[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16401-16406]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  NOMINATION OF ROBERT S. ADLER TO BE A COMMISSIONER OF THE CONSUMER 
                  PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION--Continued

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in 
any quorum calls be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Tax Extenders

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I wish to spend a few minutes today to 
discuss the ongoing saga of the 2014 tax extenders package.
  Getting this legislation passed through the Senate has been quite an 
ordeal from the outset. As my colleagues will recall, the Finance 
Committee reported its tax extenders package in April and a few weeks 
later progress stalled on the Senate floor when the Senate majority 
leadership refused to allow votes on any amendments.
  After that time--which was in mid-May--the tax extenders sat somewhat 
in limbo, although both sides acknowledged the desire to get something 
passed during the lameduck session, if not before.
  The Finance Committee extenders package, if my colleagues remember, 
extended 55 expired or expiring tax provisions for 2 years without 
making any of them permanent.

[[Page 16402]]

  The House took a different approach which was to make certain 
important tax provisions, such as the R&D tax credit, for example, 
permanent, bringing more certainty to American businesses, families, 
and individuals.
  Over the past several weeks, negotiations have been ongoing in the 
hopes of producing a bill that combined the Senate Finance Committee's 
package with the approach taken by the House.
  I am generally hesitant to publicly comment about what happens behind 
closed doors in negotiations; but, on the other hand, much of what 
happened next has already been printed in the media. That being the 
case, I don't feel too awkward discussing the recent turn of events 
that has brought us to where we are now with the tax extenders.
  Last week, before the Thanksgiving holiday, the Speaker's office and 
the Senate majority leader's office were very close to reaching a deal 
on a tax extenders package--one that would have included all of the 
provisions from the EXPIRE Act, which is the Senate Finance Committee-
reported tax extenders bill, as well as a number of permanent tax 
extender provisions.
  This emerging deal would have been a reasonable compromise between 
Republicans and Democrats and between the House and Senate approaches 
to this matter. It was not the legislation I would have written, but as 
a compromise taking place in a Congress that is, for the time being, 
still divided, it was likely the best both parties could hope for.
  As I said, we were on the cusp of a deal last week, and then 
something strange happened. On Tuesday, the White House caught wind of 
the potential deal--even though the terms had not yet been finalized--
and issued a veto threat. How often does that happen? How often does 
the President issue a veto threat on potential deals still under 
negotiation? How often do we find that extraordinary threat ratified by 
people who are involved in the negotiations? As I said, this was not a 
Republican wish list being negotiated. House Republicans were willing 
to make a number of tough concessions in order to get a deal across the 
finish line.
  For example, the deal would have made permanent the American 
opportunity tax credit--a provision that first came into law in the 
Democrats' partisan 2009 stimulus bill and has been a high priority 
item for Democrats. It would have also made the State and local sales 
tax deduction--which is a high priority for a number of congressional 
Democrats--permanent. And it would have rolled over the tax extenders 
that expired during 2013--including many that most Republicans do not 
support--for another 2 years.
  These were major concessions and, to its credit, the House was 
willing to make them in the interests of a bipartisan agreement.
  More importantly, the deal was supported by the Senate majority 
leader who, the last time I checked, was a Democrat. Yet the deal 
wasn't good enough for the President and for the more liberal Members 
of the Senate, or should I say the Senate Democratic Caucus. Apparently 
they weren't willing to take yes for an answer. Instead of compromising 
even a little bit, President Obama issued his veto threat and has been 
rallying Democratic Senators against the proposed deal, or at least 
that is what I have been told. As a result, it appears unlikely that a 
deal on the tax extenders package will be reached in this Congress. 
Instead, the most likely scenario appears to be that the Congress will 
pass a 1-year referendum of tax extenders that have already expired.
  Short of not passing anything at all, this is surely the worst of all 
possible worlds. Rather than the certainty that would come with making 
some of the more prominent individual tax extenders permanent, 
families, individuals, and businesses will have to once again put long-
term plans on hold in hopes that Congress can get its act together the 
next time around.
  This is bad news for middle-class families. This is bad news for 
individuals. This is bad news for job creators. And this is bad news 
for those of us hoping the government will improve the way it does 
business any time in the near future.
  We all know the makeup of the next Congress will be different than it 
is now. I don't mean to be too presumptuous, but I think it is safe to 
say the President and his liberal allies are unlikely to get a better 
tax deal in the next Congress than the one the Senate Democratic 
leadership had been negotiating up until the last week. I commend the 
Senate Democratic leadership for its work on that matter. I commend the 
House leadership and congratulate them for doing the same thing.
  Do any of my Democratic colleagues who came out against the proposed 
deal really think their prospects are likely to improve next year? I 
have to ask because, quite frankly, this recent turn of events is mind-
boggling to me.
  In the end, I think the only conclusion that makes sense is that this 
line of attack--the President's veto threat--and liberal opposition to 
the potential extenders deal is more about politics than about policy. 
It is about the President's strategy of following an electoral rebuke 
of his policies by tacking even further to the left. And it is about 
congressional Democrats' efforts to pander to their liberal base at the 
expense of good government.
  I hope I am wrong about this, but as I said, there is not another 
logical explanation that I have heard. I hope the White House and its 
Senate allies will prove me wrong and come to the table with an offer 
that reflects a genuine compromise with the House.
  I think the events of this past week have demonstrated divisions in 
the Democratic Party, and that those divisions are causing real 
problems. Once again, we had the Senate majority leader in the room and 
ready to make a deal, only to be undercut by the President and his 
liberal allies in the Senate. I find that very unfortunate. I commend 
the Democratic majority leader for trying.
  Of course, at the end of the day, I suppose none of us should be 
surprised at what has happened. After all, President Obama is not 
particularly known for being business friendly or placing his focus on 
job creation, which is sorely needed in this country. Whether it is 
crippling environmental regulations--which we are now seeing come to 
the forefront in dramatic terms--or whether it is labor policy or 
health care, the President has demonstrated that he is all too willing 
to put his political ideology above the needs of our economy.
  Make no mistake, the proposed tax extenders deal--the one the 
President scuttled with his veto threat--was all about job creation. It 
would have made the research and development tax credit, small business 
expensing, and other provisions permanent, giving certainty to the 
business community, paving the way for more investment, and paving the 
way for more jobs in our society.
  The President's latest gambit on the tax extenders is just a series 
in a long line of instances where politics has trumped job creation. 
Still, as one who has been willing to work with my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, I can't help but be disappointed.
  But make no mistake, things are about to change around here and we 
will have an opportunity to right this ship. I just hope we will have a 
lot of Democrats who are willing to help us. We need to focus on an 
agenda that will actually grow our economy. We need to focus on an 
agenda that will actually create jobs. And we need to focus on an 
agenda that will empower the American people. That is going to be the 
focus of this new Congress.
  Once again, the President and his allies here in the Senate missed a 
big opportunity to address some of their party's priorities with the 
tax extenders legislation. It is difficult to imagine that they will 
have another bite at the same apple in the next Congress. Absent a 
deal, we are now left with only one option: a 1-year extension that 
will likely be passed by the House this week. Once again, a 1-year 
extension is not a great deal for families, individuals, and 
businesses, but it is far better than letting these provisions lapse 
entirely. Indeed, if we do nothing, we run into a series of problems, 
including a delayed filing season, which means millions of delayed 
refunds for Americans who count on them. In addition,

[[Page 16403]]

doing nothing would essentially amount to a tax hike on millions of 
people and businesses.
  Consequently, I plan to vote in favor of the 1-year extension, 
unless, of course, my colleagues on the other side finally come to 
their senses and allow a better deal to be had.
  I don't understand this kind of leadership in this country. I don't 
understand why the President does some of these things. I don't 
understand why the left just can't take an offering to them that was 
much better than what we are going to get. The majority leader knew it.
  Republicans have been tough on the majority leader. I have been here 
for years. I care for him. I think it is a tough group of people to 
manage, just as they are on our side as well. It is a tough job. 
Frankly, I think the deal he worked out should have been followed. It 
would have given the President much of what he wanted initially, 
anyway. It would have brought us together one more time, and it would 
have been a wonderful thing.
  It would have made the end of the year--the work we are doing--much 
more satisfying and acceptable. It would have been a good prelude to 
next year of our working together--something that this body needs 
really badly.
  I want to commend the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, 
for the work he tried to do. I want to congratulate him. I want to 
congratulate the Speaker of the House for being willing to work on 
this.
  I think it is unfortunate we are at this point in these negotiations, 
where we are going to have a 1-year extension. It is not going to be 
anywhere near where we had negotiated with the majority leader and had 
negotiated with the House. There are parts of the negotiated bill that 
I wish I could have changed. But, we had come a long way.
  I want to pay tribute to the distinguished chairman of our committee. 
I don't think he had much confidence at first that we would put our 
original extenders bill through the committee. At least he didn't 
express it to me.
  I said: Let's do it, and we did. Even with the parts that I wish 
weren't in there and the parts he wished weren't in there, it was a 
classic bipartisan compromise by two sides who feel very, very deeply 
about all these issues--each and every one of them.
  I think the work that Senator Reid, the distinguished majority 
leader, and the Speaker had done was not only a step in the right 
direction but it would have been something most all of us would have 
been quite pleased with. I commend them for their work.
  I am disappointed with where we are. I hope we can solve these 
problems in the future. I will be working as hard as I can to bring 
about bipartisan efforts in that regard.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             EPA Regulation

  Mr. BARRASSO. Last Wednesday Americans all across the country were 
preparing for Thanksgiving. They were traveling. Many of them were 
going to visit friends and family and places around their communities, 
their State or the country.
  What did the Obama administration do when it thought nobody was 
actually paying attention? It snuck out a huge new regulation that 
imposes job-crushing environmental restrictions.
  Politico ran an article on it later that day. The headline was: ``The 
most expensive regulation ever. Obama rolls out a major EPA rule.''
  Why would the President do that? Why would he put out a major rule 
from the Environmental Protection Agency, affecting millions of 
Americans, and do it right before a holiday?
  If these regulations were such a good idea, we would think the 
administration--as the administration claims it is a good idea--would 
put it out in a way that people would be paying attention.
  I want to know why the administration did this in a way to hide the 
regulations from the American people. President Obama didn't say a word 
about it that day. Instead, he pardoned a turkey. The turkey got a 
better deal than the American people did last week. They are the ones 
who are going to be paying for the President's expensive and 
destructive regulation.
  Here is what is happening. The Environmental Protection Agency has 
proposed a new rule that would dramatically slash the limits of ground-
level ozone. The rule runs 626 pages. Then we add on the appendix--over 
500 additional pages.
  Here is what the Wall Street Journal had to say about the new rule. 
They had an editorial on it Friday with this headline: ``Highway to the 
Danger Ozone.'' It says: ``Like so many other such rules, this one 
twists decades-old air pollution laws to restructure the U.S. energy 
industry and gradually ban fossil-fuel-fired power.''
  We have fossil fuel-fired power gradually being banned as this 
administration tries to restructure the U.S. energy industry.
  It says: ``Coal is the first target.'' The article also adds: ``But 
natural gas is next.''
  The current limit on ozone is 75 parts per billion. The Environmental 
Protection Agency wants to cut that number down to as little as 70, 65, 
even 60 parts per billion.
  The Agency estimates that the new rule could cost nearly $17 billion 
every year--$17 billion a year in costs. Most of the country would fail 
to meet Washington's tough new standards if they were in place today. 
As much as 95 percent of the country would be unable to comply with the 
new regulations if they go down to 60 parts per billion.
  States, counties, and cities would have to curb their energy 
production and limit manufacturing. That will mean far less economic 
growth and fewer people working. It will raise the cost of everyday 
living, and it will destroy middle-class jobs. There is no question 
about it.
  This rule will undermine energy reliability. It will stall 
manufacturing investment, and it will smother economic opportunity for 
middle-class families.
  It costs too much, and there is very little benefit. It doesn't 
matter to the extreme environmentalist wing of the Democratic Party who 
support it.
  The Obama administration is once again turning a deaf ear to 
Americans--the people who want Washington to focus on jobs. That is 
what we saw in the election earlier this month. The people of this 
country want the administration to focus on jobs.
  The administration claims its tough new rule will lead to new health 
benefits. What about the health damage done to people who lose their 
jobs because of the rule?
  In March 2012 the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
Subcommittee on Clear Air and Nuclear Safety issued a report titled 
``Red Tape Making Americans Sick.'' It is a new report on the health 
impacts of high unemployment.
  According to the testimony and scientific research that was reviewed 
by the subcommittee, unemployment caused by excessive regulation--such 
as the new ozone rule--increases the likelihood of hospital visits, 
illnesses, and premature deaths. That raises health care costs. It 
hurts the health of children and the well-being of families. The Obama 
administration doesn't want to hear it and certainly doesn't want to 
talk about it.
  Bipartisan majorities in Congress have rejected the President's 
energy policies. Senate Democrats wouldn't even bring up his cap and 
trade plan for a vote in this body.
  What does the President do? Does he learn the lesson that the 
American people don't want his enormously expensive, job-crushing 
policies?
  Does he listen to the voters in the most recent elections--people who 
sent a clear message they weren't happy with the direction the country 
is headed? No, not President Obama--he goes ahead and does it anyway.
  People are concerned about jobs. They are concerned about the 
economy. The President is focused, though, on making it tougher for the 
private

[[Page 16404]]

sector to create jobs and tougher for the economy to grow. He purposely 
is going around the American people and their representatives in 
Congress and taking this drastic step on his own. Why? Because he knows 
even Democrats in Congress do not support him.
  So what are the Democrats who control the Senate right now going to 
do about it? If history is any indication, they are not going to do 
anything. Democrats in Congress are going to just roll over and accept 
another destructive policy by President Obama. That is what they did 
with the health care law--a terrible law. Democrats in Congress pushed 
it through anyway because President Obama told them to do it. Nancy 
Pelosi was the Speaker of the House at the time. She said: First you 
have to pass the bill before you get to find out what is in it. Well, 
now even Democrats are admitting it was a bad idea as they are learning 
more and more what is in this bill for which they voted. The senior 
Senator from New York said the other day that the health care law 
``wasn't the change we were hired to make.'' He said, with the economy 
in bad shape, it was a focus on ``the wrong problem.'' That is from a 
Senator who voted for the health care law. Well, today the Senator is 
right when he says it was a focus on the wrong problem.
  With this new ozone regulation, the President is still focused on the 
wrong problem. He should still be looking for ways to grow America's 
economy, not ways to tie it up with more redtape.
  President Obama has made the wrong choice time and time again, adding 
more regulations, more rules, more bureaucracy. He continues to push 
extreme policies he knows the American people reject. The President is 
using unelected and unaccountable czars to go around Congress and the 
public. His latest Executive action shows his Presidency is failing and 
floundering.
  President Obama is not even waiting to try to work with a Republican 
Congress or when Republicans take the majority in January. He is acting 
on his own right now. Well, in January Republicans in Congress will 
listen to Americans and focus on the priorities of the American people. 
We will hold the Obama administration accountable for its destructive 
overreach. We will listen to people who are struggling under Obama's 
redtape and suffering because of it. We will do everything possible to 
stop this legislation and help Americans have better job opportunities 
in the future.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Immigration

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the 
President's Executive order on immigration. I have been listening to my 
colleagues, both here and on the other side of the Capitol, and I rise 
in amazement. It is almost incredulous that our Republican friends are 
against the President taking the same action Presidents Reagan and 
George H.W. Bush took to defer deportation to solve a critical problem 
that we all know exists in the country--a problem that impacts 
millions. When President Obama exercises the same Executive authority--
the same--they are on the air, on television, on talk shows, on 
Twitter, fear-mongering, calling it illegal, calling it amnesty, a 
constitutional crisis. Where was all of that when Presidents Reagan and 
Bush did it?
  They hold hearings in the House titled ``Open Border: The Impact of 
Presidential Amnesty on Border Security,'' which is a little ridiculous 
because we have more border security under this administration than we 
have had in the history of the United States. As a matter of fact, we 
spend more on border enforcement and immigration enforcement than we do 
in all of the other Federal law enforcement entities combined--
combined.
  The Republicans threaten to sue the government or even shut it down. 
The irony of that is laughable because a shutdown over conducting 
background checks and collecting taxes from undocumented immigrants 
would only cost current taxpayers billions of dollars.
  Certainly it would cost them billions of dollars if it is anything 
like the last shutdown that Republicans forced. So double standard? 
Absolutely. It is the very definition of ``double standard.''
  On immigration reform, our Republican friends--particularly on the 
other side of the Capitol--have become the poster children for double 
standards. On the one hand, they know the political ramifications of 
the demographic reality. On the other, they refuse to catch up with 
history and fix our broken immigration system. They are sailing against 
the headwinds of history, and now they want to prevent the President 
from pulling them to shore, saving them from their own immobility, 
their own inaction. They are also sailing against the headwinds of what 
the American people want. In poll after poll we have seen that the 
American people want to fix our broken immigration system, and that 
which the Senate passed--and I was honored to be one of the Group of 8 
who put it together 1\1/2\ years ago--and passed with an overwhelming 
bipartisan vote, still has the highest rating among the American 
people. It has been sitting in the House of Representatives for the 
last 1\1/2\ years.
  A new Gallup poll shows that the President's approval rating among 
all voters has not gone down since the Executive action announcement 
was made, as some predicted it would, but, rather, it has increased 5 
percentage points among all voters since early November. In my view, 
any action--Executive or otherwise--is movement in the right direction 
and it is what America expects of its leaders.
  Americans are expecting someone to act, someone to tackle the 
difficult issues, and immigration, particularly for our House 
colleagues, seems to be a very difficult issue they can't tackle. It is 
not difficult for me, and it is not really difficult for most Americans 
who believe in the power of common sense, not for those who believe in 
the need to secure our borders, to secure the country, to promote 
economic opportunity, and preserve our history as a nation of 
immigrants and that core value of family values.
  I cannot recall anyone coming to this floor and praising inaction, 
praising the President for not having done enough on a matter of 
consequence, but that is exactly what our Republican colleagues are 
doing, once again standing squarely on the wrong side of history--in 
fact, on the wrong side of their own history--invoking the double 
standard and claiming what is right for their party's Presidents is 
wrong for this President. History, however, is a funny thing. You can 
choose to ignore it, but eventually it catches up with you, and it has 
finally caught up with my Republican colleagues.
  I repeat what I have said all along: The antidote to Executive action 
is passing immigration reform. Let's be clear. Regardless of how big or 
how bold the President's announcement may be, a permanent legislative 
solution continues to be our ultimate objective. Administrative relief 
will not grant anyone legal status or citizenship, but it will clear 
the way for many to come out of the shadows, register with the 
government, pass a criminal background check, get a work permit, and 
pay taxes as the rest of us do.
  Because of the President's Executive action, the nature of who is 
eligible is really people who have U.S. citizen families here. It will 
prevent needless deportations and give a chance at a better life to 
those who want nothing more than to keep their families together. We 
are talking about millions of hard-working people who--right now many 
are exploited, creating downward pressure on the salaries and wages of 
all Americans by virtue of that exploitation. We have an opportunity to 
change that. I would rather know who is here to pursue the American 
dream versus who is here to do us harm, but I can't know that unless I 
get people to come forward and go through a criminal background check.
  If our Republican colleagues are so concerned about getting 
immigration

[[Page 16405]]

policy right, if they are so concerned about the President overstepping 
his authority, which is the same authority Republican Presidents have 
used, they can exert their own authority and push our bipartisan bill 
over the finish line with one vote--one vote in the House of 
Representatives.
  The President himself has said he acted because there is a cost to 
waiting--a cost measured in the thousands of parents of U.S. citizen 
children who are deported, husband and wives who are separated from 
their U.S. citizen spouses, and the economic consequences.
  I know there are some who suggest: Let's wait until the next 
Congress. Let's wait and see. Give them a little time. If not, we will 
act.
  This is the same Republican Party--particularly in the House of 
Representatives--that blocked immigration reform in 2006, 2007, 2010, 
2013, and 2014 despite a strong bipartisan bill here. So if they wish, 
they can join us at the negotiating table with their own proposals and 
their own solutions because doing nothing and maintaining the status 
quo is no longer an option. That is precisely why they didn't want the 
President to follow through on what he told them. He waited on 
Executive action. He gave them advance notice. He said: I want you to 
act, but if you don't act, eventually I will have to act.
  Now let's look at what my Republican friends find so objectionable. 
To put it simply, the administration is creating a new deferred action 
for parental accountability, a program that provides deferred action on 
a case-by-case basis to undocumented parents of U.S. citizens or lawful 
permanent residents--those who were present in the United States on 
November 20 of this year, those who have continuously lived in the 
United States for 5 years, since January 2010, and are not an 
enforcement priority--and also is expanding the program that already 
exists for DREAMers by expanding the age content.
  This isn't amnesty because amnesty means you did something wrong and 
you are forgiven and get whatever you want. Amnesty means you get 
something for nothing. First of all, these people have no pathway to 
becoming a permanent resident or citizen under the President's 
Executive order. Secondly, their only opportunity is not to be 
deported, assuming they can pass a background check and pay their 
taxes.
  As a result of the President's order, more people will go to the 
southern border to protect it, more people will pay taxes who may not 
be paying them now, more families will stay reunited, and more people 
who are in the shadows will come forward and go through a criminal 
background check. I would like to know who those people are, and I 
would like to make sure they don't have a criminal background. More 
criminals and felons will be deported because now it will be a priority 
to deport those individuals. What is wrong with that set of 
circumstances?
  So this is temporary relief as the Congress hopefully comes together 
on a more permanent basis.
  In my State of New Jersey, approximately 137,000 parents of U.S. 
citizens and legal permanent residents will benefit from the new 
action. About 67,000 will benefit from the new program on children. 
That is an estimated 204,000 people in New Jersey who can come out of 
the shadows and contribute to the community and the economy. These are 
moms and dads, good people, hardworking people who can register with 
the government, pass a background check, get a work permit, pay taxes, 
take care of their families, and no longer fear deportation.
  The fact is, because of the President's Executive action, more felons 
will be deported, more resources will go to our border, more families 
will stay together, and more people will pay taxes. These are all good 
things.
  The Council of Economic Advisers has found that over the next decade 
the range of Executive actions announced by the President will increase 
our gross domestic product by up to 0.9 percent, it will reduce the 
Federal deficit by $25 billion through increased economic growth, and 
it will raise the average wages for U.S. workers by 0.3 percent.
  The Executive action the President has taken and the Republicans have 
criticized will increase the productivity of our workforce. How? By 
allowing those--from undocumented immigrants to spouses of highly 
skilled H-1B visa holders--to be part of the formal economy and match 
the skills they have with the skills needed by entrepreneurial startups 
that they often create.
  By the way, that is a fraction of the economic benefits of what we 
did here on a bipartisan basis that has been sitting in the House of 
Representatives for the last 1\1/2\ years. The Senate bill we passed, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office--the nonpartisan scoring 
division of everything we do here--will increase the gross domestic 
product of the United States by over 3 percent in 2023--less than 9 
years--and 5.4 percent in 2033, which is an increase of roughly $700 
billion in 2023 and $1.4 trillion in 2033. It will reduce the Federal 
deficit by $197 billion over the next decade and another $700 billion 
between 2024 and 2033. That is almost $1 trillion in deficit spending 
which can be lifted from the backs of the next generation of Americans 
by giving 11 million people a pathway to citizenship. What do we ever 
do that we pass that grows the economy, reduces the deficit, and 
creates more jobs for all Americans? Very little. The immigration bill 
which the Senate passed and which has been pending in the House does 
all of that in addition to securing our border.
  So let's be clear. The President's Executive actions are only 
temporary steps. Only Congress can finish the job. Deferred action is 
an act of prosecutorial discretion, but it is not a path to citizenship 
or a permanent solution. The fact is that we have waited and waited. In 
the absence of any Republican action in the House on immigration 
reform, the President has used the power he has available, which other 
Presidents have used as well. If the Republicans are concerned about an 
Executive action, they should use their own power to pass immigration 
reform--either the Senate bill or their own vision of what 
comprehensive reform is.
  For those who question the legality of this, I would simply say there 
are three letters--one before the Executive action and two after--from 
law professors and former general counsels of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service and chief counsels of USCIS. They say the 
President has the authority. He is on sound legal footing.
  So we are tired of waiting for Republicans to say yes to something--
yes to taking action that is in the interest of millions in this 
country who expect leadership, expect action, expect progress, expect 
cooperation, not confrontation and obstruction. Millions of families 
are tired of waiting. The Nation is tired of waiting for Republicans to 
catch up with history--in this case, with the lessons of their own 
history.
  Let's invite our Republican friends to invoke the memory of Ronald 
Reagan and George H.W. Bush and for once commend this President for 
following their lead in this, doing what is right by the Nation and 
doing what is right by our taxpayers, doing what is right for our 
security and doing what is right by our families.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
originally scheduled for today at 4 p.m. be delayed until 4:10 p.m., 
and that notwithstanding rule XXII, following the vote on cloture on 
Calendar No. 1069, Burrows, the Senate proceed to vote on cloture on 
Calendar No. 1067, Lopez; further, that if cloture is invoked on either 
of these nominations, that at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, Wednesday, 
December 3, 2014, all postcloture time be considered expired and the 
Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nominations in the order 
upon which cloture was invoked; further,

[[Page 16406]]

that following these votes, the Senate proceed to vote on cloture on 
the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 1036, Hale; 1037, Kearney; and 
1038, Pappert; further, if cloture is invoked on any of these 
nominations, that at 3 p.m. tomorrow, all postcloture time be 
considered expired and the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of 
the nominations in the order upon which cloture was invoked; further, 
that there be 2 minutes for debate prior to each vote and all rollcall 
votes after the first vote in the sequence be 10 minutes in length; 
further, with respect to the nominations in this agreement, that if any 
nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________