[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.

                          ____________________