{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2014-12-16-pt1-PgS6872", "2014-12-16", 113, 2, null, null, "NOMINATION OF SARAH R. SALDANA TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY", "SENATE", "SENATE", "SNOMINATIONS", "S6872", "S6883", "[{\"name\": \"Richard J. Durbin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mitch McConnell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mike Lee\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Robert Menendez\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tim Kaine\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Thomas R. Carper\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"John Thune\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jeff Merkley\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Sherrod Brown\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mazie K. Hirono\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"113\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"212\"}]", "160 Cong. Rec. S6872", "Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 155 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 155 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S6872-S6883]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\nNOMINATION OF SARAH R. SALDANA TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HOMELAND\n                                SECURITY\n\n  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair\nreport the Saldana nomination, Calendar No. 1084.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?\n  Without objection, it is so ordered.\n  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Sarah R. Saldana, of\nTexas, to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.\n  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my colleague from Texas has just stepped\noff the floor. He has spoken at some length about his position on this\nnomination. With the utmost respect for my colleague from Texas, I wish\nto address the same issue.\n  We disagree on many political issues, but we are truly friends, and\nwe work together on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I respect him very\nmuch, even though we disagree on this issue. I just wanted to express\nmy respect for the senior Senator from Texas before I speak about the\nnominee to be Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security.\n  I am at a loss to explain the position of the Senator from Texas and\nthe Republican Party of America when it comes to the issue of\nimmigration. What are we to make of what they tell us when we talk\nabout immigration? Without fail, they say to us: First and foremost, we\nmust have enforcement at our borders. Once we have secured our borders\nfrom the inflow of illegal immigrants, then--and only then--can we\ndiscuss fixing our broken immigration system.\n  How often have we heard that? I have heard it every time the\nRepublicans address the issue of immigration: First, fix the border,\nand then we will talk.\n  It was about 540 days ago--on the floor of the Senate--when we called\nup an immigration reform bill for consideration. That immigration\nreform bill was put together--a comprehensive bill--by Democrats and\nRepublicans. I was one of eight who helped to put that bill together.\nWe sat down for months and negotiated that bill.\n  The Republican side of the table had John McCain of Arizona, former\nRepublican candidate for President; Jeff Flake of Arizona, a border\nState Senator with passionate feelings about this issue; Marco Rubio,\none of the two Hispanic Members of the Republican Senate caucus; and\nLindsey Graham of South Carolina, a man who is an attorney, works in\nthe Air Force Reserve in the Judge Advocate General's Corps, and is a\nconservative by every measure. Those were our four on the Republican\nside. On the Democratic side we had Senator Charles Schumer, chairman\nof the Senate immigration subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee; Bob\nMenendez, of the Presiding Officer's State of New Jersey and a Hispanic\nleader; Michael Bennet of Colorado; and myself.\n  We negotiated not for weeks but for months. We laboriously went\nthrough every aspect of immigration in America, and, to the amazement\nof ourselves as well as the public, we reached an agreement, a\ncompromise. I was not happy with parts of the bill. Some of it I didn't\nlike at all, and I thought other parts were excellent. That is the\nnature of a compromise.\n  We brought this bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee and opened it\nup for amendment. We said to Republicans and Democrats alike: Improve\nit if you can. There were scores of amendments that were offered in\nthat committee.\n\n  The bill was favorably reported from the Senate Judiciary Committee\nand came to the floor of the Senate, where once again it was amended.\nOne amendment, offered by Senator Corker of Tennessee and Senator\nHoeven of North Dakota, Republicans, dramatically increased border\nenforcement.\n  We currently spend more on immigration enforcement than on all other\nFederal law enforcement efforts combined. We have made a huge\ncommitment, and the Hoeven-Corker amendment increased it with 700 miles\nof fences, more personnel than ever, to the point where they could\nliterally have an agent every 1,000 feet along the southern border.\n  Are we serious about border enforcement in our comprehensive bill?\nYes, we are. We adopted the Hoeven-Corker amendment. Although some said\nwe were overdoing it, we adopted it in the spirit of compromise and\noffered it on the floor for passage. On the final vote, we had 68\nSenators who voted in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. There\nwere 14 Republicans who voted for it, along with the Democrats, which\nmade a majority of 68, and we passed the comprehensive immigration\nreform bill.\n  Sadly, the senior Senator from Texas voted no. He voted no on\ncomprehensive immigration reform. We did our job. We had a bill\nendorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO. This bill was\nendorsed by faith leaders all across the United States and had the\nsupport of the civil rights community as well as conservatives such as\nGrover Norquist. We passed it. It is what the Constitution said we had\nto do.\n  We sent it through the Rotunda and across the Capitol to the House of\nRepresentatives, where it fell into this dark and gloomy pit never to\nbe seen again. We have waited about 540 days now for the House of\nRepresentatives to at least acknowledge it, maybe even debate it,\nperhaps change it or even offer it on the floor of the House of\nRepresentatives, but no, they chose to do nothing. In the view of the\nHouse of Representatives, we have a broken immigration system. Yet they\ndecided to leave it untouched.\n  So the President said time and again to Speaker Boehner: When are you\ngoing to accept your responsibility when it comes to fixing this broken\nimmigration system?\n  The Speaker kept saying: Give me some time. Give me some time. Give\nme some time.\n  Eighteen months passed, and the President said: I am sorry. I have to\ndo something. If you are going to do nothing in the House of\nRepresentatives when it comes to immigration, I must do something as\nPresident.\n  He went into an effort--I know because we spoke--of research to\ndetermine what previous Presidents had done when it came to immigration\nby Executive action. He started off somewhat skeptical, and he said as\nmuch publicly, as to the limits of what he could do.\n  He said: I need to carefully research this, and he did. He found that\nsome 11 Presidents have engaged in Executive action on immigration, and\nso he set out to do the same, to carefully construct Executive action\nto deal with our broken immigration system, all the while knowing the\nRepublicans in the House of Representatives, and many here in the\nSenate, were going to do nothing when it came to immigration.\n  He issued his Executive action a few weeks ago. What did it say? It\nsaid: If you have been in the United States at least 5 years and come\nforward and register with this government by giving us your name, your\naddress, and vital information, we will then submit you to an extensive\ncriminal background check to determine whether you have done anything\nwhile in the United States or before that makes you ineligible to stay.\nIf you fail that initial criminal review, you are gone--no questions\nasked. But if you pass it and are prepared to register with this\ngovernment and pay your fair share of taxes for working in the United\nStates, you will be given a temporary work permit that must be renewed,\nas we review every several years whether you are still eligible to\nstay. That is the Executive action that has driven the Republicans to\ndistraction.\n  The notion is that this President is going to try to fix a broken\nimmigration system by at least guaranteeing that those who are here\nworking legally have no criminal background problems and are paying\ntheir fair share of taxes. They are so distraught over this that they\nhave come up with a strategy that is incredible.\n  The Republican Party, which has insisted time and time again that\nborder enforcement is their highest priority, have--in protest to this\nExecutive action by the President--decided to do two things. First,\nthey passed a spending bill in the House of Representatives which\nfunded all of the Federal Government with a budget for the next year\nexcept for one agency. Which agency would that have been? It turned out\nto be the Department of Homeland Security, which is responsible for\nborder enforcement. The party that is dedicated\n\n[[Page S6873]]\n\nto border enforcement as the starting point for an immigration\ndiscussion starts off by tying the hands of the agency responsible for\nborder enforcement when it comes to their budget.\n  Why would you do that? If you truly want the border enforced and you\nwant people there doing their job, why would you limit their resources?\nWhy would you make it more difficult for them to operate? But the\nRepublicans--in protest of the President's decision--insisted on it.\nThat was the first thing they did, and now we are seeing the second\npart of the Republican strategy, which is in protest to the President's\nExecutive action.\n  They are prepared to stop the nomination of Sarah Saldana to become\nan Assistant Secretary leading U.S. Immigration and Customs\nEnforcement. That title describes what she would do, but for the record\nshe would be responsible for making certain that the people who are\nprotecting our border are doing their job right and spending their\nmoney well, and it turns out she is eminently qualified to do it.\n  I will read a quote from Sarah Saldana's confirmation hearing:\n\n       Ms. Saldana [is] the first Latina United States Attorney in\n     Texas history, and only the second woman to hold that\n     position in the 135-year history of Texas' Northern District.\n     . . . In her role as U.S. Attorney and prosecutor over the\n     past decade, Ms. Saldana has served our state with honor--\n     fighting corrupt public officials, organized crime, sex\n     traffickers, and other dangerous criminals. Throughout her\n     career, Ms. Saldana has developed a reputation for her\n     decisive and fair temperament and her commitment to\n     excellence.\n\n  What is the source of this glowing tribute to Ms. Saldana? It turns\nout the source is the Senator who just left the floor, the senior\nSenator from Texas who announced today he is voting against her.\n  After making this statement, he is voting against her. Why? He said\nbecause she would aid and abet this President of the United States in\nimplementing his Executive action.\n  Elections have consequences. I noted that President Obama was\nreelected by the people of the United States of America and given the\nresponsibility to lead this great Nation. He has asked for a team to do\nthat, and whether I agree or disagree with any given policy of this\nPresident, it is clear the American people said: Mr. Obama, lead this\nNation.\n  He has asked for help to lead this Nation, and it is help long\noverdue. Do my colleagues know how long it has been since we filled\nthis critical spot to protect our border from unlawful immigration?\nOver 2 years. July of 2012 was the last time this spot was filled.\nThere have been objections to those people who have been suggested by\nthe President over and over again, by the same political party that\ninsists border enforcement is their highest priority. Yet they will not\nfund the agency responsible for it in a systematic, orderly way, and\nthey refuse to fill the vacancy of the person responsible for\nadministering this border enforcement.\n  I am at a loss to explain this. It appears to me their feelings about\nthis President have reached a point where they are not thinking\nclearly. They cannot announce on one hand that first we must have\nborder enforcement and then fail to fund the agency. They cannot\nannounce that first we need to make sure we stop the flow of\nundocumented immigrants and then refuse to fill the position\nresponsible for administering that responsibility. Yet that is exactly\nwhat they want to do today.\n  I hope good sense will prevail. I hope Ms. Saldana is given her\nchance to serve this Nation. I am certainly going to support her in\nthat process. It is time we have a Senate-confirmed head of this\nagency, and it is overdue for us as a Senate and a House of\nRepresentatives to address comprehensive immigration reform.\n  The Republicans who are critical of the President's Executive action\nwhen it comes to immigration, in the words we learned in law school, do\nnot have clean hands. They have failed to support immigration reform.\nThey have failed to call on the House of Representatives. They have\nfailed to fund the agency responsible for border enforcement, and they\nwant to fail today in even filling the spot to administer it.\nLeadership requires that we step forward with the President and do what\nis necessary.\n  I see the minority leader and my colleague from Utah are on the\nfloor. I will close by saying that President Obama, when he announced\nhis Executive action, said to his critics on the other side of the\naisle: There is a way to deal with this issue and to stop this\nExecutive action. Pass a bill.\n  We have waited over 500 days for the House of Representatives. I hope\nwe don't have to wait much longer.\n  I yield the floor.\n\n                   Recognition of the Minority Leader\n\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.\n\n                       Honoring Our Armed Forces\n\n                      Staff Sergeant Daniel T. Lee\n\n  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today I rise to honor the life of a\nbrave soldier in the U.S. Army Special Forces from Kentucky who gave\nhis life to defend his country. SSG Daniel T. Lee of Fort Wright, KY,\nwas killed on January 15, 2014, in Afghanistan from wounds received\nduring combat action in the Parwan Province while searching for\nmilitants wanted for recent attacks on Bagram Air Base. He was 28 years\nold.\n  For his service in uniform, Staff Sergeant Lee received many awards,\nmedals, and decorations, including the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple\nHeart, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the\nArmy Achievement Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National\nDefense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Iraq\nCampaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, two\nNoncommissioned Officers Professional Development Ribbons, the Army\nService Ribbon, two Overseas Service Ribbons, the NATO Medal, the\nCombat Infantryman Badge, the Basic Parachutist Badge, and a Special\nForces Tab.\n  Danny's mother Frances Lee has this to say about her son:\n\n       Danny became consumed with being all that he could be; not\n     only in Special Forces but as a father, husband, brother, and\n     son. He never lost his sense of humor and was rarely without\n     a smile. His smile was infectious even in dire times.\n\n  A northern Kentucky native, Danny's childhood was filled with\nfriends, family, and sports. He was a member of the Beechwood diving\nteam from the age of 5. In the eighth grade, he transferred to\nTurkeyfoot Junior High School and began playing football. He also\nplayed basketball, baseball, and softball.\n  Danny graduated from Dixie Heights High School in 2003 and moved to\nTennessee ``for a fresh start,'' says Danny's mother. He began working\nfor a Knoxville electrical company but soon moved to Lowe's hardware\nchain, where he got a job as a manager in Crossville, TN.\n  His mother said:\n\n       While in Crossville, he enlisted in the U.S. Army, a move\n     that took all of us by surprise. We packed up the house and\n     off he went to Fort Benning. He is the only person I have\n     ever heard say that he loved basic training!\n\n  After enlisting in the U.S. Army in October of 2007, Danny completed\nbasic training at Fort Benning. His first assignment was with the 2nd\nSquadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment at Fort Lewis, WA. While serving in the\n1st Cavalry Regiment, Danny deployed to Iraq in support of Operation\nIraqi Freedom in 2009.\n  Daniel's service in Iraq compelled him to join the elite ranks of\nsome of our finest fighters in the Armed Forces. Danny's mother said:\n\n       Upon his return from Iraq, he became a man with a mission.\n     That mission was to become a Special Forces Green Beret.\n\n  Danny began his Special Forces training in March of 2011 and\nultimately earned his Green Beret when he graduated as a Special Forces\ncommunication sergeant. To earn that Green Beret, Danny attended\nAirborne School at Fort Benning and went to Qualification School at\nFort Bragg, NC. For approximately 20 months he completed a series of\nrigorous classes covering skills and tactics such as languages,\nleadership, navigation, survival, evasion, resistance, and escape.\n  While in Qualification School, Danny also married his wife Suzanne,\nwhom he met while stationed at Fort Lewis. Danny graduated from Special\nForces training in May 2013, and he and Suzanne had a child, Daniel\nRoderick, in July of that same year.\n  In August 2013, Danny was assigned to C Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd\nSpecial Forces Group, Airborne, based in Fort Bragg. In September of\nthat year,\n\n[[Page S6874]]\n\nhe was deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring\nFreedom.\n  After Danny's death, the Kentucky General Assembly appropriately\ndesignated a portion of Kentucky Route 1072 in northern Kentucky's Kent\nCounty as the ``Sergeant Daniel Tyler Lee Memorial Highway.''\n  We are thinking of Danny's loved ones today as I recount his story\nfor my colleagues in the Senate, including his wife, Suzanne; his son,\nDaniel; his parents, Frances and Daniel Patrick Lee; his sister, Jamie\nHahn; and many other beloved family members and friends.\n  The motto of the U.S. Army Special Forces, of which Daniel T. Lee was\na proud member, is ``de oppresso liber'' or ``to liberate the\noppressed.''\n  As an elite member of the Nation's Armed Forces, with service in both\nIraq and in Afghanistan, Staff Sergeant Lee certainly fulfilled a\nmission to the best of his ability. The Commonwealth of Kentucky and\nthe U.S. Senate are both grateful for his service and for his\nsacrifice.\n  Mr. President, I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.\n  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of\nSarah Saldana to be in charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement\nwithin the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.\n  As we all know, the President of the United States recently announced\nhe will take unilateral Executive action on immigration. In so doing,\nhe has circumvented the democratic process, and he has broken the law\nand subverted our constitutional order.\n  It is incumbent on every Member of this body, no matter what their\npolitics or what immigration policies they might prefer to enact, to\noppose that usurpation of legislative power and to defend the rule of\nlaw. Fulfilling that duty--the duty to defend the rule of law and our\nconstitutional order--leads me to oppose Ms. Saldana's nomination to be\nthe Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, as it is\ncommonly known. Although I respect her and respect her record of public\nservice, including an admirable and independent streak she demonstrated\nas U.S. attorney, I am concerned that she has also demonstrated that\nher commitment to the rule of law may falter where the Immigration and\nNationality Act is concerned.\n  In response to a question raised by several members of the Senate\nJudiciary Committee, including me, Ms. Saldana said that she agreed\nwith DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson that immigrants who enter the country\nillegally and have now been targeted for the so-called deferred action\nprogram have ``earned the right to be citizens.'' That is bold. This is\nan extraordinarily bold assertion on her part.\n  No doubt Congress could and many people think Congress should ease\nthe path to citizenship for some aliens, some immigrants who are\ncurrently here unlawfully, but to assert that citizenship--not just the\nright to remain here for a time but full-blown citizenship--is a matter\nof right and that it has been earned by the very act of breaking our\nimmigration laws is an unacceptable view for a person who has been\nnominated to be the head of our Nation's immigration enforcement\noffice, but, as I told the Senate last week, this seems to be precisely\nthe mentality of this administration.\n  Although President Obama has repeatedly denied clearing a path to\ncitizenship for those who have crossed our borders illegally, his\ndenial is false, and he knows it. A 2010 Department of Homeland\nSecurity memorandum explicitly contemplated this very thing. We see\nsome evidence of this. There was a 2010 memorandum within the U.S.\nDepartment of Homeland Security--one that made it all the way up to\nthen-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano--that explicitly\ncontemplated using a legal device called parole to enable aliens who\ncrossed our border unlawfully to become citizens.\n  Now, the law makes it possible for aliens with U.S. citizen children\nwho have been paroled into the United States to adjust their\nimmigration status and become green card holders, but parole is\nsupposed to be very rare. In other words, there is a way to get here\nbut not by use of parole.\n  Federal law--specifically INA S. 212 (d)(5)(a)--forbids the\nPresident, forbids the executive branch of government from paroling\naliens into the country except for under very limited circumstances,\nincluding ``urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public\nbenefit.'' That is the text of the statute enacted into law by\nCongress. But now, despite denying having cleared the path to\ncitizenship, the administration has begun granting parole to\nbeneficiaries of deferred action under the very thinnest of pretexts:\nThe President's policies now allow deferred action recipients to get\nadvanced parole so long as they have a client meeting or an interview\nor some academic research to perform overseas--hardly an urgent\nhumanitarian crisis. When they get back from their trips, these same\nindividuals would then be paroled into the country and will eventually\nbecome eligible to adjust their status and get green cards--exactly as\nthe 2010 DHS memo suggested.\n  All of this, of course, is illegal. But it is worse than illegal; it\nis illegitimate. If Congress decides to make it easier for illegal\nimmigrants who have children here to obtain citizenship, then so be it,\nbut that is a decision for the American people through their elected\nofficials in the legislative branch of the Federal Government to make.\nIf the President dislikes the law, he, as any other citizen, must ask\nthis body to change the law--must ask Congress to change that law. He\nhas no more right than anyone else who lives in this country to ignore\nor change the law outside the constitutional process.\n  But the President and this administration have talked themselves into\ndoing just that. They can try to rationalize that action--to us and\nperhaps themselves--only by donning the mantle of moral indignation. It\nisn't just that it would be prudent or merciful to reform our\nimmigration regime. Instead, the administration's argument is that\nthose who flout our laws have, by the very act of flouting them and by\nthe very act of breaking them, earned some kind of moral entitlement to\nhave the law changed or at least to have the law ignored. If Congress\nwill not oblige them, they will do it themselves. They will draft a law\ncalled an Executive order that overturns national immigration policy as\nestablished by law and passed by Congress, and they will announce it at\na press conference. There will be no debate; there will be no\namendments; there will be no vote. In short, there will be no\ndemocracy.\n  We have passed through the looking glass. And to see how far we have\ngone inside, observe: Today, the President asks us to install as\ncustodian of our border a person who evidently believes that crossing\nour border illegally earns you the right to vote. The Constitution\ngives the Senate the responsibility to give the President advice about\nhis Executive nominations and ultimately consent.\n  My advice is this: The President should not proffer a nominee for the\njob of executing our immigration laws who affirmatively supports\nsubverting those very same laws, those same laws she would be called\nupon to enforce and implement and execute if, in fact, she were\nconfirmed to this position. But that is exactly what the President\ndoes. That is exactly what the President has done by submitting this\nname to the Senate for confirmation. I cannot and will not give my\nconsent.\n  With that, I yield the floor.\n  I suggest the absence of a quorum.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The clerk will call the roll.\n  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order\nfor the quorum call be rescinded.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n                                 Cyprus\n\n  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on two\nseparate and distinct topics. The first is about Cyprus.\n  This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Turkish invasion. We\nhoped it would have brought a fair settlement to the Cyprus question;\nthat would have brought an end to a 40-year-long occupation and\ndivision of the island by Turkey.\n  There is always cause for optimism and room for faith that the\nrealization of a reunified Cyprus is in the near future. Global and\nregional dynamics\n\n[[Page S6875]]\n\nhave made the reunification of Cyprus a priority, driven in part by\nCyprus's newly found energy resources. This is particularly true in\nlight of Russia's Machiavellian-like power plays in Central Europe that\nhave placed Cyprus and Israel at the forefront of the discussion of\nEuropean energy security.\n  The natural resources that have been discovered this year in the\neastern Mediterranean offer both Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike a\npowerful incentive to reach an agreement. Cyprus can play a pivotal\nrole in regional energy security. But the dynamics have again changed,\nwhich is why I rise today to express my grave concern over the Republic\nof Turkey's incursion into Cyprus's exclusive economic zone.\n  On October 20, Turkey sent a Russian vessel--the Barbaros--into\nCyprus's exclusive economic zone to stop the Government of Cyprus from\nexercising its lawful and sovereign right to explore the natural gas\nwithin the exclusive economic zone. In the days following, Turkey\ndispatched warships to support the Barbaros in its illegal activities,\nwhere they remain to this day.\n  The incident is merely the latest in a long series of violations on\nthe part of Turkey against Cyprus's sovereign right to explore and\nexploit its natural resources within its own exclusive economic zone.\nTurkey, of course, also illegally occupies, with 40,000 Turkish troops,\nthe northern portion of the island and has for 40 years prevented any\nmeaningful reconciliation efforts.\n  This map, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,\nshows the positions of the Turkish ships in red. They are sitting\nbetween the island of Cyprus and its own ships in its own exclusive\neconomic zone.\n  There is no doubt in my mind that Turkey's actions have endangered\npeace talks between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots that began in\nFebruary with a joint communique issued by the two communities. That\ncommunique committed to finding a durable solution based on a bizonal,\nbicommunal federation with political equality. But because of Turkey's\nbullying practices, peace talks are now on hold. For peace talks to\nresume, Turkey must immediately withdraw its ships operating in and\naround Cyprus.\n  The international community has been abundantly clear in supporting\nCypriot President Nicos Anastasiades in recognizing Cyprus's right to\nexplore the resources within its economic zone and in condemning Turkey\nfor this blatant violation.\n  On November 13, the European Parliament adopted a resolution strongly\ncondemning Turkey's ``illegal and provocative actions'' in Cyprus,\nstressing that ``the Republic of Cyprus has the full and sovereign\nright to explore the natural resources within its exclusive economic\nzone.''\n  Turkey's recent actions in Cyprus are only one instance of its\nbelligerent and bellicose rhetoric and backsliding on peace and\ndemocracy. In recent weeks, President Erdogan and his Cabinet have used\nunusually belligerent and anti-Western rhetoric to attack the West. He\nactually said--and I am amazed at the rhetoric:\n\n       Americans look like friends but they want us dead--they\n     like seeing our children die.\n\n  He said: They like seeing our children die. This is the President of\nTurkey. He also said:\n\n       Women are not equal to men. Our religion has defined a\n     position for women: motherhood.\n\n  Erdogan said this at a summit in Istanbul on justice for women.\n  He went on to say:\n\n       Some people can understand this, while others can't. You\n     cannot explain this to feminists because they don't accept\n     the concept of motherhood.\n\n  He then went on so far as to say that Muslims discovered America, not\nColumbus.\n  He has vowed to make lessons in the Arabic alphabet Ottoman language\ncompulsory in high schools--a highly symbolic move which enraged\nsecularists who proclaim he is assuming an increasingly extremist\nagenda.\n  These statements, along with Turkey's illegal actions in Cyprus's\nexclusive economic zone, are a dramatic escalation of Turkey shifting\naway from democracy and its partners in the West, and in my view\nrequires an immediate and forceful response.\n  The Cypriot people need a strong voice on this issue. They need us to\ndemand President Erdogan to immediately withdraw from Cyprus's\nexclusive economic zone so reunification talks can resume.\n  Cyprus's leaders deserve credit for trying to change the dynamics and\nreturn to talks. They also deserve credit for being an ally and\nadvocate of America's interests.\n  Cyprus's active role in supporting counterterrorism efforts, terror\nfinancing, and the removal of chemical weapons from Syria have not gone\nunnoticed to this Senator. Cyprus is clearly positioning itself as part\nof the Western security architecture and is a resource, advocate, and\nan ally for our interests.\n  These developments have led the White House to play an active role on\nbehalf of Cyprus, and I was very pleased to see our former colleague\nand now Vice President--Vice President Biden--visit in May and to hear\nof his commitment to resolving the Cyprus question. I share his support\nfor the confidence-building measures in Famagusta that would benefit\nboth sides and accelerate progress toward a final settlement where\nCypriots control their destiny and their territory, and where at the\nend of the day any settlement is from the people of Cyprus, by the\npeople of Cyprus, and for the people of Cyprus, and Cyprus alone.\n\n  To that end, I recently sent a letter to President Obama urging his\ncontinued engagement on the issue of reunification of the island and\nthe restoration of human rights for all its citizens. I also wrote to\nAmbassador Power urging her active involvement in the extension of the\nisland's U.N. peacekeeping operation, and I was pleased when the\nextension was formalized at the end of July.\n  I hope President Erdogan, now that his election is behind him, will\nuse this opportunity to play a renewed role in finding a fair\nsettlement. We all appreciate that any progress will depend on a true\ncommitment by the Turks to the peace process.\n  As the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I believe the\nUnited States is committed to supporting Cyprus as a friend and ally.\nSo as we mark the 40th year of a divided Cyprus, let us hope and pray\nthat a fair and mutually beneficial settlement will be reached very\nsoon and that, once again, the island will be reunited. Above all, let\nthe warship and let the other ships that do not belong in Cyprus's\nwaters be removed and removed now.\n  Mr. President, at this time, I would like to switch the topic to the\nnomination of Sarah Saldana, and I want to reiterate my strong support\nfor Sarah Saldana, a woman eminently qualified to serve our country and\nto lead ICE as our next Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security.\n  The junior Senator from Texas began this long legislative weekend\nengaged in his own political battle, wholly dependent on a strategy of\nobstructionism, delay, and some quixotic fixation on preventing the\nSenate from exercising its constitutional responsibility to legislate\nand ensure that critical leadership positions for our Nation are filed\nin a timely manner.\n  Unfortunately, some of my friends on the other side have joined in\nthe politics of obstructionism. Now they want to prevent a duly elected\nPresident from filling a position they themselves feel is of paramount\nimportance. They have railed about the need for strong Immigration and\nCustoms Enforcement; and now, given the chance finally to confirm a\nDirector of ICE to give them the strong enforcement they have demanded,\nthey refuse, they obstruct, they delay, and they reverse their\npositions from when they voted for her to be a U.S. attorney. They now\nuse her nomination to score political points with their base because\nthey disagree with the President's politics--not with the\nqualifications of the nominee, but with the President's policies.\n  Sarah Saldana is qualified, and Senators Cruz, Cornyn, Sessions, and\neveryone on the other side of the aisle know it. I think they have said\nso themselves. She currently serves as the U.S. Attorney for the\nNorthern District of Texas. She is the first Latina U.S. Attorney for\nthe Northern District of Texas and would be the first Latina to head\nICE.\n  In 2011, she won bipartisan approval to serve as the U.S. Attorney in\nthe Dallas-based Northern District of Texas. Senators John Cornyn and\nKay Bailey Hutchison at that time of Texas\n\n[[Page S6876]]\n\nbacked her for that post. She has been endorsed by the law enforcement\ncommunity, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association president and\nthe Philadelphia Police Department Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey.\n  She is an effective, qualified, competent, outstanding U.S. attorney.\nIn fact, the senior Senator from Texas, my friend Senator Cornyn, has\npraised her as being ``tough, smart and fiercely independent.'' Now she\nis being denied confirmation for that same toughness, intelligence, and\nindependence. Why? Because--surprise of all surprises--she happens to\nagree with the policies of the President who nominated her; just as\nAttorney General Herbert Brownell agreed with President Eisenhower in\n1956 when he paroled foreign-born orphans into the United States for\nadoption; just as Attorney General Edward Levi agreed with President\nGerald Ford in 1976 when he granted extended voluntary departure to\nLebanese citizens; just as Ed Meese agreed with Ronald Reagan in July\nof 1987 when he shielded Nicaraguan refugees from deportation, and\nlater when he shielded Polish nationals from deportation; and in\nOctober 1987 when President Reagan protected from deportation the minor\nchildren of parents legalized in the 1986 immigration law; just as\nAttorney General Richard Thornburgh agreed with George Herbert Walker\nBush in November of 1989 when he protected Chinese nationals from\ndeportation after Tiananmen Square, and in February of 1990 when\nPresident Bush extended President Reagan's family fairness policy to\nspouses and unmarried children, all undocumented at the time; and just\nas John Ashcroft agreed with President George W. Bush when he expedited\nnationalization for green-card holders who enlisted in the military in\n2002.\n  So this isn't a fundamental Republican policy issue backed by history\nor by the facts, it is a modern-day extreme conservative issue driven\nby politics, despite the facts contrary to their own history. The fact\nis they do not agree with the President on just about anything--\ncertainly not on immigration, as proven by the statements we have heard\non this floor.\n  I want to be very clear. We cannot judge the qualifications of Sarah\nSaldana to run Immigration and Customs Enforcement based solely on the\nfact she agrees with the policy decisions of the President who\nnominated her. That is an absurd and completely illogical standard. We\njudge nominees based on their qualifications, their integrity, their\nrecord, and their willingness to serve the Nation.\n  The fact is we don't deny confirmation to score political points. We\nmay disagree on the issues, but we cannot raise the political bar so\nhigh in this Chamber that we no longer are able to carry out our\nconstitutional mandate of advice and consent. I don't believe that is\nwhat my colleagues will suggest, but that appears to be how they are\njudging this nominee and why they have chosen to hold up confirmation\nof so many nominees. They have raised the political bar so high as to\ndeny any ability for this President to fill key positions in government\nand in our embassies abroad--all to score political points and diminish\nthe ability of this President and this institution of government.\n\n  Sarah Saldana is more than qualified to head Immigration and Customs\nEnforcement. She is more than qualified to oversee the agency my\nRepublican colleagues fully support, which is responsible for\nenforcement of immigration laws, national security, drug smuggling,\nhuman trafficking, cyber security, and child exploitation.\n  She will direct the agency that tracks down people without\ndocumentation--that is what my Republican friends want. Yet they have\nset the political bar so high that they have made it impossible for\nthem to get what they claim to want most when it comes to immigration\npolicy--that is immigration enforcement. The illogic of their position\nis just mind boggling.\n  The Senator from Texas comes to this floor for one purpose, and one\npurpose only, in my view--to rail against the President, to castigate\nhim for doing what his own party's iconic Ronald Reagan did when he was\nPresident, George H.W. Bush did when he was President, and what every\nPresident has done to defer deportations when keeping people's lives\nand families together were in the balance.\n  My friend from Texas wants to join his House colleagues and score\npolitical points with the most extreme elements of his party. So be it.\nBut I wish to remind everyone that this isn't a game. I would say to\nthe junior Senator from Texas that instead of floor theatrics and\nplaying politics, it is time to step up and govern. It is time to\nconfirm Sarah Saldana and put her in charge of Immigration and Customs\nEnforcement. Let's do the work we were sent here to do.\n  I say to my friend from Texas what I have said before on this floor.\nThere is a simple antidote to Executive action. It is to have our\nfriends in the House of Representatives pass immigration reform. Pass\nit. Call it up for a vote. That is the end of it--not disinformation\nand misleading speeches about what the President's action does and does\nnot do or blocking this nominee.\n  Let's be clear. The President's Executive action will not grant\nanyone legal status or citizenship. It is not a free pass. But it will\nclear the way for many to come forth out of the shadows, register with\nthe government, pass a criminal background check, get a work permit,\npay taxes, and no longer live in fear of having their families ripped\napart.\n  As a result of the President's actions--which is replicated actions\nby 11 Presidents for the last 60 years on 39 different times--more\nBorder Patrol will be sent to the southern border, more felons will be\ndeported, more people will pay taxes like the rest of us, and more\nfamilies will stay together. Those are all goals and values I think we\nwould want to espouse.\n  The fact is, the Senate is being prevented from conducting the\npeople's business. For some Members that is the goal. For them it is\nall or nothing. For them it is an ideological war that can only be won\nor lost. For them it is not about governing; it is about winning.\n  So I would say to my colleagues, there is a very important\ndifference, and that difference is the basis of millions of Americans\nwho expect us to work for them. They don't care if we win or lose\npolitical battles. They want us to help them with their battles in\ntheir lives for their families. That is what they want. It is what they\ndeserve. I ask my friends to help us do the people's business.\n  Our agencies have waited long enough. They need positions filled by\nqualified appointees, and Sarah Saldana is more than qualified. So I\nurge my colleagues to confirm this nominee and fill the position that\nis responsible for law enforcement activities that keep our country\nsafe.\n  Mr. President, I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.\n\n                Authorization For Use Of Military Force\n\n  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I wish to discuss the work that Congress\nstill must do regarding America's ongoing war against ISIL, and I am\nglad to follow my colleague, the chairman of the Senate Foreign\nRelations Committee, who has played such a critical role in initiating\nthe first major step that Congress has taken. I want to talk about that\nstep and the steps in which we would continue to engage.\n  It was my strong hope as of December 2014 that Congress would have\nspoken by now with a clear voice regarding ISIL and authorizing the\nmilitary action commenced by President Obama on August 8. While that\nhas not occurred, action taken by the Senate Foreign Relations\nCommittee last week finally moves the body into the sort of good-faith\nlegislative process regarding this ongoing military action, and it is\nmy hope the process will be completed early in 2015.\n  I first began speaking about this issue in the spring of 2013. I had\ngrown deeply concerned that the administration, as did the previous\nadministration, was using the 2001 Al Qaeda authorization and the 2002\nIraq authorization to justify military actions significantly beyond\nwhat Congress had intended when those authorizations passed. So during\nan Armed Services hearing in May 2013, I told administration witnesses\nthat any decision to introduce U.S. forces into Syria would require, in\nmy view, a new authorization.\n  I was pleased when President Obama sought congressional approval for\nmilitary action in Syria in August 2013, and\n\n[[Page S6877]]\n\nI believe the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote at that time\nhelped lead to the ultimate destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons\nstockpile--one of the largest stockpiles in the world.\n  There is an important lesson. The President's determination that U.S.\nmilitary action is necessary is made more powerful when Congress joins\nin that decision.\n  In June of this year, when it became apparent that the advances of\nISIL in Iraq and Syria posed a threat to humanitarian values, to\nregional allies, to U.S. citizens and embassies and to our broader\nnational interests, I publicly argued and encouraged the administration\nto address the threat--but only using military force after consultation\nand approval by Congress.\n\n  Make no mistake. ISIL is a major threat. But Presidents cannot\nconstitutionally start military action without Congress unless there is\na direct and imminent threat to the United States.\n  In this instance, with ISIL's activities occurring halfway across the\nglobe and with the administration admitting that the organization poses\nno imminent threat of attacking the United States, a new congressional\nauthorization is necessary.\n  Now, I regret that the administration started military action--what\nPresident Obama called going on offense against ISIL--in August without\ncongressional approval. The White House asserts that the current action\nis justified by the 2001 and 2002 authorizations, but most outside\nobservers and most Members of Congress believe the current campaign\nagainst ISIL needs its own legal authorization. The White House has not\nproposed authorizing language, and so it is up to Congress to do the\njob of providing a legal framework for this war.\n  I introduced a proposed authorization for war against ISIL within\ndays after President Obama addressed the Nation on television on the\nevening of September 10. Since then, I have been working to have the\nmatter heard--first in the Foreign Relations Committee and then by the\nfull Senate. I have been greatly assisted in my effort by many\ncolleagues, none more so than the chairman, Senator Menendez, who has\npassionately worked to advance this item in the business of the Senate.\n  The pace of our efforts has been frustratingly slow. But last week,\nafter a series of hearings and business meetings, the Senate Foreign\nRelations Committee voted on an authorization to authorize the ongoing\nmilitary action.\n  The authorization is a sound product that does a number of things.\nFirst, it authorizes and describes the military campaign against ISIL.\nSecond, it establishes a 3-year duration of the authorization, with the\nability for reauthorization if the Congress determines it to be in the\nnational interests. Third, the authorization repeals the 2002 Iraq\nauthorization and sunsets the 2001 Al Qaeda authorization in 3 years as\na mechanism for forcing Congress to review and revise that Al Qaeda\nauthorization.\n  Finally, what we did last week places limitations on the use of U.S.\nground troops in the war on ISIL in accord with President Obama's clear\npledges to the American public and our considered judgment that the\nU.S. role should be primarily to assist ground troops from the region\nin battling the region's own extremist violence.\n  After reporting the authorization out of committee, Senator Menendez\nfiled it as an amendment to the omnibus budget bill with numerous\ncosponsors, including me. That was entirely appropriate because the\nbudget contained funding for the ongoing operation against ISIL. But\nthe amendment was not allowed, and, thus, in all likelihood, we will\nadjourn our 2014 session without taking action beyond the SFRC vote.\n  But just as the SFRC vote in August 2013 played a significant role\nleading to the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile, I\nbelieve the authorization we passed last week will also have a\nsignificant effect. It becomes the first formal action by Congress in\nproviding a legal framework for the war that, until now, has been\ncarried out without any clear legal authority. It will be the basis for\nour discussions in January as we complete the necessary work of\nauthorizing this military action.\n  It is my hope that the authorization passed in Senator Menendez's\ncommittee will be introduced early in 2015, with dozens of cosponsors,\nand ultimately enable a full congressional vote on this most important\nmatter.\n  I do believe the dialogue in Congress since August--since the\nPresident initiated unilateral military action on August 8--does offer\nsome important lessons.\n  First, not surprisingly--and especially as a Virginian I have to say\nthis--the Framers of our Constitution had it right--Framers such as\nMason, Madison, and Jefferson. We shouldn't go to war without\ncongressional approval. Unilateral action by the Executive without\ncongressional support deprives the public of the full debate necessary\nto educate everybody about whether military action is in the national\ninterest.\n  Just as importantly--maybe more importantly--it is unfair to send\nAmerican troops into harm's way without a clear political consensus\nsupporting the mission. We have already had three Americans who have\nlost their lives in Operation Inherent Resolve.\n  Congressional debate and approval expresses a support for the\nmission. But the lack of clear congressional support subjects an\nambivalence about whether military action is a good idea or bad, and\nthat is not healthy when we are asking people to risk their lives.\n  Second, when a President decides that military action is needed, the\nevents of the last few months demonstrate it is best for the President\nto propose a draft authorization to Congress. When the President spoke\nto the Nation on September 10, he should have sent a draft\nauthorization of the war against ISIL to Congress immediately. A clear\ndefinition of the proposed mission by the President is the best way to\nencourage full congressional debate and build the national consensus in\nsupport of the proposed mission.\n  Now, if a President does not propose an authorization, that doesn't\ngive the Article I branch--the legislature--a pass from our\nconstitutional obligations. We cannot let the lack of Presidential\naction slow us down in doing our job. But the process works better if\nthe President initiates military action with a clear proposed\nauthorization of Congress.\n  Third, the administration's reliance on the 2001 and 2002\nauthorizations in prosecuting this war on ISIL without congressional\naction demonstrates the profound need to revisit those authorities,\nbecause using a 13-year-old authorization crafted in different times\nfor a different circumstance under a different administration for a\ndifferent bit of geography with the support of a vastly different\nCongress to justify a new war 13 years later is not the way the Nation\nshould make the great decision about whether to go to war. That is why\nthe repeal of the 2002 authorization and a significant revision of the\n2001 authorization is so important.\n  Finally, the events of the last months revealed yet again the\nweaknesses of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, an act whose\nprovisions have been ignored by Presidents and Congresses of both\nparties since the ink was dry on the original. This fall, as an\nexample, the President provided Congress notice of the start of\nmilitary action as provided by the 1973 act, but then he completely\nignored the 60- and 90-day timeline for ceasing military action and\ninstead continued military operations in a unilateral way. It is time\nto update the 1973 law so it will work, for gosh sake. Senator McCain\nand I have introduced a significant revision of the law to improve the\nconsultation between Congress and the President on matters of war, to\ndefine the magnitude of conflict that should trigger a required\ncongressional vote, and to set out mandatory timelines for\ncongressional action.\n  I am fully aware that a better, more consistent process for\ninitiating war will not make our security challenges easy ones. The\nworld is a difficult place. We have bellicose authoritarian regimes--\nNorth Korea and Russia--we have non-State actors such as ISIL or Boko\nHaram or the al-Nusra Front or Al Qaeda. It is a complicated security\nsituation that we have right now, and if we have a better process it\nwill not make those security challenges easy, but I maintain--and my\nbelief has grown stronger with every day I have\n\n[[Page S6878]]\n\nbeen in this body--that the absence of a process for making decisions\nabout war coupled with the twin pathologies of Executive overreach and\ncongressional abdication make it harder for us to do the right thing\nwith clarity and with speed.\n  The events of the last month show that America can make decisions\nabout war in a better way, and it is my hope we will address this\nimportant issue promptly as we reconvene in 2015.\n  Thank you.\n  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The clerk will call the roll.\n  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Mr. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum\ncall be rescinded.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n                         Tribute to Don Marfisi\n\n  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, over the past few years I have had the\ngreat privilege, along with Dr. Tom Coburn, to chair the Committee on\nHomeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Our committee has many\nresponsibilities, one of those being oversight of the Department of\nHomeland Security.\n  The Department of Homeland Security was created just shy of 12 years\nago--a young organization compared to most other agencies. It was\nestablished in 2003 following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It brought\ntogether under one umbrella 22 different and disparate agencies. Trying\nto form one unified agency has not been easy. There have been growing\npains aplenty. Our current Secretary Jeh Johnson, Deputy Secretary Ali\nMayorkas, and their leadership team have made great strides in\naddressing challenges, and I am confident their hard work will continue\nand pay off.\n  Behind the leadership team at the Department of Homeland Security are\nthe more than 200,000 men and women who go to work each day to fulfill\none critical mission, to create a safe, secure, and resilient place\nwhere the American way of life can thrive. Whether these employees are\nencountering terrorism, securing our borders and our airports,\nresponding to natural disasters or bolstering our defenses in cyber\nspace, few other agencies and employees touch the lives of Americans on\na daily basis more than does the Department of Homeland Security.\n  As chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs\nCommittee, I have had the great honor and pleasure of meeting with many\nof these men and women and learning more about their work, learning\nabout their families, their frustrations, and their dedication to the\nservice of our Nation. We have also heard the Department of Homeland\nSecurity leadership from across the Department, including Secretary Jeh\nJohnson, sing their praises and describe the mission-critical work they\nperform day in and day out in communities across America and around the\nworld.\n  A young man named Don Marfisi of Kansas City, MO, is one of those\nemployees. I wish to take a few minutes to talk about him and to\nacknowledge his service. Don grew up in Omaha, NE. He is the son of a\ncivil servant and homemaker. His father worked for the city of Omaha,\nhis brother worked for the Department of Justice, and his son currently\nworks for the Metropolitan Community College in Kansas City, MO.\nClearly, public service is a deep tradition in his family--and from\nwhat I hear, it is something Don takes to heart.\n  Don began his Federal service more than 24 years ago as a supply\nclerk with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency in\nLincoln, NE. Four years later, in August of 1998, he joined the\nImmigration and Naturalization Service in the Department of Justice.\nAfter a little over 1 year there, he was transferred to Citizenship and\nImmigration Services in the new Department of Homeland Security. Within\nCitizenship and Immigration Services, Don works at the National Records\nCenter where he is responsible for logistics, procurement, and property\nmanagement. We can still find him there today. In fact, his colleagues\nconsider him a ``cave pillar,'' having worked at the Center since\nopening day.\n\n  What does the National Records Center do exactly? According to the\nDepartment, it is the keystone to the recordkeeping of the agency for\nwhich he serves. We call it USCIS--housing millions of paper records\nthat have been centralized into a single state-of-the-art facility. The\nCenter where Don works improves the integrity of USCIS's recordkeeping\nand dramatically reduces the time it takes to retrieve a file or\npaperwork, meaning faster application processing for an agency charged\nwith overseeing our immigration system.\n  Don's current job title, mission support specialist, doesn't do his\nwork justice. Colleagues say Don is not just a support specialist but\nan integral part of the National Records Center's mission support team\nand plays an important role in nearly all the logistics-related\nprojects executed at the center. In this position, he develops and\nadministers best practices for Federal procurement and property\nmanagement. While he avoids the spotlight, he is highly valued and\nsought out for his expertise in the asset management field.\n  Don's colleagues told me, ``Through his painstaking attention to\ndetail and timely responsiveness . . . he has provided a superior level\nof customer service to local employees and other stakeholders.''\n  Don's attention to detail ensures that folks within Citizenship and\nImmigration Services have the tools and resources they need to get\ntheir job done. Don's critical eye and expertise in procurement is also\ncredited for saving the government and the taxpayers over $500,000 in\nfiscal year 2013 and over $800,000 to date in fiscal year 2014. Let me\nrepeat that: Don has saved the American taxpayers in the last 2 fiscal\nyears $1.3 million.\n  His service and stewardship don't end there. At the same time he is\nsaving the Department and taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars,\nhe is also finding a way to give back. Along with the money he has been\nable to trim off the Federal deficit, he has managed to arrange the\ncontributions of nearly $800,000 in equipment to local schools through\nthe GSA Property Disposal Program. Through this program he ensures that\nunused or older government equipment goes directly to local schools.\nBecause of his efforts, computers and other equipment that would\notherwise be trashed are recycled and used to boost education and raise\nstudent achievement in schools across the country.\n  As one can imagine, educators, communities, and the students\nthemselves who receive the equipment have been overjoyed with the\ngenerous donations. But don't take my word for it. In 2012 the Miami R-\n1 School District, in Amoret, MO, a small K-12 school located on the\nMissouri border in the middle of cornfields and cow pastures, received\n$45,000 worth of recycled technology equipment.\n\n  Sharon Knuth, the school's technology administrator, wrote to Don\nsaying that her district was ``blessed by the GSA Property Disposal\nprogram.'' She added:\n\n       We are limited in our funds and budgets so we do not always\n     have the chance to purchase the latest technology equipment.\n     Because of your generosity, we will put the computers,\n     monitors, speakers and plugs to good use. . . . We will grow\n     and prosper only because we found some great friends like you\n     who gave us support along the way.\n\n  Another school in Chadwick, MO, thanked Don for the ``blessing''--\nthat is their term--of this new technology they received through his\nefforts. But there is more. Don was also a member of the Office of\nEqual Opportunity and Inclusion's Minority Serving Institutions Program\nteam which facilitated more than $1 million in computer equipment\ndonations in the past fiscal year 2014.\n  Don has been recognized for his extraordinary accomplishments in\nyears past. In 2013, for example, he was recognized as USCIS Employee\nof the Year and as one of the National Record Center's Employees of the\nQuarter. Yet despite these great accomplishments and high praise from\nhis colleagues and from people all over the country, Don insisted that\nevery award he has received is a team award. When he learned he was\ngathering such high praise for his work, his response was:\n\n       Being recognized for your efforts is appreciated, however,\n     I'm the fortunate one, I get to reuse items and give--two\n     things I enjoy doing.\n\n  Like a true leader, this man is humble.\n\n[[Page S6879]]\n\n  Don remembers something that I learned from Department Secretary Jeh\nJohnson during his confirmation. I learned that one of Secretary\nJohnson's guiding principles is a lesson from Dr. Benjamin--known as\nBennie--Mays, former president of Morehouse College, who said: ``You\nearn a living by what you get; you earn a life by what you give.''\n  Think about that for a second, and then think about this man right\nhere and all the giving he has done throughout his career and his\nservice to our country. I just have to say to Jeh Johnson, the\nSecretary of the Department, that you have a remarkable employee. You\nare blessed with a lot of remarkable employees, and Don is certainly at\nthe top of the list.\n  Don's service doesn't end at the Department. He has a couple of other\ncritical roles. He is a husband and a dad. He and his wife Pam have\nbeen married for 30 years. He has a son, Josiah, and daughter Anna.\nWhen he is able to find some well-deserved downtime, he enjoys watching\na Big Ten team, the Nebraska Cornhuskers, with his family.\n  I have to say that as a proud Ohio State graduate, we enjoyed playing\nyou guys this year and look forward to next year--maybe you guys will\nget some revenge next year.\n  To Pam, Josiah, and Anna, thank you for sharing your husband and dad\nwith us. He has done extraordinary work for our country and for a lot\nof communities. We are proud of him, and I bet that you are as well.\n  Finally, I say to Don Marfisi--on behalf of my colleagues, Democrats,\nRepublicans, and a couple of Independents as well, and the folks who\nwork here in the Capitol, even the pages who are sitting at the bottom\nof the Presiding Officer's desk--we all thank you for what you do for\nus every day, for your service, and for your immeasurable generosity to\nour great Nation.\n  I also wish to thank Alejandro Mayorkas. Ale is the Deputy Secretary\nof the Department of Homeland Security. We were meeting with a number\nof employees at the Department of Homeland Security. They were\ndiscussing how to raise morale, although that is not their day job; it\nis an additional responsibility they have undertaken. The folks at the\nDepartment of Homeland Security--for the 12 years it has been in\nexistence--has suffered from low morale, and sadly, still does. I think\nthat is starting to change.\n  I am an old Navy guy, and I like to say that things that are hard to\ndo are like changing the course of an aircraft carrier. I think the\naircraft carrier is starting to turn at Homeland Security.\n  One of the keys for an organization to do well is to have great\nleadership. As the Presiding Officer knows, at the beginning of this\nyear, there were gaping holes in the top ranks of the Department of\nHomeland Security. One of the things Dr. Coburn, the committee, and I\ndid--when the administration would nominate a candidate with good\nleadership skills--was to bring those nominations to the Senate and\ndebate them and vote them up or down. We have made great progress this\nyear, and I am grateful to Senator Heitkamp for being so supportive and\na big part of that process.\n  We have a vote this afternoon on another critical nomination. Sarah\nSaldana is a U.S. prosecuting attorney. She leads our operation in the\nnorthern part of Texas and oversees 100 counties in her great State.\nShe tries to make sure the Federal laws are enforced across her\ncounties.\n  She has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary at the Office of\nImmigration and Customs Enforcement, also called ICE. It is a huge job\nwith tens of thousands of employees who work all across America.\n  I hope when we debate her nomination--she has been supported very\ngraciously by John Cornyn, the senior Senator from Texas, who\nintroduced us to her at our committee hearing--our colleagues will join\ntogether in supporting her nomination.\n  We have this photograph here, and I said earlier this is Don Marfisi\nin the middle, also known as Pam's husband.\n  I will be coming to the floor about once a month to talk about this\ndepartment, which doesn't get the kind of credit it deserves, and the\npeople who work there don't get the credit they deserve. We are trying\nto make sure that changes, and part of changing the course of the\naircraft carrier is to say thanks to the good people at the Department.\nDon is one of many employees who deserves our thanks.\n\n  In this photograph to my right, this handsome young man is Ethan\nCole. Ethan is the supervisor for the work that Don and these folks do.\n  We have here Terry Sloan. She is the Deputy Director of the National\nRecords Center, and we are proud of her and her services. Standing next\nto Terry is another TC--we have Tom Coburn, Tom Carper, and Tom Cioppa.\nI think when this picture was taken, Tom was the Director of the\nNational Records Center, and now he is the District Director of the\nChicago District.\n  Not long ago Ale Mayorkas and a number of Homeland Security employees\nwere paying us a visit. The reason I mentioned Ale is because of a\nstory he told us about a visit someone made to NASA headquarters. I\ncan't recall if it was during the evening or weekend, but it was during\noff hours. As they were going through one of the big buildings at NASA,\nthe visitor came across a guy who was a custodian. The visitor said to\nthe custodian: What do you do here? The janitor looked him right in the\neye and said: I am helping to put a man on the moon.\n  The people at Homeland Security, including Don, are helping to ensure\nthat our country is safe and secure. We are in their debt.\n  With that, I am looking to see if there is anyone else trying to\nspeak. I understand the Senator from South Dakota may be emerging from\nthe Republican cloakroom and looking for a moment to shine. If he\ndoesn't get out here fast, I will just note the absence of a quorum and\nwill let him call it off when he gets here.\n  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.\n  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.\n  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order\nfor the quorum call be rescinded.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n                         New Era in the Senate\n\n  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the American people made one thing clear\nin November, and it was this. They are ready for change in Washington.\nThe Senate Republicans are too. In fact, I think even some Senate\nDemocrats are ready for a change in Washington.\n  When the Republicans take the majority in January, things will look\nvery different here in the Senate. The start of our majority will mark\nan end to the dysfunction that has characterized the Senate under the\nDemocrat's leadership. Under Republican leadership, the Senate will\nreturn to regular order.\n  We will once again empower the committee chairmen to start the\nlegislative process. Bills will be drafted in committee with input from\nMembers of both parties before the bills are fully debated on the\nSenate floor, and Members of both parties will be able to offer\namendments, which is in strong contrast to the Democratic Senate, where\nthe minority party has been almost entirely prevented from getting\namendment votes.\n  History shows us that the Senate functions best when all Members are\nallowed to have amendments and votes. In the early years of the Reagan\nadministration, President Reagan aggressively pursued tax cuts that\nfaced opposition from Republicans as well as Democrats. However, after\n2 weeks of debate and consideration of 141 amendments, the Senate\npassed the bill by an overwhelming vote of 89 to 11.\n  In President Reagan's second term, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 saw 3\nweeks of debate on the Senate floor. After the consideration of 109\namendments and 24 rollcall votes, the bill received 97 votes in the\nSenate.\n  These are just a couple of examples of a Senate functioning as our\nFounders intended. An open amendment process softens division among\nMembers and builds bipartisan support for major legislation. The result\nis reforms which are not only historic but longstanding.\n  In addition to returning to regular order, the Senate will also focus\non its oversight responsibilities. Our job is not just to pass\nlegislation. We also have a responsibility to take a look at all\ngovernment programs and existing legislation to make sure the\ngovernment is doing its job in the most efficient and effective way\npossible.\n\n[[Page S6880]]\n\n  Whether it is the IRS targeting conservative groups or a Department\nof Veterans Affairs that is failing our veterans, Senate Republicans\nwill conduct aggressive oversight to hold unelected bureaucrats and\nexecutive branch political appointees accountable for their actions.\n  Finally, and most importantly, Republicans are going to change the\nSenate's priorities. No longer will the Senate's time be tied up with\npartisan legislation designed to please the Democrats' far left\nconstituencies. Instead, Americans' priorities will be our priorities--\njobs, the economy, and the middle class.\n  As even the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate admitted recently,\nDemocrats have not done too well at focusing on the people's\npriorities.\n  The senior Senator from New York said:\n\n       Unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American\n     people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our\n     focus on the wrong problem--health-care reform.\n\n  Republicans do not intend to blow the opportunity the American people\nhave given us. We will get right to work on legislation to create jobs,\ngrow the economy, and expand opportunities for hard-working Americans.\nWe will take up the dozens of jobs bills that have passed the House but\nhave been collecting dust on the Democratic leader's desk here in the\nSenate.\n  We will take up legislation to improve the Keystone XL Pipeline and\nthe more than 42,000 jobs that it would support. We will work with the\nPresident to reauthorize trade promotion authority to open new markets\nto American farmers and manufacturers and make sure that American goods\nare competing on an equal playing field internationally.\n  We will take up legislation to improve flexibility for working\nfamilies so Americans can meet their responsibilities at work while\nstill having the time they need for their families at home. And, of\ncourse, we will take up legislation to address ObamaCare.\n  The President's health care law is not only making our health care\nsystem worse, it is also hurting our already sluggish economy. Senate\nRepublicans want to repeal and replace this law with real health care\nreforms--reforms that will actually lower costs and improve America's\naccess to care.\n  In the meantime, however, we will chisel away at the law's most\ndamaging provisions--provisions like the medical device tax, which has\neliminated thousands of workers' jobs in this industry and is driving\nup the price of lifesaving devices such as pacemakers and insulin\npumps, and the 30-hour workweek, which is forcing employers to cut\nworkers' hours and wages in order to afford ObamaCare-mandated health\ncare costs. We will also work to repeal the health care law's\nindividual mandate. The Federal Government should not be in the\nbusiness of forcing Americans to buy a government-approved health\ninsurance product.\n  Finally, Republicans will tackle some of the big challenges that need\nto be addressed if we are going to put our country back on a path to\nlong-term prosperity. We want to make our Nation's costly and\ninefficient Tax Code fairer and simpler for families and businesses. We\nalso intend to take up regulatory reform.\n  Recent regulations released by the President's EPA illustrate just\nhow pressing the need is to reform our country's out-of-control\nbureaucracy. Just one of the recently proposed EPA regulations--the\nPresident's national energy tax--would eliminate tens of thousands, if\nnot hundreds of thousands of jobs and devastate entire communities. No\nexecutive agency should be able to damage our economy in that way or to\ndestroy the livelihoods of so many hard-working Americans. It is time\nto get America's regulatory agencies under control.\n  Republicans heard what the American people said in November, and we\nare not going to let them down. January 6 marks the start of a new era\nin the Senate. The Republican majority will focus on the American\npeople's priorities: creating jobs, growing the economy, and increasing\nopportunity for middle-income American families. We hope the Democrats\nwill join us.\n  I yield the floor.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the\nSenator from Ohio be allowed to speak directly after the conclusion of\nmy remarks.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n                             Klamath Basin\n\n  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise today to address a key\nunfinished piece of business that is extremely important to the Klamath\nBasin of southern Oregon.\n  The Klamath Basin Act has still not been enacted as of the close of\nthis Congress. In that failure, Congress is missing a critical\nopportunity to put in place a locally developed solution to a longtime\nwater dispute. This failure creates a substantial risk of catastrophic\nconsequences for our ranching and farming families--risks that were\nentirely avoidable.\n  Let me start by telling my colleagues what an amazing place Klamath\nBasin is. Klamath Basin is one of the natural wonders of the American\nWest. It has one of the biggest salmon runs in the Pacific and part of\none of the largest continuous blocks of wild rivers and wildlands on\nthe Pacific coast. It is one of the most important migration points in\nthe Pacific coast flyway for bird migration. It is an important place\nfor duck hunters up and down the west coast.\n  The Klamath River itself charts a path to the south of Crater Lake--\nan amazing natural wonder where a crater created by a very large\ncascade volcanic mountain that blew its top--and the California\nRedwoods to the south. It connects the Great Basin geology, the\ncascading volcanos, and the deep and majestic rivers and canyons along\nits way. Amidst this natural wonder, in its basin lies some of the most\nfertile and productive agricultural land in the northwest, generating\n$600 million a year in barley, potatoes, onions, mint, and, as we can\nsee in this photo, beef.\n  The settlement of the Klamath Basin by pioneers from the east and the\nsubsequent development of farming and ranching in the Klamath Basin has\na storied history. The first White explorer thought to enter the area\nwas John Freeman, on his way to play a notorious role in taking control\nof California during the Mexican-American war. The first White settlers\nwere the pioneering Applegate family, scouting an easier southern route\nfor the final stages of the Oregon Trail. Agriculture was, of course, a\nmajor focus of settlement efforts, and even some of the more recently\ndeveloped agricultural lands played into key moments in American\nhistory when part of the Klamath Reclamation Project was developed by\nthe Federal Government and offered as homesteading opportunities to\nveterans returning from World War II.\n  Of course, this region had a history long before settlers from the\nEast came to it. It was already inhabited by Native communities who\nhave lived in the Klamath Basin for 10,000 years and who have a deep\nconnection to this amazing place. The Klamath and Modoc Tribes have\ninherited oral histories of the eruption of Mount Mazama 8,000 years\nago, which formed today's Crater Lake. The tribes on the lower river in\nCalifornia--the Yurok, the Karuk, and the Hoopa--talked about having\nfirepits in home sites still in use today that have been carbon-dated\nas being in human use many thousands of years ago. In the Klamath\nCounty Museum, there is on display the oldest sandals in the world that\nwe have ever discovered made of sagebrush.\n  The early history of settlement from the East led quickly to\nconflict. John Fremont's expedition led to a violent battle with the\nKlamath Tribes. The opening of the Applegate Trail through the basin\nled to conflict between the Modoc Tribes and White settlers along the\nLost River. The resulting Modoc War--a dark chapter in our Nation's\npersecution of tribes--led to a standoff where the Army held a few\ndozen Modoc families under siege in barren, hostile lava beds for\nmonths.\n  Unfortunately, for too much of recent history, conflict has continued\nto define the Klamath Basin.\n  In the 1950s the Federal Government terminated Federal recognition of\nthe Klamath Tribes, converting their 2 million-acre forested\nreservation into a combination of national forest lands and private\nlands.\n\n[[Page S6881]]\n\n  In the 1970s conflict erupted between the lower river tribes and\nFederal fisheries managers of the tribes' rights to harvest fish they\nhave harvested for thousands of years. Very soon after, farmers,\nranchers, and tribes initiated litigation over water rights, and that\nlitigation has been going intensely until very recently. On the one\nhand, tribes want to be assured of their rights to continue fishing\npractices they have passed down from generation to generation for\nthousands of years. Farmers and ranchers want to be sure they will have\nthe water they need to sustain the operations their families depend on\nfor success.\n  For decades the tension over water has been accentuated in times of\ndrought, culminating most famously in a standoff in 2001 that made\nnational news. During that 2001 drought irrigation water for the\nKlamath Reclamation Project was shut off to protect endangered\nfisheries. Thousands of people gathered in Klamath Falls in sympathy\nwith the farmers. There was civil disobedience, and people were worried\nabout the possibility of violence.\n  When Vice President Cheney intervened and guaranteed water deliveries\nrather than fish protections, the result was the largest fish kill in\nU.S. history. Meanwhile, agriculture was damaged. Families saw major\nlosses, and some had to sell their farms. There were no real winners.\n  At the time, many people thought that these issues were intractable\nand that the arguments and lawsuits would continue interminably,\nperhaps for generations to come. But a number of years ago a group of\nleaders in the community had the boldness to start rethinking how they\nframed their quest for water and the water wars. Their briefing to me\nwas one of the first briefings I received as a U.S. Senator. I was\nsurprised to see individuals representing parts of the community who\nhad often been bitter enemies together. They were talking about sitting\ndown and hammering out a different vision for the future to replace the\nlose-lose water battles of the past with something different: greater\nreliability of water for farmers and ranchers and protection for the\ntribes and their fishing rights and better health for the stream. We\nhad leaders from many different parts of the community sitting down\ntogether because--they said to me: Senator, the only folks who are\nwinning right now are the lawyers. They wanted to change that.\n  I was skeptical that groups who had battled for so long could sit\ndown and work out an agreement. As we say in the West, whiskey, that is\nfor drinking, and water, that is for fighting. But these folks said: We\nare going to pursue a different path.\n  I pledged that if they were able to develop a solution, I would do\neverything I could at the Federal level to help implement it. They\ndefied the expectation of every cynic by coming up with a remarkable\nplan that solved an array of complex problems. The irrigators committed\nto reducing the total amount of water they take from the river from a\nvariety of conservation practices. They are working collaboratively\nwith the community and the tribes to restore habitat. In exchange, they\nget certainty and predictability for guaranteed amounts of water. The\ntribes and conservation groups and fishing organizations agreed to stop\nchallenging these irrigators' water allocations. In exchange, they get\na community partnering to restore natural resources that are of\ncultural and economic importance to the tribes and to help them\nreacquire some of the land they lost 50 years ago.\n  Complementing all of this and augmenting the natural resource\nrestoration is a plan to remove four antiquated dams and open up new\nhabitat for fish. The private utility that owns these dams agrees that\nthe best business decision is to remove these dams. So this is a win-\nwin situation, or actually a win-win-win-win situation.\n  Let me give an example of this in terms of water looked at from the\nperspective of the agricultural community. This chart shows, over a\nvariety of years--2010 through 2014--what the actual deliveries were in\nacre-feet, thousands of acre-feet, 189,000 acre-feet, and what they\nwould receive in the settlement: substantially more; substantially more\nin 2011 and substantially more in 2013. So this also provides more\nwater for the refuge, and we can see a change of positive water for the\nrefuge as well.\n  This is why everyone is coming to the table and finding a path that\nworks better during difficult times for all of the major goals of water\nmanagement in the region.\n  The deal is a lifeline for farming and for ranching: tens of\nthousands of additional acre-feet added and in some cases 100,000 acre-\nfeet of water in some areas; at the same time, stream flows for fish,\nremoving obstacles for migration of the fish, improving habitat. It is\na truly remarkable deal.\n  Community leaders not only developed a visionary agreement, they also\nremained dedicated to this agreement during some difficult drought\nyears in 2010 and 2013 and low water in 2014. So they could have been\nshattered, the coalition could have been blown up by these difficult\ndrought years, but instead they viewed it as reinforcing why they\nneeded to come to an agreement to save the ranching and the farming and\nimprove the fish and restore important provisions for the tribes. They\nhave continued to work together while we here in Congress have not\nacted. Also, they worked on an additional agreement to bring in\nadditional ranchers from the upper basin into the agreement, and that\nworked as well. They worked to dramatically reduce the cost of the\nhabitat restoration investments that the original plan called for. They\ndrafted a bill with no new spending. The entire agreement was\nchallenged by the litigation of the water rights in that the\nadjudication of these water rights was finally completed and, for the\nmost part, the Klamath tribes were awarded water rights to time\nimmemorial.\n\n  That is a powerful tool. The tribes could have walked away from the\ntable. They could have taken this enormous control over water rights\nand said the agreement hasn't been implemented; we are walking away and\ngoing to use these water rights with maximum leverage.\n  They created partnerships. They pledged to work together, as all of\nthese groups have, advocating not just for themselves but for the\ncollective future of the community and collective stakeholders.\n  Quite frankly, this is a remarkable development in what is happening\nwith all of these stakeholder leaders sticking together. Congress is\nkey, however, to passing legislation that implements the provisions of\nthis plan.\n  It is time for Congress to act. The Senate did its work. The Energy\nand Natural Resources Committee held hearings under the leadership\nfirst of Senator Wyden and Senator Murkowski, then under the leadership\nof Senator Landrieu and Senator Murkowski. Senator Murkowski, Senator\nWyden, and I were able to negotiate bipartisan revisions of the bill\naddressing significant and legitimate concerns that had been raised.\n  We modified Federal authority related to dam removal and requiring\nGovernors to sign off and giving Congress a 1-year period to veto a\ndecision to take out a particular dam. We removed provisions that the\nCongressional Budget Office said might contribute to the deficit. The\nEnergy and Natural Resources Committee voted the bill out of committee\non a bipartisan basis.\n  The community leaders have gone to work getting even broader\nstatements of support. The Klamath County Chamber of Commerce endorsed\nthe bill. The Klamath County Farm Bureau has endorsed the bill. The\nKlamath County Cattlemen's Association and the statewide Oregon\nCattlemen's Association have endorsed the bill. The Klamath Falls City\nCouncil has endorsed the bill, and the Oregon Water Resources Congress\nhas endorsed the bill.\n  The Senate has been ready to act, but the U.S. House of\nRepresentatives has not. Here we are in the last days of this Congress\nunable to complete this bill. So today I am calling upon our leaders in\nthe House and in the Senate to work together to make this an item of\nimmediate action when we start our new session in January.\n  The tribe is held back on enforcing its water rights, and the\nstakeholders have stayed together, saying they were\n\n[[Page S6882]]\n\ngoing to support the multiple provisions for themselves and their\npartners. But that cannot last forever. Congress has to act to seal the\ndeal. Without cooperation, this vision, so carefully, diligently, and\npainfully constructed over years of involvement of community\nstakeholders, will fall apart. What that will do is put the entire\nfarming and ranching community in great jeopardy. We can see hundreds\nof families lose their water in a matter of months due to Congress's\nfailure to act.\n  This community has done everything right. They have put aside\nlongstanding tensions and conflicts. They sat down time and time again\nto work out these complicated provisions. They sought the help of the\nInterior Department which came and signed off on the agreement. They\nsought the State government and the Governor to sign off on the\nagreements. They solicited local support. They put aside damaging\nrhetoric during times of intense drought over the last couple of years,\nand they hung together. They have done everything we could have ever\nasked a group to do to prepare for this legislation to be passed, yet\nit has not been passed because the House of Representatives has not\nbeen ready to act.\n  We must not let this opportunity escape. We must come back in January\nwith support from the Senate and from the House and complete this deal.\nThis opportunity might not come again.\n  I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize that when\nin a region great work has been done to resolve a longstanding\nconflict, they need Congress to step in and seal the deal, make the\nagreement real, and implement the agreement. We must give it the utmost\nattention and help make it happen for the health of the stream, for the\nwelfare of the tribes, for the success of the farming community, for\nthe conditions that make ranching a vital component of the Klamath\nBasin--for all of these reasons.\n  I certainly pledge to come back and work toward that end and look\nforward for us early next year to not be here on the floor lamenting\nthe fact we have failed to complete this agreement but to be here\nthanking all of those who came together to seize this critical\nopportunity.\n  I yield the floor to my colleague from Ohio.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.\n  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the\nSenator from Hawaii be recognized.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n                       Tribute To Jay Rockefeller\n\n  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of my best\nfriends in the Senate and a long-time public servant whom I greatly\nadmire, John D. Rockefeller IV.\n  In 1964, in Athens, OH, President Johnson went to Ohio University,\nand he said:\n\n       Poverty hides its face behind a mask of affluence. But I\n     call upon you to help me to get out there and unmask it, take\n     that mask off of that face of affluence and let the world see\n     what we have, and let the world do something about it.\n\n  Several months later, John D. Rockefeller IV, 27 years old, came to\nWest Virginia as a VISTA volunteer. Well-educated and well-connected,\nJay Rockefeller could have chosen any career he wanted. But to him, it\nwas about public service.\n  This year marks Jay's 50th year in public service. He found himself\nin Emmons, WV. Emmons, WV, is a small town. Jay didn't shy away. Jay\ndidn't keep his distance. He wanted to know the people he was going to\nbe working with, and he set out to do that. For 2 years, he worked\nalongside the people of Emmons for accessible health care, for\neducation, for opportunities. His work included dismantling and moving\na condemned elementary school from a neighboring town onto a flatbed\ntruck, and establishing it in Emmons as a community center.\n  Jay never forgot that, Jay, who in this Chamber sits across the aisle\nfrom me at this desk. I was sitting here 2 weeks ago and Jay was\ntalking about Emmons. He said going to Emmons--and I will quote from\nhis farewell speech 2 weeks ago to the Senate:\n\n       That set my moral compass and gave me direction. Where\n     everything in my real life began. Where I learned how little\n     I knew about the problems people face. I was humbled by that\n     lesson.\n\n  He went on to say:\n\n       My time in Emmons was transformative. It explains every\n     policy I pursued and every vote I have cast. It was where my\n     beliefs were bolted down. And where my passion met my\n     principle.\n\n  Fifty years ago, Jay learned those lessons. For 50 years, as a VISTA\nvolunteer, as a State legislator, as the Secretary of State, as the\nGovernor of West Virginia, and as a Senator for 3 decades from West\nVirginia, he learned those beliefs. They were bolted down, and he\npracticed those beliefs.\n  In 1966, he was elected to the West Virginia House. Two years later,\nJay had an opportunity that most people I know would not have refused.\n  Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated--the Senator from New York at that\ntime. In June of 1968, the Governor of New York, Nelson Rockefeller--\nJay Rockefeller's uncle--offered that appointment to the U.S. Senate to\nJay Rockefeller. The Governor offered that position to Jay Rockefeller,\nand his answer to his uncle was: No, thank you. I want to earn a seat\nsome day in the U.S. Senate.\n  That is what Jay set out to do. He reminded us a few weeks ago:\n\n       Important undertakings can't be halfhearted. You have to\n     commit your whole self--almost like pushing a heavy rock\n     uphill. With both of your hands you push, because if you let\n     up for a split second with either hand, you and the rock go\n     tumbling backwards into the abyss.\n\n  Jay had a chance to prove that in this body over 20 years ago. He\npushed that rock uphill to fight to protect retired coal miners'\npromised health care benefits. It is easy for Members of this Senate\nwho have good titles, who are well paid, who dress like this, who don't\nreally need to go out and listen to the public very much, to forget\npeople like union coal miners or nonunion coal miners.\n  He called this ``the greatest moment of my career.'' Jay threatened\nto keep the Senate in session. He was going to do whatever it took--22\nyears ago, over Christmas, over New Year's, whatever it took--to make\nsure his colleagues didn't leave town before passing the 1992 Coal Act.\nBecause of his legislation, more than 200,000 coal miners and their\nfamilies have kept the benefits they were promised.\n\n  He spearheaded efforts to ensure workplace safety. I have talked to\nJay after coal-mining disasters when miners are killed in one of the\nmost treacherous, difficult, and dangerous jobs we can imagine. I can\nsee the pain in his face because he knows people who work in the mines\nand he has listened to them.\n  When Lincoln's staff wanted him to stay in the White House and win\nthe war and free the slaves and preserve the Union, Lincoln used to\nsay, I have to go out and get my public opinion bath. That is what Jay\ndid. A son and grandson of privilege, Jay understood that he served the\npublic best when he got his public opinion bath and when he went out\nand listened to people. He fought against unfair trade practices, and\nhe fought against tax policies that shipped jobs overseas. He\nreinvigorated the steel caucus, fighting for an industry that clearly\nhas been victimized by unfair trade practices.\n  Most importantly in Jay's career--and the thing I think he is most\nproud of--was another lesson he learned in Emmons, WV. He learned that\nmany of the community school-aged children had never been to a doctor,\nthey had never seen a dentist before because their families simply\ndidn't have the money. Because of that, Jay made accessible, affordable\nhealth care for children part of his lifelong mission. He believes that\nhealth care is a right and not a privilege.\n  He championed Medicaid expansion, and he championed this new health\ncare law. It has Jay Rockefeller's fingerprints all over it. That is\nwhy hundreds of thousands of people in my State are grateful to Jay\nRockefeller, because hundreds of thousands of people in Ohio now have\nhealth insurance who didn't have it before. Hundreds of thousands of\nfamilies have benefited for a couple of decades because their children\nhad health insurance. Again, this is because of Jay Rockefeller.\n  In 1997, he devoted much of his time and career at that point to help\nwrite the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP. Because of CHIP, 8\nmillion\n\n[[Page S6883]]\n\nchildren across this country--some of them in Emmons, WV, and some of\nthem in my hometown of Mansfield, OH--now have access to health care,\nhealth care that they would not have otherwise. He continues that fight\nalways on health care.\n  I want to close with this. I have seen a lot of Senators come and go.\nI have seen a lot of Members come and go. I have seen a lot of public\nofficials come and go. There can be a shortage of humility in these\njobs. As Members of the House and Members of the Senate, sometimes we\nare a little puffed up about our titles and about the power that many\nof us have, and we are caught up in the way we are treated. People are\noften obsequious to Members in Congress, and all of that.\n  What stands out to me--it is even more remarkable when you consider\nhis family and what he came from--is Jay Rockefeller's humility. Here\nis the best example, I think. I found out almost by accident what Jay,\nas a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, would do regularly\nduring his time in the Senate is he would send all the staff away, he\nwould send the press away, and he would go to someone's home or\ncommunity center or rec center or labor hall and he would sit with a\nnumber of veterans and listen to their stories. He would take notes and\nhelp those individually who might need help. Most importantly, he was\nlistening to their stories.\n  It reminds me of another story from Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln's staff\nwatched him, during one of his public opinion baths, talk to a number\nof people who were pushing him on something that mattered to them\npersonally.\n  His staff wanted to send them away. Lincoln said, ``No, I am not\ngoing to do that.'' Then Lincoln said--about these people who were\ntalking to him, ordinary citizens outside the White House or anywhere\nelse the President of the United States may have been--Lincoln said:\nThey don't want much. They get so little. Each one considers his\nbusiness of great importance. I know how I should feel if I were in\ntheir place.\n  I can see Jay Rockefeller meeting with veterans, many of whom had\nnever been thanked for their service. Many of them were suffering from\nwartime injuries from their time in the service, coming back to West\nVirginia and eking out a living. I can see Jay Rockefeller saying the\nsame thing: They don't want much. They get so little. Each one\nconsiders his business of great importance. I know how I should feel if\nI were in their place.\n  Going back 2 weeks ago to Jay's farewell speech across the aisle at\nthis desk, he called upon us to remember that ``our north star must\nalways be the real needs of the people we serve.'' Jay used his\nfarewell speech to exhort us to do better on behalf of miners, on\nbehalf of veterans, on behalf of single parents, on behalf of children,\non behalf of sick people, people who do not always get a fair shake in\nlife.\n  He found his north star in public service, a career he chose because\nhe wanted a mission to complete, a cause to believe in, a dream to\nfollow. He found that mission. He found that cause. He found that dream\nin Emmons, WV, in 1964. It never left him. That is my friend Jay\nRockefeller. For all of that we are so grateful.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.\n  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I rise today in support of the\nnomination of Sarah Saldana to serve as Director of the U.S.\nImmigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE.\n  Before I proceed, I would like to thank the good Senator from Ohio\nfor his tributary remarks regarding Jay Rockefeller, an uncommon man of\nthe people.\n  Prior to supporting Ms. Saldana's nomination in the Judiciary\nCommittee, I did have a chance to meet with her. Growing up in a large\nfamily near our southern border in Corpus Christi, TX, Ms. Saldana\nmanaged to overcome hardship and become the first Latina U.S. Attorney\nin Texas history.\n  Sarah Saldana is fully qualified to serve as ICE's Director. She is a\nsenior Federal law enforcement official for a border State district\nthat spans almost 100,000 miles. Ms. Saldana has been on the ground in\nTexas and fully understands the complexities and challenges we face\nwith our immigration system.\n  Republicans and Democrats agree that our immigration system is\nbroken. Until recently, we also agreed, Republicans and Democrats\nalike, that Sarah Saldana needed to be confirmed as the Director of\nICE. However, now Republicans are playing politics with this nomination\nto a critical homeland security agency. ICE is responsible for\nimportant law enforcement issues that make us all safer and has been\nwithout a permanent Director for over a year.\n  ICE's 19,000 people are responsible for enforcement of our\nimmigration laws, for drug interdiction, for fighting child\nexploitation, and for keeping us safe from national security threats.\nThe Senate needs to do its job and let Sarah Saldana get to work as the\npermanent Director of ICE. I understand that some of my colleagues on\nthe Republican side now oppose Sarah Saldana because of the President's\nExecutive order on immigration.\n  President Obama's Executive action allows millions of fathers,\nmothers, and students to step out of the shadows, pass background\nchecks, work legally, and pay their taxes. The President's action is\nrooted in the reality that our immigration system is broken and that we\nneed to exercise prosecutorial discretion on who to go after with our\nlimited resources.\n  As Director of ICE, it is Ms. Saldana's responsibility to focus on\nhomeland security resources on deporting felons and other criminals who\nhave crossed our borders. It is simply not possible for the Federal\nGovernment to remove all 11 million undocumented persons in this\ncountry.\n  That is another point on which most Republicans and Democrats agree.\nWe have to prioritize the resources we have. That is what the\nPresident's order does. It prioritizes deporting felons, not families.\nLet me repeat that: Deporting felons, that is all we need to do, not\nbreaking apart families. President Obama's action is grounded on\nprecedent and Executive powers.\n  Every single President since Eisenhower has used Executive action to\nprovide discretionary relief from deportation. Nonetheless, the\nPresident's critics have relentlessly attacked the legitimacy of his\naction. Some of my colleagues have emphasized that we must enforce our\nimmigration laws and secure our borders in their opposition to Ms.\nSaldana.\n  Ironically, my Republican colleagues are opposing the nomination of\nthe Director of an agency responsible for these very things: securing\nour border and enforcing our immigration laws. Some Republicans do not\neven want to fund the Department of Homeland Security at all.\n  Those who are concerned about immigration enforcement and border\nsecurity should ask themselves: How does opposing Sarah Saldana's\nnomination and putting DHS funding in question make our borders more\nsecure? How do these actions ensure effective enforcement of our laws?\nThey do not.\n  If you want to truly and permanently address our broken immigration\nsystem, we need Congress to work together to pass comprehensive\nimmigration reform, which the American people overwhelmingly support.\nIt has been over a year since comprehensive immigration reform was\npassed on the Senate floor. Congress must continue working to pass\ncommonsense, humane reform that puts families first.\n  As the President himself has said, Executive action does not replace\ncongressional action. To those in Congress concerned with what he has\ndone, we need to step up. We need to pass comprehensive reform. But in\nthe meantime, we need to confirm Sarah Saldana so she can get on with\nthe job at ICE.\n  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on her nomination.\n\n                           Order of Procedure\n\n  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now recess until 2:15 p.m.;\nthat following the 2:30 p.m. votes, the clerk report Executive Calendar\nNo. 1150, the Blinken nomination, and the time until 5 p.m. be equally\ndivided in the usual form, with all other provisions of the previous\norder remaining in effect.\n  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2014-12-16-pt1-PgS6872"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 3.630651975981891, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}