress in reforming the Tax Code, there
is more work to do for the American people. I believe tax reform should
focus on several principles, including competitiveness, simplicity, and
economic growth. At nearly 40 percent, the United States has the
highest combined corporate tax rate in the developed world. This is
stifling job growth, hurting families, and compelling businesses to
move overseas. Any comprehensive plan should seek to lower this rate to
a competitive level, one that will not only encourage current
businesses to stay but also incentivize new businesses to set up shop.
Another goal of comprehensive tax reform should be to simplify the
Tax Code. Families and businesses spend billions of hours every year in
completing their taxes. A disproportionate share of this burden is
shouldered by many small businesses. Many of these are family
businesses, and they don't have the resources to easily comply.
Creating a tax system that is simple and efficient will reduce
administrative and compliance costs. A simple tax system will also
increase transparency, allowing Americans to fill out their taxes
accurately while preventing fraud and lost revenue. Perhaps most
importantly, any plan to reform the Tax Code--well, it must spur
economic growth. Inaction on reforming the Tax Code is delaying needed
growth in GDP, jobs, and investment.
When I was first elected to the Senate, I thought my colleagues and I
would immediately take up two issues to restart our economy, grow jobs,
and help all American families: tax reform and reducing the overburden
of government regulations. After all, it is pretty obvious these are
two issues we can reform that would have a positive impact on our
economy. We see regulations become ever more burdensome, and they
continue to depress our economy, stifle innovation, and hurt our
families.
Major tax reform has not happened. We continue to chip away, but I
believe now is the time we step up and be bolder. We must make the
necessary reforms to our tax system to give Americans confidence in our
future. We need to help put more money back in the pockets of
hardworking Americans and allow them to spend money on the goods and
services they choose and that they need.
It is my hope my colleagues will join me in continuing this
discussion and that this dialogue then will eventually result in
action, in comprehensive tax reform that truly benefits Nebraskans and
the American people.
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. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
China's Aluminum Industry
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, over the last few decades, China has used
market-distorting subsidies and industrial policies to repeatedly prop
up their own industries and rip off American jobs. Steel, tires, solar
panels--the story plays out again and again. Too often China's economy
is not run by the markets; it is run by government committee. So even
though its own State Council has called out the problem of severe
excess capacities, China clings to the same old tired and destructive
policies. Today I want to address what is happening now with China's
huge overcapacity of aluminum.
The amount of aluminum Chinese smelters are churning out has gone up
by more than 1,200 percent in a decade and a half. In 2000, they
produced 2.5 million metric tons. In 2015 China produced 32 million
metric tons. When you create a glut of aluminum production the way
China has, you send the markets into turmoil and you do enormous harm
to American workers.
I spoke last week at a public hearing held by the U.S. Trade
Representative and the International Trade Commission about how the
overproduction of steel in China is an urgent and immediate threat to
steel jobs here in our country. While China's steel mills are churning
out more steel than ever, American steel towns are suffering or worse.
Thousands of jobs nationwide have been lost just in the last year. Even
though one-third of all steel produced today has no buyer, China keeps
adding and adding to the glut by producing more steel.
The same story is played out in the case of primary aluminum. There
is a huge overcapacity in China that, once again, is driven by market-
distorting government policies. It has unleashed a chain of events that
can end in economic devastation across this country. Global aluminum
prices have already plummeted, undercutting our American companies.
Between the start of 2011 and this upcoming June, the lights will have
gone out at nearly two-thirds of the aluminum smelters in the United
States. More than 6,500 jobs--good American jobs--will have been lost.
You can bet that sooner or later the damage will ripple downstream
through the entire aluminum industry, which employs three-quarters of a
million Americans either directly or indirectly.
In my judgment, the United States is badly in need of a safeguard
against this economic tidal wave. That is why I have chosen to stand
with my friend Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, and
the steelworkers. They filed a petition for relief under section 201 of
the Trade Act of 1974 today. Without an immediate economic bulwark, the
United States is in danger of losing thousands of good family-wage jobs
across our country.
It is my view that the administration should act in this case as soon
as possible to defend our workers and our businesses from economic
ruin. The United States and our trading partners must ramp up the
pressure on China to stop overproduction, and our trade enforcers have
to take on the trade cheats and use every single trade tool in the
toolbox, including the ENFORCE Act, the Leveling the Playing Field Act,
and the other measures my colleagues and I on the Finance Committee
fought to get signed into law over the last year.
I firmly believe workers in Oregon and across this country can
compete with anybody in the world, but the United States cannot afford
to sit idly by and watch China's destructive policies cause our
aluminum industry to be wiped out. As the steelworkers have pointed out
repeatedly, enough is
[[Page S2117]]
enough. Leo Gerard and those steelworkers are standing up and fighting
back, and I am honored to stand with them.
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. THUNE. 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. THUNE. Madam President, in a few moments, we will be voting on
ending debate on H.R. 636, and that will allow us to proceed to a vote
on the bipartisan Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act
of 2016. I wish to urge my colleagues to support that motion to end
debate.
The legislation we are considering is not just any FAA
reauthorization. This bill is the most pro-passenger and pro-security
FAA reauthorization in recent history. Travelers are frustrated, and
this bill contains commonsense reforms to make travel safe and secure
and more passenger-friendly.
For over 2 weeks on the Senate floor now and before that in the
Commerce Committee, where I serve as chairman, we have been working
hard to thoughtfully develop this bill and to allow for robust debate.
For instance, there are drone safety provisions in the bill, including
a pilot program to deploy technology to intercept drones near airports.
These provisions are obviously intended to prevent accidents like the
one that happened outside the Heathrow Airport this weekend, where a
drone hit an approaching plane.
We developed this provision and others in the bill through an open
process that allowed every member of the committee to contribute and
help write the bill. Last year, we held six hearings on topics that
helped inform our bill, and at the committee markup last month alone,
we accepted 57 amendments, 34 of which were sponsored by Democrats and
23 by Republicans. On the Senate floor, when it was reported out and
taken up, we added 19 amendments, 10 from Democrats and 9 from
Republican Senators. The resulting bill is one we can be proud of, and
both sides of the aisle have commended us for our inclusive process.
When there have been differences, we have been able to find ways to
address or set those aside for later so the progress on the legislation
could move forward.
Even at this late hour, we have worked constructively to assemble a
possible managers' package of more than two dozen additional amendments
that we would like to adopt by voice vote prior to final passage. Yet,
even if that is not possible, I commit to those Senators whose
amendments we stand prepared to accept that I will work to address
their concerns as we engage with our colleagues in the House of
Representatives.
Now it is time to conclude our work on the bipartisan FAA bill that I
introduced a long ways back, along with my friend and ranking member,
Senator Bill Nelson, and our Aviation Subcommittee leaders, Senators
Kelly Ayotte and Maria Cantwell.
The bill includes reforms benefiting the traveling public, and we
shouldn't let them down. Let's vote yes on the motion to end debate and
start moving these historic reforms forward.
As I mentioned, I have a list of 26 amendments that we would like to
clear--amendments offered by both sides. It is a package we could
adopt. We have a couple of objections to doing that. If the Members who
have put forward those objections would be willing to release those
objections, we would be able to get another 26 amendments adopted, many
of which have been offered by colleagues, as I said, on both sides and
many of which contain measures that I think will make the bill even
stronger and make it a product we can all be proud of as it moves over
to the House of Representatives. There, I hope it will receive
consideration and action and ultimately end up on the President's desk.
The FAA bill is legislation we have to do on a fairly routine basis
around here. This authorization will stand for about 18 months. There
are a number of important considerations that need to be addressed that
this bill not only acknowledges but addresses. As I mentioned, those
considerations have to do with drone safety, which is an increasingly
important issue in our economy and one where we need to make sure we
have the right rules of the air, if you will, in place so that we
preserve and ensure that safety is the No. 1 factor as we continue to
see the increased research, development, and deployment of drone
technologies in ways that have tremendous commercial application. As I
said, it also includes a lot of passenger protections which are very
consumer-friendly in terms of passengers who travel on a regular basis
with the airlines. So those are things as well that we need to address
in this legislation.
We enhanced the bill by amendment when it came to the floor with a
couple of safety provisions that we think are critically important,
particularly in light of what has happened of late with the attack in
Brussels and a number of other attacks we have seen, where we have had
aviation insiders involved, if you will--particularly the Metrojet
airliner that crashed not that long ago and killed 224 people. There
are a number of safety provisions that help address some of those
concerns. As I said, we expand the TSA precheck program to limit the
number of people who are in areas outside secure areas--outside the
perimeter, so to speak--where they are more vulnerable to these types
of attacks.
These are all included in this legislation. So from an aviation
security standpoint, this bill includes the most comprehensive security
measures we will have adopted in nearly a decade. As I said before,
from a passenger-friendly standpoint, according to a columnist at the
Washington Post, this is one of the most passenger-friendly FAA
reauthorization bills we have seen literally in a generation. So these
are reasons why this bill needs to move forward.
I hope my colleagues here in the Senate, when the vote comes here in
a few minutes, will cast a vote in support of ending debate and allow
us to move forward to a vote on final passage, which will enable this
legislation to move forward to the House of Representatives and I hope
ultimately to the President so he can sign it into law and put many of
these provisions in place that would be good for our country.
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. GRASSLEY. 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 Enforcement
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today, I wish to pay tribute to Sarah
Root, a young woman from Iowa who just graduated from college with
perfect grades. She was devoted to her family and friends and had a
bright future, but she was taken from this earth too soon.
I want to express my sympathies to Sarah's parents and acknowledge
Michelle Root, Sarah's mother, who is watching today. She will be
testifying tomorrow before the House Committee on the Judiciary at a
hearing titled, ``The Real Victims of a Reckless and Lawless
Immigration Policy: Families and Survivors Speak Out on the Real Cost
of This Administration's Policies.''
The hearing will focus on how the Obama administration's failed
immigration policies allow thousands of criminal aliens to roam free.
Michelle Root will share her personal story about the loss of her
daughter and how someone in the country illegally was able to walk free
and abscond from authorities after fatally hitting her daughter's
vehicle on graduation night.
Sarah was 21 years old and had just graduated from Bellevue
University with an interest in pursuing a career in criminal justice.
In the words of her family, ``she was full of life and ready to take on
the world.'' According to a close friend of hers, Sarah was smart,
outgoing, and dedicated to her friends and family. She embodied the
words: ``live, laugh, love.''
The day Sarah graduated, she was struck by a drunk driver in the
country illegally. The alleged drunk driver was Edwin Mejia, who had a
blood alcohol
[[Page S2118]]
content of more than three times the legal limit.
The driver was charged with felony motor vehicle homicide and
operating a vehicle while intoxicated on February 3.
Bail was set at $50,000, but he was only required to put up 10
percent. So, for a mere $5,000, the drunk driver walked out of jail and
into the shadows.
This case has shed light on the breakdown between the Federal
Government and State and locals. It has also been a terrible example of
why the President's policies don't work, and how they are having a dire
effect on American families like the Root family.
Under President Obama's Priority Enforcement Program, a person in the
country illegally will only be detained or removed in a few limited
circumstances. The administration hides behind these so-called
``priorities'' to ensure that a vast majority of people in the country
are not removed. Some say that nearly 90,000 illegal immigrant
criminals were released in 2015 because of this policy.
The administration's polices result in tragedies like Sarah's.
A smart young lady who had a bright future was struck by a drunk
driver who entered the country illegally, and was turned over to a
brother who was also in the country illegally, while awaiting his
immigration court date.
After the accident, local law enforcement apparently asked the
Federal government--specifically U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement--to take custody of the driver, but the Federal government
declined. ICE refused to place a detainer on him. An ICE spokesman
stated that the agency did not lodge a detainer on the man because his
arrest for felony motor vehicle homicide ``did not meet ICE's
enforcement priorities.''
The driver made bond and absconded, never showing up for his hearings
and required drug tests. It is difficult for the family to have closure
since the man is nowhere to be found. It is unknown if he is still in
the United States or if he has fled to his home country of Honduras.
Sarah Root is one of many victims who have been harmed or killed
because of lax immigration enforcement and the notion that drunk
driving isn't always a public safety threat.
Even though this tragic accident happened in the heartland of
America, this is a border security problem. The driver of the vehicle
that killed Sarah entered the country illegally.
Every day, people are illegally entering the country, being removed,
entering again, and committing more crimes. Illegal re-entries are
happening because there are no consequences. That is what happened in
Kate Steinle's death. And, that is why we need to move on Kate's law.
That bill would deter people from illegally re-entering by enhancing
penalties and establishing new mandatory minimum sentences for certain
individuals with previous felony convictions.
The Obama administration cannot continue to turn a blind eye to drunk
drivers, sanctuary communities, and people who ignore our laws,
overstay their visas, or cross the border time and again.
I am still waiting for answers from the Obama administration on this
case, and many more. There are many unanswered questions.
How many more people have to die? How many more women and young
people are going to be taken from their family and friends?
Things have got to change. The President must rethink his policies
and must find a way to ensure that criminal immigrants are taken off
the streets. The Obama administration should try enforcing the law,
instead of its priorities, for the sake of the American people.
I want to wish Michelle Root the best of luck while she is in
Washington this week, and send my thoughts to her father who is trying
to find justice back home.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from Ohio.
Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise today to echo the sentiments shared
by our senior Senator from Iowa, Chuck Grassley. Tomorrow morning, one
of my constituents, Michelle Root, will be testifying before the House
Judiciary Committee about the loss of her beautiful young daughter,
Sarah Root. As a mother of three daughters myself, I cannot begin to
fathom the pain and anguish Mrs. Root is experiencing.
Earlier this year, 21-year-old Sarah Root was killed by a drunk
driver. That driver, Edwin Mejia, was allegedly drag racing with a
blood alcohol level more than three times the legal limit when he
crashed into the back of Sarah's vehicle.
Edwin Mejia is also an illegal immigrant. After causing the death of
an American citizen and being charged with motor vehicle homicide, one
would think he would clearly meet U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement's so-called enforcement priorities. But no, citing the
administration's November 2014 memo on immigration enforcement
priorities, ICE declined to lodge a detainer and take custody of Mejia.
During a recent Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
hearing, ICE Director Sarah Saldana actually suggested that ICE
neglected to issue a detainer because at the time they were contacted,
Sarah Root was seriously injured, not dead.
How twisted and convoluted has our immigration system become that an
illegal immigrant who, while driving drunk and drag racing, hits and
either seriously injures or kills an American citizen is not considered
a priority for deportation?
In fact, only after a floor speech, multiple letters, and hearing
questions from Senators from Nebraska and Iowa, as well as media
attention and concerns raised by the Root family, did ICE finally
acknowledge that they should have taken Mejia into custody. It should
not take all of those actions for ICE to determine that an illegal
immigrant who kills an American citizen should be removed from our
country.
Tragically, after ICE declined to file a detainer against Mejia, he
posted a $5,000 bond, was released, and has since disappeared. This is
so despite the fact that he had a history of skipping court dates
related to prior driving offenses.
A few weeks ago, I spoke with Sarah's dad, who told me that before
they could even lay their daughter to rest, Mejia was released. This is
truly an injustice, and we must do everything we can to ensure that we
get answers in this case and prevent a similar tragedy from being
replicated elsewhere.
While America has been and always will be a nation of immigrants, we
are also a nation of laws. It is a privilege to live in this country,
and anyone who comes here illegally and harms our citizens should
without question constitute a priority for removal. For ICE to decide
otherwise is baffling.
In recognition of their clear mistake, they have since listed Mejia
on their ``most wanted'' list and acknowledged they should have taken
him into custody.
The photograph of Sarah behind me was taken as she celebrated her
graduation from Bellevue University with a 4.0 GPA and a bachelor's
degree in criminal investigations and prepared to begin a bright
future. The next day, she was killed.
While nothing can bring Sarah back, her family and friends deserve
clear answers as to why Mejia was allowed to flee. This tragedy further
underscores the administration's failed immigration enforcement
priorities and should serve to spur renewed discussion about their so-
called priorities.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, there are a lot of people in this country
who work very, very hard. We are known in this country as a people who
work hard.
Montanans are no exception. We have some of the hardest working folks
I know who live in that great State. Whether it is a farmer preparing
the spring crop or a fishing guide preparing for the upcoming tourist
season, my constituents know what a long day's work looks like. In
fact, many of my constituents work two jobs so they can put food on the
table and a roof over their head and can save for their kid's college
education. These folks don't wake up in the morning and say: Hey, I
think I will take the year off and just sit it out.
[[Page S2119]]
That is why it is no surprise that when I went home for the March
recess, Montanans were overwhelmingly disgusted with the majority's
decision to refuse to do their job. Constituent after constituent asked
me what the heck we were doing back here. Local editorial boards even
chimed in.
The Billings Gazette, my State's largest newspaper, tore the majority
to shreds, saying that those who crow about making Washington work
better are intentionally sabotaging the system, making it work worse.
The Montana Standard, in ``Butte, America,'' accused Senators of
``shirking their constitutional responsibilities'' and denounced their
tactics as ``a pretty shoddy way to do business.''
If that wasn't enough, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle described the
crusade as ``nothing but an abdication of responsibility and another
example of the kind of playground-level obstruction that has soured so
many Americans on Congress and contributed to the divisive meltdown in
the race to the GOP nomination for President.''
Now here we are. It has been 33 days since Judge Garland was
nominated to the Supreme Court--33 days and counting. Yet there are no
hearings in sight, no chance for the American people to have their
voices heard through their elected representatives, no chance to ask
tough questions of the nominee.
This week we will hear the majority leader talk about regular order
with respect to appropriations bills. But if regular order is good
enough for appropriations bills, it is good enough for a Supreme Court
nomination.
The bottom line is this. The American people are as frustrated as I
am. They are fed up with the obstructionism, and they want Congress to
do its job.
So let's have a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and then
let's have a vote in the Senate. As the Montana Standard says, anything
less than that is ``a pretty shoddy way to do business.''
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. NELSON. 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. NELSON. Mr. President, in about 8 minutes we are going to start
the vote on a motion for cloture, moving forward on the FAA bill. We
have had a lot of debate about this. It passed with very little
objection in the Commerce Committee. We have a package of 26
amendments, all of which have been cleared. We hope that can go as a
separate amendment, almost like a managers' package. They are all
noncontroversial.
I am quite encouraged that we are making a number of reforms in the
FAA that I have spoken about at length and that the chairman of the
committee, Senator Thune, has spoken about at length. It is a good
bill. Its previous adoption on a motion for cloture was something like
94 to 4. So you see where we are going.
Then we will get into conference with the House, although it is my
understanding they have not passed their bill. They passed it out of
committee, but they have some controversial things. Hopefully, they
will get it out, and we will be able to come to terms and get this
reauthorization of the FAA, which we had to extend in a short-term
reauthorization, because the clock is ticking. So I just wanted to
share that with the Senate.
Protecting the Manatee
Now, Mr. President, since we have some time and no Senator is seeking
recognition, I want to tell the Presiding Officer about a creature we
have in Florida. We have lots of interesting creatures. There are
things that come in that are like alien species, such as the Burmese
python that they estimate--the Superintendent of Everglades National
Park has estimated that there may be as many as 150,000. They got one
15-foot female, and she had 54 eggs in her. So you see how prolific
they are.
You cannot find them. The only way you can really find them is if
there is a cold snap, because they will come out of the water, out of
the river of grass where they are so exquisitely camouflaged. In a cold
snap, they will come out of the water and up to the tree islands. Of
course, you have seen some of those monsters--18 footers.
Well, they had another critter that we have, because in Florida we do
have alligators. Lo and behold, you may have seen this alligator. This
alligator was 800 pounds and 15 feet long. He had been in a lake that
was created in a cattle pasture, and he had been eating cows, so he had
plenty of food. Well, this alligator, of course, is a critter that is
native to Florida. It is the crocodile that is imported.
You can tell the difference between an alligator and a crocodile
because the alligator has a rounded snout and the crocodile has a
pointed one. All of this is to tell you we have another critter that is
the most loveable critter, and we have had it on the endangered list.
This is the animal called the manatee; some people call it a sea cow.
These adorable creatures breathe air but live in the water. They have
little flippers and a big body. Of course, they have these lovable
faces. They have been endangered primarily because of boat propellers
cutting them up. So we have had a serious effort at reducing the speeds
of boats to a slow idle in manatee areas to protect them.
They also get bothered by cold water. When there is a cold snap, they
will migrate to warmer water. Pollution is another cause of the manatee
being endangered.
There has been a comeback. Around 20 years ago, there were only 1,200
of them in the world. That population has grown upward to 6,000.
Here is the point: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to take
them off the endangered list and put them into a lesser category. Those
of us who want to protect these critters don't want them to come off
the endangered list. If I had thought enough in advance, I would have
brought a picture of a manatee. They are the most loveable critters.
You can get in the water, you can swim with them, and you can feed
them. When you feed them a pellet of food, they nibble like a horse
nibbles sugar out of your hand--all of this under water.
They are the most adorable critters. They love to be rubbed on their
tummies. They love fresh water. In a brackish water system, where you
can take a fresh water hose, they will come up and just drink the
water, and then they will roll over so you can spray them underneath
their flippers.
Thank goodness they have rebounded, but there is a lot more to
rebound. So, I wanted to share our crusade--our efforts to try to keep
the manatee on the endangered list and to protect them.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 3680
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 3680
is agreed to.
Amendment No. 3679, as Amended
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 3679,
as amended, is agreed to.
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 bill 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 Calendar No. 55,
H.R. 636, an act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to permanently extend increased expensing limitations, and
for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Daniel Coats, Lamar Alexander, Bob
Corker, Roger F. Wicker, Orrin G. Hatch, Thom Tillis,
John Hoeven, Kelly Ayotte, John Thune, Mike Rounds, Roy
Blunt, John Cornyn, Pat Roberts, John Barrasso, Johnny
Isakson, James M. Inhofe.
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 H.R.
636, as amended, an act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
permanently extend increased expensing limitations, 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
[[Page S2120]]
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake),
and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. DURBN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 89, nays 5, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 46 Leg.]
YEAS--- 89
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--- 5
Boxer
Lee
Portman
Risch
Rubio
NOT VOTING--- 6
Blunt
Crapo
Cruz
Flake
Sanders
Toomey
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 89, the
nays are 5.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Hawaii.
United States v. Texas
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, today the Supreme Court heard oral
arguments in United States v. Texas. This case is a challenge to
President Obama's Executive actions to prioritize U.S. immigration
enforcement.
In 2012, the President used his legal authority to establish the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, or DACA. DACA has given
nearly 700,000 undocumented young people the opportunity to come out of
the shadows to pursue their dreams through education and jobs.
In 2014, again acting within existing legal authority, the President
announced an expansion of the successful DACA Program. He also created
a new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent
Residents Program, or DAPA. DAPA allows the undocumented parents of
U.S.-born and legal permanent resident children, the majority of whom
are U.S. citizens, to stay in this country with their families.
Together, the expanded DACA and DAPA were expected to enable nearly 5
million people to come out of the shadows without fear of deportation.
Unfortunately, Texas and 25 other States have challenged the
President's authority to issue these Executive orders, resulting in the
Supreme Court hearing today.
Hundreds of DREAMers, Muslim students, and activists from California,
New York, New Jersey, and elsewhere rallied on the Supreme Court steps
this morning. I spoke with them and heard their stories and their hopes
that the Supreme Court would make the right decision in support of the
President and the millions of DACA and DAPA families. Many carried
signs and stickers that read ``Keep families together.'' Keeping
families together is at the crux of the President's Executive orders--
families like that of Gabriela Andrade, who, as a teenager, fled
violence in Brazil and settled in Texas before coming to Hawaii. While
Gabriela's sister and parents were granted visas through a lottery
system, Gabriela fell through the cracks. Until President Obama
announced the DACA Program, she lived in fear of being separated from
her entire family. She said:
DACA pulled me out of limbo and gave me a life again. It
allowed me to go back to school to pursue a bachelor's degree
in political science, to volunteer with several local
organizations.
Today, Gabriela is an advocate for DREAMers like herself. President
Obama's DAPA and expanded DACA Programs would help thousands of
families like Gabriela's who want to stay together and be contributing
members of our communities without the daily fear of deportation. To
tear undocumented parents away from their children and put these U.S.-
born children in foster care is unconscionable. To deport people who
were brought here when they were very young--to essentially tear them
away from the United States, the only home and country they have
known--is also unconscionable.
These young people would be facing insurmountable odds, and I can
certainly relate to some of the challenges they face. When I was almost
8 years old, my mother, brothers, and I legally immigrated to the
United States. When we first arrived in Hawaii, we certainly struggled.
I had to navigate the public school system without speaking a word of
English. My mother worked low-paying jobs with no job security, and we
struggled to make ends meet. But we took strength in being together as
a family.
However, in addition to facing the kind of challenges my whole family
faced when we first arrived in this country, DACA and DAPA families
live in constant fear that they will be ripped apart through
deportation. These families and children have been living in limbo for
over a year while the legal challenges work their way through the
system, through the courts.
In addition, United States v. Texas is also pushing DREAMers who are
eligible for the original DACA Program, which is not being challenged,
further into the shadows.
Singai Masiya, who heads the Aloha DREAM Team in my home State and is
a DREAMer himself, told my office that DACA-eligible people in Hawaii
stopped applying for DACA. Why? They are afraid that if the Court rules
against President Obama's Executive actions, their application
information will be used to deport them. This is a real fear in our
communities.
United States v. Texas not only affects the lives of the more than
7,000 DACA- and DAPA-eligible Hawaii residents, it affects our economy.
Over 10 years, DACA, DAPA, and expanded DACA are projected to provide a
$276 million cumulative increase in Hawaii's State gross domestic
product. The Center for American Progress also projects that, over 10
years, DACA, DAPA, and DACA expansion would provide a $136 million
increase in the combined earnings of Hawaii's residents. However, in
order to see these economic benefits, the Justices of the Supreme Court
must rule on the side of DREAMers and the DAPA families. My hope is
that the Supreme Court rules that the President is well within his
legal authority in expanding DACA and DAPA and allows these Executive
actions to be implemented.
I note, however, that Executive actions, important as they are, are
not enough. The President himself has called on Congress to fix our
broken immigration system so that 11 million undocumented people in our
country can come out of the shadows and live and work openly.
It has been almost 3 years since the Senate passed bipartisan,
comprehensive immigration reform. I call upon Congress to do our jobs
and enact fair, humane, and sensible immigration reform--recognizing
that we are, indeed, a country of immigrants. That fact is at the very
root of our strength as a nation.
Mr. President, I yield back.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Order of Procedure
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII, at 12 noon on Tuesday, April 19, the Senate
vote on passage of H.R. 636, as amended; further, that following the
disposition of H.R. 636, as amended, the Senate resume
[[Page S2121]]
consideration of S. 2012, the Energy Modernization Act, as under the
previous order; that following disposition of S. 2012, as amended, if
amended, but not prior to Wednesday, April 20, the cloture motion with
respect to the motion to proceed to H.R. 2028 be withdrawn and the
Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2028, the energy and water
appropriations bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________