quorum call:

a senator: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: i'd like to speak. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri is recognized. mr. blunt: good to see you this morning. it's good to be here. i was disappointed yesterday to see that we weren't able to move forward on the keystone pipeline. it's, i think becomes symbolic in many ways of whether we're willing to embrace the opportunities of more american energy. the american people clearly have a sense that it's to their advantage for us to take advantage of those opportunities, for us to deal with not only with our own economy, with the energy we can produce, but even with our next-door neighbors.

and canada is our greatest trading partner, and mexico continues to be a bigger and bigger trading partner, now i think about number four or number five of all the countries in the world we have economic exchanges with. but friendly neighbors in north america that can produce energy in ways that meet every logical standard. i heard some discussions about the pipeline, that, well, once this is built, even though it may create tens of thousands of jobs in building the pipeline, that once it's built, it will only take three dozen or so people to run the pipeline. well, of course that's right. it's a pipeline. it's an efficient, safe way to transport the energy we need, but i think there's an important -- it's important to understand that just the jobs to run the pipeline have nothing to do in

many ways with the job potential that's created when we embrace the energy potential we have. and if you ask about that energy potential, the american people say "yes." if you ask about lower filth bill-- lowerutility bills or dee utility bills, the american people say "yes." if you ask about lower prices at the pump, the american people say "yes." if they have that utility bill they can pay, if they have the delivery system they can rely on, the country is much more likely to make things again. the country is much more likely to compete and the american people understand that. and even if you ask specifically about this one small part of that puzzle, the keystone pipeline, the american people say "yes." six years is enough.

the state department has evaluated this over and over again under two different secretaries of state, both times they've said there's really no problem not to move forward with this. and i was disappointed that we didn't. but i think it -- and even the white house suggesting they would veto that if it was sent to them seems to continue to indicate to me that nobody is listening to what the people we all work for are saying. the president said that he wasn't on the ballot but his policies were. and if his policies were on the ballot, as he said they were, those policies were widely rejected, not just to change next year in the body you and i get to serve in here, mr. president, but also two-thirds of the legislative houses in the country are no longer run by the president's party, 60% of the governors plus

are no longer run by the president's party. people are trying send a message here. it would be a good idea if the white house would get on "receive" and begin to figure out what that message is and what is wrong with those policies that the american people don't liefnlg i don't --. i don't think it is because the american people don't understand them. if they just understand what we were trying to do, they'd be for what we're trying to do. i think it's not that way even though the president might like to think it would be that way. in fact, the clear message is that people are concerned about costly energy policies. they're concerned about the president's recent overreach on a topic that you wouldn't even think people would have engaged on but they have -- net neutrality -- where even the

chairman of the f.c.c., nominated by the president, confirmed by this senate -- even the chairman of the f.c.c. says i think the president is headed in the wrong direction there, and we need to do something different than that. the s.b.a. recently called on the e.p.a. to withdraw one of their proposals and try again because it had too much negative impact on the economy. i really can't think of a similar situation ever where an administration finds itself so often in conflict, even with itself -- even having the administration challenge. when the s.b.a. thinks the e.p.a. is off-target $and that wasn't handled sometime before a rule was laid town, a proamed legislation was laid down, you wonder why not? why wouldn't we be managing this discussion in a better way? why wouldn't we be moving the country forward in a better way?

ignoring the voters, an incredible trag dmi a democracy, ignoring the law, even a more credible tragedy in a constitutional democracy, according to reports, the president is considering two requirements on deciding -- on the 11 million people that are here without documents. they either came illegally or stayed illegally and what to do about that. the president is looking at the length of time as a qualifier. nowhere in the law is that a qualifier. looking at the ties people might have the to others in the country -- have to others in the country. these requirements, depending hon broadly they're drawn, could wind up with the president's announcement as early as friday

leaving another 5 million people in the country in a status that i don't quite understand, and they won't either. when you're here based on an executive order, that is totally dependent on one thing: who's the executive. when you're here based on the law, that's very dependent on everything having to come together that changes the law before your status would change. well, why would we put people in that kind of jeopardy? why would we send that kind of mixed message? after legislation overhauling the immigration process died in the congress, the president says he's going to act on his own. i can't find that part of the constitution that allows that to happen, and in fact in statements made more than one time, he couldn't find it either -- statements made more than one time by the president where he

said, i can't do this on my own; we are a nation of laws. that's his observation about who we are, not my observation about who we are. and i know there'll be people on this side of the capitol building who have said, well, we sent something over there. i didn't vote for it. but it doesn't mean i'm not aware that it was sent to the house. but the house sent a bill over here, too. apparently, both the house and senate are so far from where the other side is that neither is willing to take up the other bill. but that's the constitution. the constitution is designed so that when we change law, we don't that in a fairly cumbersome way. but that's served our country pretty well for a long time, and it's not up to the president to decide that that can be suspended on a topic that he thinks is important and a topic

that he in fact has previously said he couldn't do on his own. as he was talking about this the last several months, not just republicans but republicans and democrats -- and i will admit, particularly democrats in close races around the country -- said that the president was overstepping his authority; the president is putting people in jeopardy of not knowing whether they're really here on some kind of basis that nobody has quite defined or quite understands, even after he acts. recently a union representing thousands of federal immigration officers raised an alarm that the united states government had ordered supplies to create millions of blank work permits and green cards. according to the reports that followed that union report, the

new federal contract proposal for homeland security would allow the government to buy enough supplies to make as many as 34 million immigrant work permits and residency cards over the next five years. and we issue immigrant work permits all time but not at the level that's being talked about here. nobody has contended, by the way, that we've just got a particularly good opportunity to buy a lot of card stock. i haven't heard that given as the reason p. so these people that work with that every day were saying, what's going on here? the president of the national citizenship and immigration services council, representing 12,000 immigration service agents, called reports about planned executive action dangerous. people that deal with this every day -- that's his word -- and said it would increase exponentially the health risk,

the threats to national security, and expense to taxpayers that he said are on the rise because of lax enforcement of immigration laws already. article 2, section 3, of the constitution declares that the president shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed. that the president -- quote -- "shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed." ending that quote out of the constitution. but simply put, these constitutional requirements are just that. they're requirements that the president shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed, to execute the acts of the congress, to enforce the law as written and signed into law by some president and never changed by the current president would indicate that's what the law is, and the president is supposed to enforce the law.

yet president obama continues to refuse in this and other areas to show a willingness to try to convince the congress to change the law rather than assume that if the congress doesn't do this, i will. i'm -- as i said earlier and will say again, i'm still trying to find that phrase from the constitution that says if the congress doesn't do this, the president can. whether it's issuing waivers to states from the work requirements contained in the bipartisan welfare reform act of 1996 or announcing another change in the president's health care law -- and i've lost count of how many changes on his own the president has had the administration do -- they continue to look for ways to circumvent what the law says. a nation of laws, respect for the laws -- americans are

appropriately concerned that government is just too willing to overreach and, at the same time, unbelievably dysfunctional, whether it's kids at the border or the secret service that can't keep people oust white house or how we dealt with ebola. we've got a center for disease control, and when we have a disease control problem, we have to put somebody else in charge? what's wrong with that? that's why i introduced the enforce the law act in march, a bill that would allow congress to authorize a legal case to be brought urgency president if he face -- to be brought against a president if he face to uphold the law as written. this would uphold the system of checks and balances reiterated in the constitution. the enforce the law act removes the procedural barriers and would allow the house or senate or both together to jowntsly adopt a resolution that just says we don't believe the law is

being enforced. there is a set of regulations out now on the clean water act which did give the federal government the authority, the e.p.a. the authority to have -- to monitor and have some authority over the navigable waters of the united states. off-any doubt in the 1970's when that happened that people thought "navigable water waterst the same thing as when it was put in law in the 1880's. but suddenly and navigable wats means any water anywhere that could be por be part of water tt could become navigable. that is dhais could ease list be litigated sooner rather than later. long before people try to comply with an area where the federal government will turn out not have control, as they did in a number of areas this year.

so i hope we will look at this again. the house has passed it in a bipartisan manner. the congress should be concerned about enforcing the law as written, as the constitution says, both the members an of the congress and the president of the united states should be concerned about enforcing the law as written. i thank the president for the time and yield the floor. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: mr. president, i rise today to celebrate the 75th birthday of my friend and longtime colleague from our home state of iowa, senator tom harkin. as you know, mr. president, senator harkin will be retiring from public offices in just a few weeks. at the end of the 113th

congress, senator harkin will then close a chapter on public service that spans more than a half-century, including four decades in congress. he also served 27 years in the united states navy and u.s. naval reserves. ten years in the house of representatives and 30 years here in the united states senate. now, i think anybody looking at that would say that is a remarkable and distinguished record of public service. after 40 years of representing iowans in congress, my friend tom soon will leave behind the halls of the u.s. capitol. he also will leave behind a legacy of fiery floor speeches, passionately delivered on behalf of individuals with disabilities. also for iowa farmers. also for the elderly.

also for child laborers, and for many causes that he championed, such as early childhood education, nutrition and wellness, conservation, renewable energy, and the environment, and probably lots of others, but those are things that everybody knows that he has worked hard on. throughout the years tom and i have served side by side in washington for the good of our home state. for three terms we worked together in the u.s. house of representatives. it was here in the senate our shared commitment to give rural america a voice at the policy making table was sown. and for many years we worked together on the senate agricultural committee looking out for the millions of americans who choose to work and earn a living in rural america.

we worked together to advocate for rural infrastructure and investment, access to health care, housing technology and transportation. for the last three decades we have served alongside one another here in this distinguished body, the united states senate, an institution that both of us hold near and dear to our hearts. although some of our silver tongued critics over the years may have described tom's views as a bleeding heart liberal or mine mischaracterized as that of a wholehearted conservative, we both -- tom and i -- know that our hearts have always been in the right place. neither of us was born with a silver spoon in our mouths, and we learned early on to

appreciate the work ethic of our parents and grandparents. each of us raised our families with the hopes that our children and grandchildren would achieve the promise of america's prosperity and grow up to enjoy the pursuits of happiness. as iowa's u.s. senators, we have worked to keep alive the dream of hardworking iowa families. now, of course, it's true that we have vastly different views on the government's influence on america's ladder of opportunity. however, we do wholeheartedly agree that it is an honor and a privilege to serve the people of our state. for some reason our respective reelections every six years have actually confounded political observers.

many couldn't seem to square the notion that iowans would continue to elect two u.s. senators from opposite sides of the political spectrum for the last three decades. so, mr. president, to explain, i think i don't have to because it is widely understood that iowaans aren't casual political observers. our electorate takes pride in retail politicking and it's first in the nation political caucuses. we certainly have given iowa voters a night-and-day choice between these two u.s. senators. so while we may not see eye to eye on politics and ideology, we do see eye to eye when it came to working for iowa's best

interests. although our voting records may reflect night and day positions on some public policy, you wouldn't see the light of day between us when we worked together on matters that are most important to iowans, including but not limited to natural disasters such as the tremendous floods of 1993 and 2008, and iowa farmers and agriculture notably recovering from farm crises, renewable energy and rural infrastructure has been our mutual interest. we have also enjoyed welcoming economic development leaders and constituents to the nation's capital, between the famous sioux land steak dinner here in washington and the harkin state fry in indianola, there is no

doubt tom will mistaking out iowans po discuss politics and policy. however, i have no doubt that my home state colleague will continue championing the causes for which he has devoted a lifetime of public service. in fact, i read in the news media about his retirement of what he intends to pursue, and so i have no doubt that he's going to pursue out of the senate what he's pursued in the senate. to his credit, my colleague's legacy reflects the priorities that he set out to achieve decades ago: to make a difference for those on the down side of advantage. so, mr. president, my wife barbara and this senator extend our warmest wishes to tom and his wife ruth and, of course, to the entire harkin family, as you

start life's next chapter. and i see my colleague is here, so i can look at him. as you start life's next chapter, may you enjoy the blessings of hearth and home, health and happiness. although tom is retiring from public office, i'm confident he's not retiring from serving the public interest. from one constituent to another, i thank you for your lifetime of public service, and i wish you good luck and godspeed. i yield the floor. mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, first let me thank my friend and colleague for his characteristic lifetime casket -- lifetime characteristic of him being

gracious and very generous in his remarks. chuck grassley and i have served together since 1974. i like to tell people that in 1974, that was a big wave of democrats came in. they called us the watergate babies. we came in in a big wave, won a lot of elections and things like that. and in fact, in iowa that year elected a u.s., democratic u.s. senator, and every house seat -- i think there were six at that time, six house seats all went democratic except one, and that was the seat that chuck grassley won that year bucking the trend, bucking the tide in 1974. so it's kind of a funny thing, chuck. i speak to my friend across the aisle here, that a lot of times

people this year have said all you watergate babies are gone now, you and max baucus and chris dodd and then on the house side george miller and henry waxman. so this is the last of the watergate babies. i always have to remind them, i say there's one left. who's that, they say? it's a republican. a republican? who's that? my colleague from iowa, chuck grassley is sort of, i say, the last man standing from that class of 1974. i think it's again, a tribute to senator grassley that through all these years he has won the hearts and minds of the people of iowa, been elected and reelected. he came to the senate before i did. he came in 1981 and i came in 1984. so i'd like to think that we at least share in common at least

bucking the trend a little bit or the tide because in 1984 someone said harkin, you had a run for the senate in 1984 because there will be a big democratic landslide here. so i ran and whoa, boy, the tide was just the opposite. it was a reagan landslide here but i was fortunate enough to be able to win elections. so i think the the two of us share sort of bucking the tide, so to speak, to get into office when we ran. but it's been a great association through all these years. as i stand here today on my 75th birthday, i guess when you're this age, i think you think of -- i have two kind of emotions. one, i wonder where the heck did all the years go and how come they went so fast. sometimes i wish i can turn the clock back and do it again.

the other side is the irish side of me. any time you're on this side of the grass you have a good day. i want to say since that time we took our oath of office together, i think it was january 4 of 1975, we have served together both in the house and in the senate, and a lot of time on the same committee, agriculture committee, working a lot on different agriculture bills. i remember back in the 1980's working on the credit bill at that time when so many farmers were under water. so as the senator said, it's been a great honor and a privilege to represent the people of iowa. as he mentioned, we belong to different parties. we have different philosophies of approach of government. but i like to think that we share a down-to-earth, common sense iowa way of looking at the

world. iowans, we're not all monolithic out there. we're not all one philosophy or the other philosophy. sometimes i find conservative friends of mine in iowa may have a more liberal view of one thing and then i find liberals in iowa have a more conservative view of something else. so people in iowa, as my friend said, they think a lot of about these things and they take these tingz -- things into consideration. a lot of people say how can someone elect someone who is conservative and someone who is liberal in iowa? i think there's common strains where there's a cross confluence of maybe a conservative approach and a liberal approach. so, again, i just say to my friend, i value his friendship and his counsel through all these years, even though, again, as my friend said, we approach

things maybe from a different philosophical standpoint. that's fine. that's okay. but we've never, we've never let a disagreement on philosophy ever be the last word between us or the final word; anything like that. it's always well, that's that. what's next? the one thing, i really appreciate what my friend said, and that is when it comes to iowa, you don't find any daylight, when it comes to disasters, what we can do for iowa and iowans, we have had a wonderful relationship through all these years and it is one that i have cherished very much. i heard my friend -- i was making snoats -- making notes, say sometimes they say he's a cold hearted conservative and i'm a bleeding heart liberal. chuck grassley is not a cold heart the conservative. he cares deeply about the

people. he cares deeply about the people of iowa. i hope i'm not a bleeding heart liberal. i hope i'm sort of a liberal that believes in individual responsibility. individual responsibility. so my friend has been a very caring conservative through all these years. i think together we've achieved important things for our state: chick -- economic development, rural development, all these things we worked together for iowa. i'm proud of the fact that iowa right now produces 25% of our energy comes from wind energy in iowa and we produced the blades, the turbines and everything in iowa and all these jobs there. that's something we have worked together on through all these years. so again, people ask me about leaving the senate. well, it was my decision. but i said at the time, almost two years ago i said i wasn't running again. i said i will not -- you'll

never hear me ever say bad things about the senate or denounce the senate or saying things -- i love the senate. this is a wonderful institution. yeah, we have a few bumps in the road once in a while but that's what to be expected in a legislative process representing 300 million people in this country. but i.t. the friendships you form here, the alliances, the friendships, the working together. i've often said that as a progressive, i wanted to go this far this fast and the conservatives want to go this far this slow. but together, working together, you can make progress -- you can make progress. and that's what i think both senator grassley and i have worked together on, to try to make progress. but especially for the people of iowa. and so i thank him for his kind words. i thank you. i know we're not supposed to say this on the senate floor. we're always supposed to speak

in the third person. but i never wanted to follow all the rules anyway, so i can speak directly and say, thank you very much, chuck grassley, for friendship, for counsel, for working together through all these years. i'm going to miss that relationship and working on the senate floor, but i will be in iowa. i'll be working again with the harkin institute at the university. i'll be spending a lot of time on disability policy and advancing the cause of people with disabilities in some way, shape, or form -- i don't know exactly house, but in some way, in that way -- and i hope -- i just want to say this to my friend. i hope that at some time, since this is a nonpartisan institute, we have a great board of directors -- in fact, the former chair of the iowan republican party is on the board of the institute -- we want to keep it

nonpartisan. i would like to ask my friend to come and speak at and be -- perhaps lead a discussion sometime at the institute at university. i would be honored if my friend would do that, if sometime down the road -- i don't know when. we can work it out. i think you would be well-received and i think young people at drake need to hear the conservative side of the story as well as the liberal side of the story. they need to have that kind of input. so i hope we can work that out. let me just say again that i know in the future that you and your wonderful wife barbara, a great, wonderful person, that you and barbara and ruth and i will maintain friendships and will maintain our connections as we move into the future, and any way that we can ever work together for the benefit of iowans, just let me know and

i'll be glad to be your lieutenant -- or something out there in the field out there in iowa sometime. but thank you so very much for so many years of counsel and friendship and working together. thanks, chuck. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank my colleague for his kind remarks and for being here and for serving the people of iowa. mr. president, if i could take four more minutes, i'd lauck to speak on another -- i'd like to speak on another subject. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. grassley: okay. on saturday, many children and families around the country are going to celebrate national adoption day. it's a day that many adoptions are finalized, and young people find their forever families. it is very comforting and fit

that this day helps kick off the holiday season. families will be formed and strengthened. this thanksgiving many children will celebrate with their new families and not have to worry about their next placement or their next meal. and this month we then give thanks to the men and women who have their dreams come true. since the first national adoption day in the year 2000, nearly 50,000 children have joined forever families during national adoption day. in 2013 alone, adoptions for 4,500 children were finalized through 400 national adoption day events throughout our country. these are impressive numbers, numbers that make us proud to work to accomplish the goals of

adoption, proud of the work being done to help children in foster care find loving families. but there's always more work to be done. today there are over 102,000 children in the foster care system. in iowa alone, we have over 6,200 children in foster care, many of whom are waiting for a loving family to adopt them. there are so many issues facing youth, in addition to being torn apart from their families. they face serious trauma. they're likely to be treated differently and don't get to do some of the activities that other people their age can do. they transition from home to home and school to school, so they don't know normalcy and

they may never know permanency. and after years of challenging, some of these young people are forced to transition to adulthood and do it on their way own. unfortunately, each year over 23,000 young people age out of care and are thrown into the independence -- or, the dependence of finding their own way. too many older children in foster care, especially those with special needs, are often the ones who wait the longest to leave foster care. foster youths suml simply desiro have what so many of us were blessed to have: that is, a home

with caring, loving parents and siblings. these kids are less likely than younger children to find that term we use "forever homes." that is why i helped form the senate caucus on youth -- foster youth. i wanted to draw ateption to the challenges -- i wanted to draw attention to the challenges that older foster youth face. the caucus has allowed congressional leaders to become more aware of the issues faced by young people and families who are involved in the foster care system. the caucus cannot function without the input and the insight that foster young people can give to it personally. these children are the experts on the foster care system. they tell us what works and what needs to work. they share their experiences and

provide us with real work -- real-world stories about how our policies truly affect them. the caucus and the young people who share their experiences remind us that no child is unadoptable; no child should be without a mom and dad; and we must remember that foster care should be a layover not a destination. november is national adoption month, a time to raise national awareness of adoption and, of course, to celebrate families, advocates, and volunteersinvolv. it's also a time to devote more attention to policies and practices that protect the safety and well-being of our children. i am hopeful that congress will continue to look for ways to improve the foster care system

and, hopefully, promote adoptions. i am glad congress worked to enact a bill this year to renew the adoption incentive program and to do more to screen and help foster youth who may be trafficked. we must continually examine how the system is treat being young people -- is treating young people and whether policies in place are strengthening families. there are many young people who will continue this holiday season without a permanent family. hopefully our celebration of national adoption month will raise awareness of the issues that these young people face and the need to find these young people a mom and dad. we need to keep working together to break down the barriers to adoption.

so today i thank all of those who have adopted or who have fostered children who needed it, and i thank the many individuals and organizations that work to make permanency possible for children. i know many dreams will come true this saturday, and i wish the very best to the young people as they begin their journey with their new families. i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i rise today in recognition of national adoption month, and i know that our great colleague, senator landrieu, will be here to also address this important month. she has such a leader in fighting for this cause. literally, she has gone to guatemala to make sure that children that are awaiting loving homes in our country get to come to those homes. she has literally -- she literally knows the names of those kids and is hands-on every step of the way and has been the leader in congress muc. she established the congressional coalition on adoption, which has brought together senators and members of congress on behalf of children who need loving homes and

families who want to welcome them home. and we are very pleased with her leadership, and i know she's joining us right now. i'll be able to flip it over to her at any time it is appropriate. but i did want to speak about national adoption month. it is especially important in my home state of minut minnesota. many people don't know this, but minnesota actually has the highest rate of the international adoptions in the country. minnesota families have opened their homes and hearts to children from all over the world, from vietnam to guatemala to nepal to haiti. i've had the opportunity to witness the power of adoption firsthand. before being elected to the senate, i spent eight years as hennepin county attorney, our largest county in minnesota, and we had jurisdiction over foster conveyor and adoption. i work -- foster care and adoption. i worked to speed up those adoptions. i remember saying we need to

eliminate this delay and reduce the time it takes for a child that's been going from foster care home to foster care home in half, and we were able to do that because people understood the need for children to have a permanent home. i know senator landrieu is here right now and has a busy schedule, and we can turn it over to her, but i'll finish her first. if thin the united states, neary 400,000 children are living wo without permanent families. too many children will wait for years and years to be adopt odd. some will not be adopted at all. last night i attended an event called "kid save." the group has set up an incredible system where the kids come to our country for a few weeks and many of them end up being adopted because, as the kids get older, it becomes

harder and harder for them to be adopted. as senator l.a.n. you dre landre seen, as some of these countries are closing their door to adoption, we are going to see more and more children that are older. we hope the system changes and they do eventually open up their doors. around the world there are estimates to be around 18 million orphans who have lost their parents and lack the care and attention for healthy development. we must open four arms to these children. just last night i had the tighteopportunity to hear the sf a 17-year-old girl from colombia. she spent years in a broken home and then in a broken foster care system in that country. she was exposed to violence, go to bed hungry. at age 14 she was still in foster care and had lost hope for her future. she was considered too hold to be adopted. she cried every night for a

year. but then miraculously she had the chance to visit a family in america as part of the program that kid save organized. the family fell in love with her. she fell in love with them, in 2011 she was adopted into a loving home. we have seen this time and time again in my state. that is why i got involved in legislation with my mentor, mary landrieu. one of the things that we found out is that we had a family called the mccoriss's. they were adopting nine children from the philippines. it was ath the two oldest childn that held the kids together. the mcyoris s's made a decision, were they going to strand those two kids that had held the family together and take the other children? it was like that movie "so fee's choice." they decided there was a better way. they came to congress, i led the

bill in the senate with mary landrieu's help with the help of senator sessions and senator inhofe and our house members, we were able to pass a bill that allowed kids who had turned to the age where they were not legally allowed to be adopted to be adopted if a younger sibling had been adopted. that meant retroactively thanks to senator landrieu's work 10,000 children all over the world were able to be adopt d into loving homes. and how fun was it to be in the mccoriss's living room and see all nine children like some sort of minnesota version of sound of music with all of their places for their winter boots and their coats and to come from the philippines in the middle of the winter to minnesota, they were still as happy and warm as could be because they had parents that loved them. the presiding officer himself understands, the senator from maine, how important adoption is in his own family.

this has touched every member of the senate. as we look at national adoption month, we have to continue to look at policies and changes that we can make to our laws that will make it better. we passed that law to allow those older siblings to adopt. we passed a law to allow vakses to be -- vaccinations to be done in our country so we could make sure the vaccinations are safe and actually done. there's more work to do with intercountry adoptions and i can think of no one better to lead that charge than the senator from louisiana, senator landrieu. so i'm here to acknowledge the work we've done with the adoption tax credit which we've gotten into law, with the work that we have done to make sure that we make it easier for these international adoptions, that every single family out there knows there are problems right now with international adoptions. a lot of them stem from people like vladimir putin. by the way, the reason that senator landrieu is banned to go to russia is because of the work she was doing for kids, because

she was willing to take putin on for the fact that he was closing the doors to kids and using them as pawns in a political game. that's an amazing story, and that shows a fighter. so i want to thank you, the presiding officer, for your work with adoption, your personal story and also all the members on both sides of the aisle that have devoted themselves to looking out for these kids that have no one else to look out for them. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. yesterday was a very different topic: keystone, and that fight is over for now. but fight for adoption and foster care children and all children in the world who are in desperate need of parents to love them and to nurture them goes on and i could not be surrounded with a better team than senator grassley who has been fighting for this in the senate since before i arrived,

and 18 years ago when i got here quickly joined with him to continue the fight. and then amy klobuchar joint us a few years ago -- joined us a few years ago and has become an extraordinarily effective and willing soldier to go to the front lines in this battle. and i just can't thank the senator from minnesota enough. she brings just tremendous experience as a fortunatelyer prosecutor which i didn't have and i don't think senator grassley had and understands the inner workings of the court systems in a way that has brought a lot of value to our coalition. in addition, as she said, we are so proud of minnesota as the state in our union that has the highest per capita rate of adoptions, international adoptions. so the leaders in minnesota, of all political parties and stripes, and the faith-based community really understands this issue and stood up time and time again. so i want to recognize

minnesota's leadership, and particularly senator klobuchar. so this month is november. it's a great month. it's thanksgiving month. and we give thanks for so many things in our country, and it's just a wonderful celebration, i think in some ways even better than christmas because we're not so much focused on gifts. we're really focused on understanding the blessings that we have received. and one of those great blessings is a family. and i'm so fortunate to have been from one of the most, born into one of the most remarkable families. not rich, and when i was born into them still not rich. when i was born into them not all all famous. but i have two extraordinary parents, and to this day they continue to teach all of us, the nine of us, 37 grandchildren and now 5 great-grandchildren the value of family. and i've said many times -- and

senator klobuchar has shared this with me -- governments do a lot of things well, but raising children isn't one of them. i want to repeat that. governments do a lot of things well, but raising children isn't one of them. actually we were created and wired for one human to raise another. it just doesn't happen any other way. and our faith tells us that. but now interestingly some really extraordinary science being done by some of the most brilliant scientists in the world and sociologists, and one of them is from my state, charlie zena. dr. charlie zena. when the terrible tragedy happened in romania, that crazy man who starved his country and put millions of children's in orphanages, charlie is one of the americans that got on the plane with me and went to romania, and he never left.

he stayed, not physically the whole time, but his colleagues stayed and did the most extraordinary science on the planet of what happens to a child that is detached from their birth parent or their loving -- detached. just detached. and they also did the leading study in the world on institutionalization, and the findings are just remarkable in the way that if they can't make us change the way we think, that group homes are not sufficient no matter how well run, they are not sufficient. no institution, no matter how beautifully it's run, no orphanage in the world, no matter how magnificently it's run, how clean and brightly painted, nothing -- nothing -- can substitute for what an infant and a toddler and a young

child and a teenager and an adult amazingly, but particularly an infant needs when they are born. they actually need it before they're born. that's a whole other story. but when they're born it says that the brain literally reacts physically to the fact that there is no caregiver that is consistent and that's what happens when a child is abandoned. they go through this what they're calling now this toxic stress, toxic stress. is that the word they use? the way i like to describe it -- and i know maybe i only have ten minutes but it's worth talking about. every adult in this world, in the listening of my voice knows what stress is to an adult. i mean literally you can feel

it. you know, some people go out for a run. some people have a couple of glasses of wine. some people have long talks with their friends, because you can feel that you have to do something. an infant feels that but in multiples. and an infant can't go out for a run. and a toddler doesn't know what to do. and so that toxic stress goes right inside of them, and they cannot release it. they don't know how. and so it begins to affect the development of their brain. and these scientists are saying that when a child doesn't have, from the moment it is born a constant caring, confident like touch and talk the way that parents, as you know when you hold your infant children in your arms, you give them strength, i used to think they just needed food and if i kept them warm, but that's not what

the science says. science says it's so much beyond that. and we should have known this by our faith, but sometimes we're doubt. so now the science is stepping up and saying exactly what we know by faith, that it is just imperative that children have a loving, safe place. i've been to orphanages all over this world, and i'll never forget some of the visions that i've seen. and this is the most common vision that you will see in an orphanage anywhere, particularly in an orphanage where they have infants that are in cribs that are, let's say, like one year old. you'll walk into a room bigger -- as big as this, sometimes smaller. but i've been in ones as large as this with a crib everywhere. and the infants just sit there, those that can sit up, and they just stare into space, and they just rock themselves. and what the scientists say that

is is their last desperate attempt to console an inconsolable emptiness. and so they just rock and they just stare. they don't cry. and the reason they don't cry is because they cried for the first 30 or 60 days of their life incessantly and then when no one came they just stopped because, you know, little babies are really smart. i mean, contrary to popular belief, they are literally born with an exceedingly brilliant brain. and -- but it gets the more toxic, the more disortd it gets. so by the time a child is three -- not 13, not 30. three. their brain is a muscle that just doesn't function. it just doesn't form correctly. you can see this on these now new imaging.

so i know people kind of think this is like a soft issue and people like look at amy and they look at me and they look at chuck grassley; why do these people keep talking about this? it's like nothing. well, it's a lot. it's not nothing. it's like really serious science and it's really serious community development, and it's really, really important for this world to get this and get it quickly. you wonder why prisons are filled. you wonder why psychiatric wards are filled. you wonder why. it's not because people are born bad, because even though -- i won't even go into mortal sin and my catholic background but let's just say forget that. children are actually born beautifully made because god made them. and it's what we do to them in the time of their birth and the few years after that really shape what they're going to be. so in my view as a leader, that's why i spent a great deal of my time on this subject,

because it's not a soft issue. it's as hard and as important as any army, any trade policy. and i'm never going to stop talking about it, because it's like so clearly the truth that you just can't stop talking about it. so that's a long way of saying this is national adoption month. we've put a resolution on the floor. we always get a remarkable number of our members. i want to give a special shout out to senator blunt who does have a child who is very engaged in this issue, and he has really stepped up as a child that's adopted and has really stepped up, as do i, as do many members have either children or grandchildren rosa delaura has been a remarkable leader in the

house. her grandchild is adopted from guatamala. she has become an extraordinary voice. suzanne von amiche, the congress woman from oregon. i want to thank the huffington post. this is where it came from. the first picture i want to show. the huffington post did a great picture and you all can go online and see this of many of the most remarkable stories on adoption day. these are all children i'm going to show you and i'm going to tell you a little bit about them. this is a domestic adoption out of foster care. this is the michael family. the parents are tiffany and adebayo, michael from new york. the couple fostered two siblings, a girl and boy

pictured here. after two years and four months the couple adopted these children on national adoption day. you can see these smiles. it is amazing to see these stories which happened all over the country. on national adoption day, which is november -- this saturday, many of the judges -- and this was started by a judge in california. i want to give him credit. what is his name? judge gnash. judge gnash started this 20 years ago because he was in his courtroom and he was so frustrated, like amy has been as a prosecutor, that no one was prosecuting these adoings cases that he decided -- this is how simple this was, mr. president. he just said, you know what? i'm tired of the ba backlog. i'm going to come in on saturday. so staff, we're coming in on saturday. and we're going to process 25 adoptions or 30 adoptions when we're not distracted, when we can get people in and so that is how national adoption day

started. and judge nash is my hero. so national adoption day started 20 years ago by one judge in one courtroom, and then lots of other organizations joined in and now it's really a big movement. so this was a happy picture. this is a picture of parents from baltimore adopted an infant with a cleft palate from china in 2012. now, when this little infant was born -- i know something about what happens in china and many countries -- if an infant is born in almost any country in the world in the non-developed world and they have anything wrong with them, like a finger is missing or they have a cleft pall at or particularly if they have something like spina bifida or a leg missing or something, they're literally in some countries put in rooms called dying rooms and they just leave them because they don't have the same understanding that we do in the united states about, anchts

the dignity of -- about, a, the dignity of every liervetion whic-- of everylife, and, b, ths is it is a curse by god. they take it as god never meant for this child to have a life. so i don't know what would have happened to this little boy, but, trust me, it would not have been happy. the only problem with him is he had a cleft palate. so this couple traveled a long distance and probably now under the law had to go back maybe two or three times because we've made it harder, not easier for these parents. so i don't know how many times they traveled, but they probably took their own money, borrowed moing -- unless they're superrich -- from their relatives and went twice to get this little boy and finally brought him home. the next picture is from africa,

the hayden family. this is my favorite. they have two adopted children. crew is one-year-old, adopted from niger in 2013. shepherd is two years old adopted from the d.r.c. in 2012, and the most amazing thing is the biological children, which you can see, were the ones that received the children when they came. i have hardly seen a more beautiful picture than this that represents what the future could be if we would do our jobs. all right, the fourth picture is the williams family. jeff and kelley williams are from nashville, tennessee. their faith called them to adopt in 2012. they brought daughter hailey home to nashville from an orphanage in ethiopia. this is how many relatives gathered to meet her, and the

most amazing thing, i think, about this picture is how hard her father is holding how tightly he's holding her. the fifth is a picture of the harassharbarger family. these were my angels shreveport, an amazing family from louisiana. chad or marcia -- chad is a pastor of a church in shrevepo shreveport. they have formed an adoption ministry because they became so moved by their own experience in adopting. they have adopted all of these children. monique is 19, imris is 14, bryce is 11, jordan is nine, bailey is eight, and gavin is 7. these two -- pastor really of a

wonderful church -- they have taken this as a ministry and are developing -- and i see the leader on the floor. i'll wrap up in two minutes. they are developing a wonderful ministry in shreveport. many are stepping up to do this. finally, you may not believe this because this is a very famous family -- and they are admired or otherwise, depending on what circles. but i have a lot of respect for the duck dynasty family in this area of what they have done. which willie and correspondent willie and cory robinson adopted "little will" through a private adoption agency when he was born. they also have a foster daughter from taiwan named rebecca. since becoming rich and famous, where they weren't always, just

a simple family making duck kawsms but now they are one of the most famous families in the world. they were a national angel two years ago and have continued to promote adoption both domestic and international. so i wanted to just show a few of the most extraordinary, i think, families, both famous and not-so-famous that are dhog great work, and i want to thank my completion for again supporting -- my completion for again supporting this resolution calling us all in every elective office -- goarchtion governors,, congress members, then at home our courts, judges, prosecutors -- to do everything we can to help. i want to show you the last picture, because this is our challenge. domestic adoption -- and i'm very proud to have moved this line, and i want to give hillary clinton a shout out, secretary clinclinton, senator clinton, wo helped to move this line. she did remarkable work over the

last -- since 1999, basically 2000. we're 2014, more children being adopted domestically than ever before at all ages, infants, teenagers, et cetera. our challenge is international adoptions have dropped precipitously. i'm going come to back to the floor and give a speech about why this is happening and what we've tried to do, a few of us, to turn it around. but our voices are just like hitting the wall and bouncing off because the state department is not listening. so we will continue the fight. this number is going down dramatically. there are children like that little boy in china with the left palate, senator durbin, who will rot for the rest of their life. and if you want to wonder where terrorists come from, i'll tell you where they come from. they come from families that are dysfunctional and they come from places where there is no hope, no love, and no faith.

that's where terrorists come from. so if you want to stop it, i'd suggest we start turning this line the other way. and i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: to add just one more thing, a lot of these adoptions wouldn't have happened without senator landrieu. and when you go anywhere on the adoption issue, anywhere in this country, and you mention her name, you see nodding of heads of so many parents because they actually know what she is done to fight for the domestic adoptions and for foster kids and also on the international 4re6level. there's so much more work to do. so thank you so much and i'll be there when you give your speech. the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: madam president, let me add my voice in this chorus because it is true. mary landrieu, more than any other single member of the united states congress, has made adomtion headoption her cause. we are reminded by mary landrieu

what a difference it makes in the lives of these children and their families and the world. i want to commend her. you're the best. as the grandfather of an of an d child, i know the difference the joy, the importance of that moment in our family lievmen li. i thank her for continuing to make sure we understand the importance the adoption. there was a moment in the civil war when president abraham lincoln said a message to generageneral mcclelland. he was in charge of the union troops but wouldn't use them. he set and camped, intense, preparing for battle and never going forward. and lincoln in his frustration understood that as he waited, the confederate forces were getting stronger and the opportunities were slipping away. and so lincoln sent a message to

general mcclelland. his message was this: if you're not going to use your army, would you send it my way so i could use it? i'm reminded of that story when i address this issue on the floor of the senate this morning. because the issue i'm going to address is the issue of immigration. madam president, i come to this issue with personal and family experience, as so many members of congress do when it comes to an issue. in this circumstance, my mother was an immigrant to this country. she was brought here at the age of 2 from lithuania. somehow my grandmother, with my and you and uncle, made it across the ocean to baltimore landing in 1911 and then catching a train heading for the land of opportunity, east st. louis, illinois, which is where many lithuanian families gathered and where my grandfather was waiting a. and that was the city of my

birth. my mother grew up there, speaking lithuanian and english, an immigrant family that worked hard, struggled, and from just family stories -- i know they had little or nothing in their lives, but the hope that the next generation, their children, would have a better life. that's my story, that's my family's story, but that's america's story, too. and if you chart immigration, as an issue, in the course of america, you'll find something very interesting: political parties that become anti-immigrant parties eventually wither and disappear. why? because they are denying the fundamentals of america. they are saying that we're going to close the doors and po pull p the ladder and we don't need anymore of those people. we do need more of "those" people because the immigrant families who come in this country bring more than just determination and strength and a

work ethic. they bring a level of courage, which many families can't muster. these are families in different parts of the world who say at some point, we're going to america. we may not speak the language, we may not even know what will happen to us once we alive, but we are going to america. and they do. and the vast majority of them come to this country, stay, and make a difference. they sack fishings they work night and -- they sacrifice, they work night and day. but they are moment comes -- their moment comes when they become part of america. proud of where they came from but even more proud of the fact that they're part of the united states of america. when any political party in history has decided to make anti-immigration their standard and their value, they have withered and disappeared, as they should. they are ignoring and turning their back on who we are, what america is all about. i was part of a group two years

ago. we set down four democratic senators and four republican senators, and we worked for months to write a comprehensive immigration reform bill. i'll tell you the names of the senators so you know there was no secret deal here. john mccain led the republicans, former republican candidate for president of the united states. by his side lindsey graham, republican from south carolina, not exactly viewed as a liberal state but in fact a very conservative one. marco rubio of florida, whose father and mother were immigrants to this country, refugees from cuba. and jeff flake of arizona, a conservative republican by every measure. that was the team on the republican side of the table. on our side of the table, we were led by chuck schumer, chairman of the immigration subcommittee of judiciary from

the state of new york. i joined him as a member of the judiciary committee and as someone that's been involved in some of these issues for a long time. and bob menendez -- bob menendez, the head of the democratic hispanic caucus, a caucus of one at this point, but himself the son of cuban refugees who came to the united states. and michael bennet of ko colora. the eight of us set down for months, literally for months, hours at a time, sometimes angry and ready to work oust room, other times cooperative. we wrote a bill, a 200-page tbhaibill tofix the immigration. then we took it to committee and the chairman of the senate) patrick lay here, allowed any amendment to be offered that anyone wished. then we brought it to the floor after it was reported from the committee and we again gave an

opportunity for amendments to be offered. significant amendments were offered. senator corker of tennessee offered an amendment to even strengthening what was a very strong border security section of this bill. the net result of that, of course, was we brought it to a vote. we brought it to a vote and i will tell you, it was an incredible day because on june 27 of 2013, we passed on the floor of the united states senate comprehensive immigration reform by a vote of 68-32. 14 republicans joined the democrats in a bipartisan effort to fix our broken immigration system. it was a proud moment. we had the support of the chamber of commerce, we had the support of organized labor, we had every major religious group in america supporting our efforts. we had the ultra-conservative

grover norquist supporting this, and liberals as well, came together and said finally we're going to do something about our broken immigration system. but under the law of the land, passing the senate is not enough. the measure was then sent over to the house of representatives. june 27, 2013. today, november 19, 2014, the republican-led house of representatives has not only failed to have a hearing on this bill, has refused to bring this bill to the floor, has refused to bring any immigration bill to the floor. they refuse to address the obvious. we have a broken immigration system, we need to come up with a fair solution to it, and they refuse to act. it is within their power to call

that bill today as it has been every day since june 27, 2013. but for a year and a half, the house republican leadership has refused to act. oh, they tempted us, they teased us, time and again we're thinking about it, we're going to put out a list of principles that we republicans believe in in the house of representatives, we're going to tell you that maybe we would support something like the dream act, maybe, we're going to tell you we want strong border enforcement which of course this bill already has. they've said all these things and have done nothing. i'm reminded of president lincoln saying to general mcclellan if you're not going to use your army, may i borrow it? the house republicans have refused to address the immigration issue almost entirely with one exception. they did call one immigration

matter to the floor. it was one of the most hateful pieces of legislation which i have seen and here's what it said -- before they adjourned in august, the republicans in the house of representatives passed a measure with only four of their members refusing to vote for it and here's what it said. we have created an opportunity for about two million children brought to this country who have lived good lives, finished school, have no problems with the law, and want to to become part of america, the president has created an executive order giving these children a chance to come forward, register with the government, pay their filing fee, and not be deported. 600,000 of them have taken advantage of that. this is called daca, the president's executive order, gives them a chance to live in america, to go to school in america, to get a job in

america. to make this a better nation. 600,000 have done it. we believe 1.4 million more are eligible. they have not signed up yet. so the republican house of representatives in august before they adjourned passed a measure which said the remaining 1.6 million who may be eligible for this protection cannot be allowed to be part of the daca program. these 1.6 million young people should be subject to deportation deportation. think about that for a moment. brought here at the age of two or three as infants, living in the united states their entire lives, standing up in the classrooms across america every morning pledging allegiance to the only flag they've ever known and the republicans voted with an overwhelming majority to deport them. to deport them.

madam president, that's not bad enough. that overwhelming vote that they cast, that hateful vote that they cast, they were so proud of themselves that after voting they stood up and applauded themselves. what a great moment in their minds for the house of representatives. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. durbin: i ask consent to speak for an additional five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: what a terrible moment in the history of this nation. now the president of the united states having waited for a year and a half, having heard all the promises of the house republicans that he -- that they would move forward and finally call this bill, having been promised privately and even publicly by many of these republicans that they were going to do something, now the president has said i'm going to use my authority, my authority under the law to try to fix at

least some part of this broken immigration system. we're expecting any day now for the president to announce his executive order. he will not be the first president to do this. past administrations, democratic and republican, have stopped the deportation of low-priority cases in our country. every president of the united states, madam president, every president of the united states since dwight david eisenhower has used his executive authority to improve our immigration system by executive order. every single one of them. president george h.w. bush issued a family fairness policy allowing 1.5 million people in america to apply for deferred action and work permits. it's clear the presidents have the authority to do this. and yet the republicans in the senate and house have threatened this president if you use your executive authority as every president since president

eisenhower has done, we're going to hold it against you and you're going to pay a price, president obama. well, i hope the president pays little or no attention to that kind of threat. what's at stake here is the future of millions of family members who are now subject to deportation. what's at stake sheer whether or not the republican party will come into the 21st century in this land of immigrants and join us in a bipartisan effort to fix this broken immigration system. what's at stake here are literally the futures of millions of families who just want a chance. that's all they're asking for. to earn their way into legal status in america. madam president, it's almost 13 years now since i introduced the dream act. the dream act, i've described earlier, gives people who -- young people brought to the united states at an early age

who had no voice in what their families were going to do to come to this country and eventually find their way to legal status. at one point, even the house republicans said they supported the so-called dream act. time and again we have faced filibusters stopping the dream act from passing in the senate but it was part of comprehensive immigration reform. this all started, this dream act all started with this young lady, teresa lee, korean, brought to the united states at the age of 2, group grew up in a poor family in chicago, and had an amazing musical talent, was accepted at the manhattan conservatory of music and the juilliard school of music and because she was undocumented had no place to go. her mother called hurt our office, her mother who incidentally worked night and day in a dry cleaning establishment in chicago and said what can we do? the law had no real answer other than to say to this then

18-year-old girl go back to where you came from for 10 years and try to come here legally. that was the law. i introduced the dream act, and since then we've seen a growth in support for this because it is only fair. you cannot, should not hold children responsible for the decisions and wrongdoing of their parents. these kids deserve a chance. that's what the president's executive action is about. that's why the action by the house republicans was so reprehensible. teresa lee incidentally made it. she went to the manhattan conservatory of music, ended up not only getting a bachelor's degree, not receiving any government assistance, she had friends and sponsors who stepped in to pay for it, she played in carnegie hall, she is now working on her ph.d. in music, she is not an -- now an american citizen by virtue of the fact she married this american jazz musician and they are living in new york and

recently had a baby. i couldn't be prouder of teresa lee and what she has done with her life. her dad has passed away, he had a serious medical illness that coon be treated adequately because he doesn't qualify for government health insurance and they didn't have the money to provide him the care that he needed. but teresa lee's story is one that inspires me every day to come this floor and mind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle these are real human beings we're talking about. these are not political pawns. these are young people who deserve a chance to become part of the future of america. sometime soon i hope very soon, maybe even this friday the president of the united states is going to announce his executive order. he is going to say as he did with daca, the deferred action program, he is going to give more undocumented in this country a chance. it will be a narrow category, not as broad as we'd like it, at least some of us would like it, but it will be consistent with what every president of the united states has done since

president eisenhower. it is fair, it is just, it recognizes our birthright as americans in a nation of immigrants and it says that we are willing to stand up and fight for fairness. i would hope, i would just hope that a few, a few republican will stand up and acknowledge this. i hope a few of them will join us in a bipartisan recognition that our broken immigration system cannot be fixed if the congress of the united states, particularly the republican house, refuses to even call the bill for a year and a half. instead, the president is using his authority and doing the best he can to make this nation of immigrants proud again that we are welcoming a new generation of people who will make us even stronger in the future. madam president, i yield the floor. before i yield the floor, madam president, i have seven unanimous consent asks for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. with the approval of the majority and minority leaders, i ask the consent be agreed to

and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the previous order be modified so the following nominations be added. following executive calendar number 1056, clement 966 and 967 with all other previous provisions remaining in effect. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the republican whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, i'm glad i got to the floor to listen to my friend the senator from illinois, the majority whip, his remarks. it reminds me of his great passion and commitment to the dreamers and to the cause of repairing our broken immigration system and while he and i differ on the details, and the feasibility of passing comprehensive immigration reform, we've been trying to do this for -- laboring with this for at least the 10 or 11 years

i've been here and we've been unsuccessful. so what does that tell you? it tells you we need to try something different. we need to break this down into smaller pieces and the house, speaker boehner, i know has made this pledge to the president and others, i know senator mcconnell, the incoming majority leader, believes that immigration reform is important and we ought to use our best efforts to make progress. but, unfortunately, the message the president of the united states has sent, he is giving up and to listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who support this unprecedented executive action by the president that's going to be announced on friday, they've given up. they've given up. what the senator from illinois didn't say is even under the president's deferred action order involving these young

people -- and, by the way, i support providing them an opportunity to become american citizens and productive members of society. i think we're all better off if these young people who are not culpable -- they didn't commit any offense or crime. they came with their parents. and we're much better off. they're much better off. their families are much better off. our country is better off if we find a solution, which i'm confident we could do but the message is that the president has given and our democratic friends have given, is we give up. we're not going to do our job as legislators. we're going to let the president with the stroke of a pen provide an executive amnesty to millions of people and create an awful lot of harm in the process. you know, the tragedy of this is, we are a nation of immigrants. and proud of it.

our rich, diverse heritage would not have been the same without the contribution of immigrants that have come from around the world. contributions that have become a very -- part of the very fabric of our lives and our society. millions of foreign-born immigrants who have come to the united states legally have become successful, patriotic citizens of the united states, and we have been the beneficiary because of the opportunities that our nation provides that nowhere else on earth provides, and that is the opportunity to pursue the american dream. but part of what makes the american dream possible is the rule of law. it's our constitution. it's not presidents getting frustrated with congress and issuing an executive order and defying the constitution,

ignoring his oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states. that undermines the american dream. so i -- i listened to my colleague and friend from illinois saying this is somehow about -- this is a question about are immigrants good for america or not? i stipulate they're good for america. as a matter of fact, my ancestors weren't born here. we all came from somewhere else. this is really at bottom whether the president, when he put his hand on the bible and he took a sacred oath to uphold and defend the constitution and the laws of the united states, whether he really meant it or whether he had his fingers crossed behind his back.

like many of my colleagues, i have had the privilege of participating in naturalization ceremonies all across my state where i have seen individuals from vietnam, from india, from mexico, from countries all around the world take the oath of allegiance to the united states of america. it's an inspiring and heart-warming occasion, and of course many of them have taken that oath while wearing the uniform of the united states military where they have served with honor and dignity as they await the approval of their citizenship. one of the first bills that i passed when i came to the senate was with teddy kennedy from massachusetts, the liberal lion of the senate. what we did is we passed a simple piece of legislation that expedited the process whereby immigrants who serve in the military can become american citizens. that was one of the first bills

that i was a part of that passed when i came to the senate. and of course these naturalization ceremonies represent a proud day, not just for these new americans but for all americans and for our nation as a whole where we welcome new citizens with open arms to this country to find a better life for themselves and their family and in the process for all of us. but the president has now threatened -- and he's the one who has made the threat. he said if you don't do it on my timetable, according to the terms i prefer, i'm going to do it myself. he said that time and time again, and there is no president who has abused the authority to issue executive orders more than the current occupant of the white house. all presidents have issued

executive orders since george washington, but no one has held congress and the constitution in such contempt that they feel like congress is irrelevant except when i need them to appropriate money or help them serve my purposes. but the president is going to take steps in the coming days that would send men and women like those i have mentioned who come playing by the rules, pursuing legal immigration to the united states, he's going to basically tell those folks get to the back of the line. we are the most generous country in the world when it comes to naturalization. almost a million people a year. but the president is going to tell the people who have been waiting patiently in line, playing by the rules, get in the back of the line. i'm going to put millions of people ahead of you in front of the line who have not played by the rules.

well, it's a sure way to send a message to the rest of the world that our country does not enforce its own laws, which is an essential part of who we are, where everybody from the humblest to the most exalted in our country are all bound by the same laws. whether you're president of the united states or whether you're one of these new americans who take an oath to uphold and defend the laws and the constitution of the united states. and i have to tell you, because i come from a big state that sees disproportionate negative consequences to illegal immigration, this is a sure way to continue to reward the criminal organizations that get rich on the status quo. you know, the 60,000 unaccompanied children that came from central america that were part of this humanitarian crisis we had last summer? well, they continue to come and

the criminal organizations that continue to profit from this money-making operation, they're continuing to get rich. and it encourages children to take a perilous journey for many of whom it ends in kidnapping, sexual assault or death to get to the u.s. border. and you know, the worst part of this is we just had a national election, as we do every two years. i have been here when my side of the aisle wins elections. we had a pretty good election. i have been here when we have lost, like in 2008, but that doesn't mean we can give up on our job, which is to legislate. and one of the saddest parts about what the president is going to do is he will poison the well and make it much, much harder if not impossible for us to do the sorts of things that a

bipartisan, bicameral commitment exists to do, which is to make serious progress on our broken immigration system. i'm not sure whether we will be able to do as much as i would like or as much as the senator from illinois would like to do, but we all know that the status quo is unacceptable, it's unacceptable. so the president seems intent on provoking a constitutional crisis by adopting policies that he previously said were illegal. he said he didn't have the authority to do it time and time and time again, and now he has totally done a flip-flop 180 degrees, saying i have discovered i now do have the authority. i was wrong when i said i didn't have the authority to do it. and he seems intent on exacerbating partisan polarization and weakening democratic accountability. we're the ones who are responsible for making these

decisions, and we are accountable to our electorate, to our voters, and unfortunately it's going to make it much harder for us to make necessary progress on a number of different matters next year. well, the president says we haven't acted on his timetable in a way that he prefers, so he is going to go it alone, but just think for a moment about the larger implications of that argument. every president in history has clashed with congress. that's part of what we do. that's what the separation of powers is all about. it forces us to build consensus as opposed to pursuing our own agendas. and that's important, that's essential. failing to get your way in congress doesn't mean the president can simply override the congress with the stroke of his pen. there is broad support for passing a series of commonsense

immigration reform bills. i know the speaker has said that publicly. the majority leader in the house, congressman mccarthy i believe believes that. i certainly do, and the incoming majority leader, senator mcconnell, has told me he does as well. but what there is no support for other than purely partisan support is what the president is proposing to do. so, in other words, if the president were willing to negotiate in good faith and, yes, you know when your proposal is i want everything i want or i want nothing, you frequently get nothing. you always get nothing because nobody gets everything they want, and it requires genuine compromise, and it requires hard work, and nothing sustainable or meaningful will ever be done in this place without bipartisan support. we have learned that lesson time and time again, but the

president seems absolutely allergic, allergic to good-faith negotiating and genuine compromise. in fact, i'm not even sure he likes the job he ran so hard to get elected to because that is part of his job, is to work with congress in a bipartisan way to achieve genuine consensus and compromise, where possible. well, he is claiming now apparently on friday in las vegas a right that no other president has claimed, and in fact he himself said he did not have time and time and time again, and i know the white house counsel's office is preparing a convoluted legal case to justify the president's actions. most americans will correctly view this as an abuse of power,

an abuse of power. earlier, i asked the president to think with the human costs of encouraging another massive wave of illegal immigration. my state is disproportionately affected, given our 1,200-mile common border with mexico. and it's not just people coming from mexico. it's coming from central america and around the world. but i urged him to think about all of the men and women and children from guatemala, from honduras and el salvador who have suffered terrible violence and indeed some death during their long journey through mexico from central america, and i urged him to think again about whether what he is doing inadvertently rewards and helps fund the criminal organizations that are creating such havoc in mexico and in parts of central america.

well, i can only hope the president will reconsider. certainly, i'm not optimistic because now the white house is leaking press reports about this announcement on friday, but i believe his unilateral action, which is unconstitutional and illegal, will deeply harm our prospects for immigration reform. it will be deeply harmful to our nation's tradition of the rule of law and deeply harmful to the future of our democracy. many democrats believe, as i do, that this is a mistake. the president should heed their advice, stop making threats and respect the constitution. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: madam president, i rise today to call the senate's attention to one of the most

important economic issues before us, and that is the issue of net neutrality. we face a pivotal moment in the fight to preserve an open and fair internet. last week, the president called on the f.c.c. to protect the bedrock principle of net neutrality, and a strong, open internet is one of the best ways to protect the innovation that supports millions of american jobs. it's one of the best ways to protect the competitiveness of the digital economy. right now, the f.c.c. is working on formulating ways to protect a robust internet. we know the f.c.c. received over four million comments on the issue of net neutrality, and it registered many concerns by the public in making sure that we protect what has been a great resource for them. they have spoken. they want to protect innovation, and they want to protect a free internet. consumers should know for a fact that their internet service is being held to the same standards as everyone else, but we know now that there are concerns about the concentration of

players in the cable and large teleco market as it continues to develop. maybe two providers will control 85% of the provider market, which raises concerns to many consumers. so today i'm calling on the f.c.c. to take forceful action that adapts and adopts the strongest rules possible to provide maximum protection for consumers, maximum flexibility to promote the internet economy. i encourage the f.c.c. to adopt robust and durable rules to prevent blocking, throttling and to safeguard transparency for consumers. these rules should apply both to the wired and wireless broadband networks so that your web browser, your personal computer, your apps on your phone all are treated in the same way. this important policy will provide certainty to the business and start-up communities the same way as it will to the fortune 500 companies. in other words, we will treat an

entrepreneur that started their company in a garage the same way as we treat a big multinational corporation. we need to send a clear message we do not want artificial toll lanes on the innovation economy of the future. it is my hope that the f.c.c. arrives at a conclusion next year and issues these rules. the internet has been an engine for unprecedented economic growth for our country. today the tech sector represents 3.9 million jobs, according to pew research, and it is continuing to grow. it really does represent the american entrepreneurial spirit. yew tube was launched in a dorm room, amazon when jeff bazos has become a juggernaut in downtown seattle for growth and development. these companies might have started in the garage but they are supporting thousands of jobs across our country.

so today we want to make sure that the internet is not under attack by those who would prefer a pay for play system. the biggest telecom companies are trying to write the rules of the road that would crowd out some of these opportunities for unique entrepreneurs to continue to grow the applications economy of the future. that's why we can't allow internet service providers to set up fast lanes for those who can pay and slow lanes for those who can't. our innovation economy depends on equal access for ideas. between 2007 and 2012, development of applications for smart phones, tablets created over 466,000 high-tech jobs and generated more than $20 billion in annual revenue. so a tiered internet system would put all of that at risk. it would allow internet service providors cut back room deals to determine what information america can access on line. we live in an economy based on

speed, and a tiered internet system would give the power to set speed limits to those on the internet or those few internet service providers and what they wanted to do. this has a major ripple effect. imagine your doctor examining a patient via telemedicine or a student trying to access a report through a university server. all of this put at challenge by whether they have fast access or not. as an editorial in the seattle times said -- quote -- "america's democracy is in trouble when information is throttled or control controlled by a few. the f.c.c. must reverse their shameful trend" -- end quote. so what they're really trying to say is creating additional barriers is tantamount in my mind to creating a tax on the internet. a tiered internet provider would have the reins of control and it

means that individual users could be challenged. strong net neutrality rules will help maintain the same internet that we have today, and this is why the f.c.c. should act. across the country, innovators innovators, entrepreneurs are experimenting with different content creation and they rely on this open internet to pursue those new business models. nearly every start-up relies on understanding their product can reach any user connected to the internet. so allowing internet service providers to erect toll lanes would threaten the fundamental nature of the internet and every business plan of every start-up that relies on consumers' ability for equal access to content. we must do better than what has been done so far and i encourage this body to make sure that we, too, are going to stand up and protect the american spirit of entrepreneurship by making sure that net neutrality is the law

of the land. i thank the president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, madam president. i am here now for the i guess 80th time in my weekly series of speeches about carbon pollution to ask the senate and congress to wake up to the growing threat from climate change, and today i am also announcing the introduction of the american opportunity carbon fee act. carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is changing the atmosphere and the oceans. we see it everywhere. we see it in storm damaged homes and flooded cities. we see it in drought-stricken

farms and raging wildfires. we see it in fish disappearing from warming and acidifying waters. we see it in shifting habitats and migrating contagions. -- contain uns. all of these things we see carry costs. real economic dollars and cents costs. to homeowners, to business owners and to taxpayers. that cost is described as the social cost of carbon. it's the damage that people and communities suffer from carbon pollution and climate change. none of those costs from carbon pollution are factored into the price of the coal or the oil or the natural gas that releases

this carbon. the fossil fuel companies that sell and burn those products have taken those costs and offloaded them onto society, onto the rest of us. that's just not fair. if you rake your lawn, you don't get to dump all the leaves over your neighbor's fence and leave him or her the problem of cleaning up your leaves. if you're located on a river, you don't get to dump your garbage in the river and leave it to the downstream property owners to clean up your mess. met yet the big carbon polluters transfer the cost, all those costs of climate change, onto everyone else, all the rest of us. the u.s. government has done some estimating about what that social cost of carbon pollution is. and their estimate is that it's around $40 per ton of carbon

dioxide emitted. and that that amount rises over time as carbon pollution creates more and more harm and havoc. so a climbing $40 per ton is the cost, the current effective price on carbon pollution is zero. by making their carbon pollution free, we subsidize fossil fuel companies to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars annually. by making their carbon pollution free, we actually rig the game, giving polluters an unfair advantage over newer and cleaner technologies. it's a racket. it's a form of cheating. and corporate polluters love it because it gives them advantage. and they fight tooth and nail to protect it in this body. but it's wrong.

as university of chicago economics professor michael greenstone recently explained, this concept that offloading social costs is wrong and that there should be a proper price of carbon is very widely accepted. here's what he said. the media always reports that there's near consensus among scientists about the fact that human activity impact climate change. what does not receive as much attention is that there's even greater consensus among economists. starting from milton friedman and moving into the most left-wing economists could you find, that the obvious correct public policy solution to this is to put a price on carbon. it's not controversial. end quote. and i'd add and ask that it be

added as an exhibit in the record, at the conclusion of my remarks --. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: that the economics editor of "the economist" magazines which is certainly no hotbed of left-wing sentiment, ryan avant, has posted a comment on climate policy and his question is, do all economists favor a carbon tax? he says the economic solution is to tax the externality so the social cost of carbon is reflected in the individual consumer's decision. the carbon tax, he says, is an elegant solution to a complicated problem. so today i'm introducing this bill to put a price on carbon emissions. it's simple. it will require the polluters to

pay a per-not to fee for -- per-ton fee for their conclusion and all of the revenue venerated will go back to the american people. i want to thank senator bryan schatz of hawaii for cosponsoring this measure. he has been a great colleague on environmental issues, and on our discussion regarding climate change. the bill that we introduce today establishes an economywide fee on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, tracking that social cost of carbon, starting at $42 per ton and going up by 2% per year plus inflation. we know how much carbon dioxide dioxide, each unit of coal, oil and natural gas produces. so we assess the fee on fossil fuel producers, processers and

importers. that makes it simple to administer. the whole bill is only 29 pages long. for other varieties of greenhouse gases and nonfossil fuel sources of co2 we assess our fee only on the very largest emitters. those emitting more than 25,000 tons a year. this is the same universe of companies that we already require to monitor and report on their carbon emissions. a significant greenhouse gas concern is the methane that escapes throughout production and distribute. to address this we require annual reports on methane leakage and direct the treasury secretary to adjust the fees on fossil fuels to account for that leakage. this fee will promote innovation

and help further reduce carbon emissions. fossil fuel companies that capture and sequester or use carbon dioxide or innovate new ways to encapsulateed in materials or products, they'll get credits to offset the carbon fee. we also take care to ensure that american manufacturers are not put at a competitive disadvantage globally. imports from nations that don't price emissions will face a tariff that the treasury secretary is authorized to impose at the border. likewise, the secretary is authorized to rebate american producers on their exports. i would note one thing. since regulation is usually a response to market failure, a well-designed carbon fee would

also properly open a conversation about which and indeed whether carbon regulations are still needed. a carbon fee by itself is much more efficient and predictable than complex regulations. and i'm open to that conversation. that's it. it's that simple. make the polluters pay the full costs of their products, end the cheating, level the playing field for other forms of energy like wind and solar to compete fairly, keep the fee mechanism simple, maintain a border adjustment that keeps american goods competitive. 29 pages. on the flip side, the carbon fee will generate significant new federal revenue. the technicians are still working on the official revenue

estimate for the bill, but it should be at least $1.5 trillion and perhaps more than $2 trillion over the ten-year budget periods that we work with in congress and on the budget committee. whatever the exact number is, all of it -- all of it -- should be returned to the american people. so the bill establishes an american opportunity trust fund to hold the revenue and return it to the american people. this could include through tax cuts, through student loan debt relief, through increased social security benefits for seniors, through transition assistance to workers in fossil fuel industries, or even to just a direct dividend back to the american family. so i'm looking forward to deciding with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle what is

the best way to return this revenue. but i do believe every dollar should go back to the american people in some form, to use economic jargon, this should be revenue neutral. here's one example to consider, just a hypothetical. what could we do? we'll welk we could cut the corporate tax rate in america from 35% to 30%. that has been a bipartisan goal for a long time. it was part of president romney's campaign. we can accomplish it with this measure. we would have enough money left to go to the payroll tax, and for every worker, rebate the first $500 that they paid in payroll tax so that every american worker who paid more than $500 in payroll tax would get a $500 check that they would have to spend on whatever they wanted.

that -- the first tax reduction at the corporate level uses about $600 billion to offset. this uses about $700 billion to offset. and third, we could add to that a boost to the eitc, the earned income fax credit which supports lots of american families at the very low end of the economic spectrum. we could could that by literally hundreds of gorls a year for millions -- hundreds of dollars a year for millions of lower income families. and again, there has been bipartisan support for expanding the earned income tax credit. so three important goals, all reducing taxes or adding to a tax credit, all should have strong bipartisan support. the american opportunity carbon fee act has revenue that could make our companies more

competitive, that would give every single worker a tax rebate and could boost benefits for struggling low-income families. last month, the "des moines register" ran a column titled "carbon tax would help iowa, the planet." the column said this -- "the united states could take the lead by acting on its own, watch its economy grow and let the rest of the world catch up. in the process, the column continued, the united states would gain mastery of the sustainable energy technology that will drive economic growth in the future. i ask unanimous consent that a copy of that column be put into the record at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: george w. bush's treasury secretary hank paulson gave the same message earlier

this year, saying a tax on carbon emissions will unleash a wave of innovation to develop technologies, lower the costs of clean energy and create jobs as we and other nations develop new energy products and infrastructure, end quote. george bush's treasury secretary. and emphasizing that, coincidentally, is an article in today's "new york times" headed -- "a carbon tax could bolster green entering." as we all know, green energy jobs are exploding in this country, and we need more of them. treasury secretary paulson continued -- "republicans must not shrink from this issue. risk management is a conservative principle." and secretary paulson is not alone. conservative figures like george shultz, secretary of state under president reagan, emphatically support a carbon fee as the best way to address carbon pollution.

art laffer, one of the architects of president reagan's economic plan, had this to say about a carbon tax and related payroll tax cut. quote -- "i think that would be very good for the economy, and as an adjunct, it would also reduce carbon emissions into the environment." in a 2013 "new york times" op-ed, which i ask unanimous consent be added as an exhibit at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection, and the senator's time has expired. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent for a further five minutes to conclude my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i appreciate it. political rubbingalshouse, christie todd whitman, lee thomas and lee riley wrote in this article -- "a market-based approach like a carbon tax would be the best path to reducing greenhouse emissions. i know the big carbon polluters want this issue ignored. i know that. they want to squeeze one more

quarter, one more year of public subsidy for their product from the rest of us. from their view, lunch is good when someone else is picking up the tab. but notwithstanding the power of the big carbon polluters, i still believe this is a problem we can solve. madam president, not long ago, this would have been a bipartisan bill. not long ago, leading voices on the republican side agreed with democrats that the dangers of climate change were real. not long ago, leading republican voices agreed that carbon emissions were the culprit. and it was not long ago that leading republican voices agreed that congress had a responsibility to act. one republican senator won his party's nomination for president on a solid climate change platform. other republican colleagues in the senate introduced, cosponsored or voted for

meaningful climate legislation in the past. some of the proposals were market-based, revenue-neutral solutions, aligned with republican free market values just like my bill today. the junior senator from arizona, a republican, was an original cosponsor of a carbon fee bill when he served in the house of representatives. that proposal introduced with former republican congressman bob inglis, would have placed a a $15 per ton fee on carbon pollution in 2010, more than $20 in 2015, and $100 in 2040. at the time, our colleague from arizona had this to say. if there is one economic axiom, it's that if you want less of something, then you tax it. clearly, it's in our interests to move away from carbon, end quote. we simply need conscientious republicans and democrats to work together in good faith on a

platform of fact and common sense. we know this can be done because it's being done. at the end of a speech about the american revolution, the historian david america cull owg was asked by -- historian david mccullough was asked by someone in the audience why our founding fathers had the courage to pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the cause of independence when signing the declaration was signing their own death warrant. he had a very simple answer. he said it was a courageous time. well, clearly in courageous times, americans have done far more than simply stand up to polluters to serve the interests of this great republic.

it only takes courage to make this a courageous time, too. i thank my colleague for allowing me the extra time, and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent to address the senate for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: thank you very much. madam president, agriculture is the lifeblood of my home state of kansas. it drives our economy, and more importantly it offers citizens a way of life that is unique in today's world. within that industry, i often encounter thoughtful, committed men and women who work every day to raise their families, run their businesses, serve their neighbors and provide a better future for the next generation. those quality are found in steve bachus, who for the past 17 years has served on the kansas

farm bureau board of directors and for the last 12 served as its president. kansas farm bureau is our state's largest general farm organization with nearly 105,000 members, and under steve's leadership, the organization has influenced policy and politics, promoted rural values and worked to show an increasingly urban population how food is produced and why technology is indispensable to feeding a hungry world. steve is a native kansan, a veteran, a husband, father of five and a grandfather. his fourth generation family farm in ottawa county produces wheat, corn, soybeans and occasionally a sunflower or a bit of grain. i met steve years ago when he was on the local farm bureau board and we grew to be friends over the years. he was always someone you could count on to give trustworthy advice and counsel. as agricultural issues repeatedly come to the forefront of debate in washington, d.c., from trade and energy to the

economy over regulation, the farm bill, steve has worked to make certain that the voices of kansas farmers and ranchers were heard in the nation's capital. steve's passion for improving the lives of kansans and advocating for the future of our rural state has always, always impressed me. his service on the kansas farm bill board was inspired by steve's deeply held belief that there is a better future ahead for kansas agriculture and for our state. he's always been selfless in his service, often taking the time to drive across all 105 kansas counties over the years to update members of farm bill on issues that impact their lives and the lives of their family members in rural kansas and across our state. k.f.b. members always knew where to find steve and felt comfortable seeking his help. in addition to his service as president of the kansas farm bill, steve has -- farm bureau, steve has led numerous

organizations including the farm bureau insurance company, whose board he currently chairs. he has led trade commissions, presented testimony to congress and state legislative committees and has championed the cause of agriculture for much of his adult life. steve embodies many traits we all could admire, including a deep love for the great state of kansas and gratitude for the many hardworking families who provide food, fuel and fiber that americans and the world rely on. these traits have earned steve the respect of his peers across the country. steve has been a true public servant to agriculture, and he did it for all the right reasons. not often do you find someone who has such good and clear intentions of service. kansas farmers and ranchers found that in steve bachus. they found it in spades. he is a tremendous role model for all of us who want to make a difference in the lives of others. steve, we congratulate you for your service and wish you and your wife patricia well in the

next chapter of your life as you retire as president of kansas farm bureau. madam president, last sunday, i was at a funeral service in manhattan, kansas, because kansas has lost one of its greatest philanthropists and education advocates, and that occurred when marianna kisler beach passed away on november 1, 2014. marianna and her late husband ross beach who passed away in 2010 were residents of my hometown of hayes, kansas, and for more than 60 years they lived there before moving to lawrence. this devoted couple was well known and well loved for their acts of service and kindness to others. because of these two, numerous kansans have been inspired through the arts and individuals with disabilities and their families have lived healthier, more productive lives. marianna was born on november 24, 1919, in lincoln, kansas, and marianna learned the

importance of empowerment through education at the young age from her parents. elmer and myrtle kisler moved their family from lincoln, including their 15-year-old daughter marianna, to manhattan, kansas, in 1934 in order to give their children the opportunity for a college education during the great depression. marianna graduated from manhattan high school and kansas state university where she was a member of phi beta phi, and mortar board. marianna married ross who she always called rossie. she married him in 1931 and they were devoted to each year for 69 years until his death in 2010. ross beach was a pioneer in banking, television, oil and gas and marianna was the support system behind all that success. ross was the president of kansas natural gas company and chairman of the board of douglas county bank. with marianna by his side, ross

created many economic opportunities for many, many kansans. but the beaches' business success was overshadowed by their generosity. marianna beach worked hard to make certain education in the arts remained a priority in kansas. she and her husband assisted with the production of the sternberg museum of natural history. she was a member of the mid america arts alliance, president of the hayes arts council and wrote a column for the hayes daily news for more than 20 years. for the beaches' 50th wedding anniversary, she convinced her husband to establish the marianna beach campus of art to ensure that art is accessible to all kansans. my wife and i have had the honor at their request to serve op the board of visitors of this art museum that bears their name. we are able to witness firsthand the positive consequences of the passion and commitment that ross and marianna had for culture and

for arts in our state. marianna's priorities were guided by her belief in the value of each individual which is illustrated by her lifelong commitment to supporting and uplifting individuals with special needs. supported by her husband, she worked tirelessly to maximize the potential of handicapped individuals serving on the president's committee on mental retardation from 1969-1975. she was also actively involved at the local level. she did everything personally. in fact, the beech center on disabilities at the university of kansas is named in her honor. the research done there focuses on disability policy, employment, family support, and early childhood services. the beaches' legacy of generosity will live on for generations to come. despite their stature in our community and state, marianna and ross treated every person they encounted with dignity. as a young couple, the first

invitation we receive was to come to their home for dinner. there was never a more gracious, caring couple than the beeches who wanted to make sure everyone was included. for a large portion of my life i joined ross and other professionals at lunch at the recount table. and while there was a lot of talk of sports and politics, i learned a lot about life by lightning to mr. beech. my friendship with ross beech opened doors for me in business and in politics but more importantly he gave me the confidence to realize this small town kansas kid could one day serve with my colleagues in the united states senate. while my family and i are saddened by the death of marianna beech we take comfort knowing the legacy of the beech family will endure far beyond our generation. while marianna and ross beech donated their talents and treasure, it is their caring nature and generous souls that i and many others will miss the

most. marianna was loved by all who knew her and certainly by her family and i extend my farther heartfelt sympathy to her daughters and her brother lee and sister janet and eight grandchildren and six great grandchildren. i know you loved your mother, grandmother, brother, and sister dearly, and she will be greatly missed. i hope you will find comfort in knowing she and ross are reunited in their heavenly home. we are told to whom much is given, much is expected and ross and marianna beech more than fulfilled expectations and i'm thankful to having had the fortune of knowing them both for 40 years. god bless them for their life together and let them be a role model for all. madam president, i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you very much, madam president,. young, madam president, there is a lot of talk here in washington and across our country right now about how to fix a very broken immigration system. and the message the american people sent this last month was very clear. i don't think anybody should miss it. they want us to work together and they want us to get things done for the country, to move things forward. and they know that we can still do big things when we put aside partisan politics and sit down together and work in the best interests of the country. i know that first hand because of the farm bill. it was not easy, it was complicated, there were regional differences, there were partisan differences, there were differences between the house and the senate, but we wanted to get it done, we stuck with it, we worked hard and in the end a lot of people working together made that

happen. so we know how to do that. we know how to do that in the senate on immigration as well because a whole different group of people across the yield sat down with very different ideas, how do we strengthen the border, how do we have a system that works for agriculture and business, how do we create a pathway of earning your citizenship into this country. people worked in a very complicated situation, they worked together, and ultimately after a lot of amendments and slogging it through on the floor just as we did on the farm bill, we achieved that. we achieved that. so we achieved that, 510 days ago. so 510 days ago we passed overwhelmingly -- i believe it was 68 votes -- a comprehensive

immigration reform bill and sent it to the house of representatives. 510 days ago. what has the republican house of representatives done with that comprehensive bipartisan bill that was sent to them 510 days ago? nothing. madam president, a great big zero. they have done nothing. they refuse to even have a vote on it. they refuse to suggest changes to the bill and work on the opportunity to bring their ideas to the table. they refuse to even debate the bill. why? amazingly, amazingly, it's because the speaker and the republicans in the house know that it would pass if they blot it up and the public looks at that and goes what, are you crazy? you don't want to bring up a bill because you know it would

get done, it actually would pass on a bipartisan vote? but that's exactly what is happening. and, in fact, that's how it's supposed to work. a tremendous amount of effort in this body by leaders on both sides of the aisle who should feel very proud of the work that was done, and it is sent to the house of representatives, 510 days ago, and nothing is done. zero is done. so i have a very simple message for speaker boehner. let the house vote. let the house vote. the time is now. the time is now to solve this problem. and it can be solved today if people want to do that. house republicans still have an

opportunity to show the american people that they can be trusted to do the work that people sent them to do. they sent all of us to do. and they can do it today. they can do it tomorrow. they can get this done before thanksgiving. everyone knows that the bipartisan senate immigration bill would pass right now with both democrats and republicans supporting it. if speaker boehner would simply let the house vote. as we here in the senate showed over a year ago, people on both sides of the aisle want to fix this broken system that hurts families, workers, businesses, farmers. i could tell you story after story of crops being left in the field because of a broken immigration system and the lack

of workers. this is an urgent problem, and the time to act is now. if our republican colleagues in the house don't want president obama to use his authority to help fix the broken immigration system, just as every president, by the way, since eisenhower, including presidents reagan and george h.w. bush have done -- all they have to do, all they have to do is simply vote, just have a vote. we don't have to have this back-and-forth about how two do we work together on appropriations, get other things done that desperately need to get done, just vote. it is in their hands. we cannot afford to wait another 510 days to begin to address this urgent problem. which is why if the house will not act, the president has no choice but to act. but the good news that we don't

have to wait. the american people didn't send us here to talk about impeachment or shutting the government down again. they sent us here to get things done. they sent us here to create opportunities for them to work hard and get into the middle class or stay in the middle class. which is harder and harder to do every day. so, madam president, i would say to speaker boehner, let the house vote. let's get the bipartisan immigration bill on the president's desk today. this isn't about the president waiving a red flag in front of a bull, by the way, which is, frankly, a lot of bull. this is about waving the bill in front of the house of representatives. yoo-hoo, mr. speaker, you have a bill. you you have a bill. it passed with 68 votes in the senate. it will pass in the house of

representatives. it will avoid what you say is going to be a big fight and legal challenges. just vote. it's that simple. let's show the american people that we can put aside our differences, we can work together and do what's best for the country. it's as simple as having a vote. thank you, madam president.

mr. donnelly: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. donnelly: madam president, thank you. this is a speech i'd hoped to

never give. and one i give with an uncredibly heavy heart. i want to speak about a young man from my home state of indiana. abdul rackman kasid known to many as peter or pete. he was a hoosier, a son of indiana and we could not feel more proud of him or lucky that he was one of us. abdul rachman was a son of the united states who served our country and also served the world. he was a man of peace and healing and caring. abdul rachman was with us for 26 years and what he gave us during his life is so much greater and so much more important than how he died. the intensity and focus and desire to make a difference was

the hallmark of peter's life and it stands in stark contrast to the cruelty and disdain for human life of the isil territories who took peter from us. every one of us is heart broken for his parents, paula and ed, who have lost their son in the most nightmarish of circumstances, and who have been the most extraordinary people during this whole situation. the record mourns the loss of abdul rahman along with us. his life is one to be admired. as one of his teachers wrote to his parents, peter's life is evidence that he has been right all along. one person can make a difference. while we mourn the loss of our

fellow hoosier and american, we are rightfully angry about his murder, and we hunger for justice, but we are challenged to face the fact that there are others still being held by these terrorists, and we must work for and pray for them who continue to be -- who continue to be held against their will. but today, i want to talk about abdul-rahman, peter. i know his wonderful parents, paul and annette. extraordinary people. i wasn't lucky enough to meet peter before he headed over to syria to help provide emergency medical care this. however, through his folks, through these many months, i feel like i have gotten to know

his spirit, through his words, through his actions and the many stories from those who loved him. some stories can be told, some stories can't be told, but he is an extraordinary young man in every way. this was a selfless, courageous young man with a big heart who saw suffering and who wanted to help and who ultimately laid down his life in service to others. if you look at these pictures, this is peter at the ambulance that he worked on as an emergency medical technician, and all he did was try to make other people's lives better, helping them with injuries and withnds, and you will hear when his organization ran out of money, he took his own money out of his own pocket to buy

bandages, to buy equipment, to buy gas for the van. that's the kind of guy he was. he was a son of indiana, growing up near broad ripple as the only child of paula and ed. he graduated from indianapolis north central high school, spending his high school days just like many kids in wisconsin do, your home state, madam president, running cross country and track and playing his guitar. he then served in the united states army with a brief time in iraq before being honorably discharged and enrolling in hanover college back home in indiana. abdul-rahman was described as an intense young man who was always ready to help his friends in need. one classmate from hanover said you could tell from the moment

you met pete, you knew he was a man destined for great things. abdul-rahman left hanover in 2009 for training and then certification as an emergency medical technician followed by attending butler university. it was during his time as a student at butler that pete traveled over to beirut during spring break in 2012. a lot of kids were heading to florida and texas and the bahamas over spring break. pete went to beirut to try to help people. he saw firsthand the refugee crisis stemming from the syrian civil war. he decided to stay there. i want to read some of what he wrote to his family at the time and friends about that decision he made. and these are peter's words.

"i do not know how much every day that i am here -- or i do not know much. every day that i am here, i have more questions and less answers. what i do know is i have a chance to do something here, to make a stand, to make a difference. yesterday, my life was laid out on a table in front of me. with only hours left before my scheduled flight back home to the united states, i watched people dying right in front of me. i had seen it before and i had walked away before. i am staying in this region indefinitely. i am formally requesting that i be withdrawn from my coarses for the remainder of the semester. i have had the conversation with my parents, and it was the easiest one we ever had.

they knew from the sound of my voice i have never been freer, more alive, happier or better received than in this place. there is too much work to be done here, too many people in need of immediate help. this decision isn't one that everyone would make. most people wouldn't, i guess, but those of you that know me understand this is what i was made to do. my whole life has led me to this point. in may of 2012, abdul-rahman moved to lebanon to work as a volunteer emergency medical technician, serving in a hospital in the region there. by september 2012, abdul-rahman, in his young 20's, formed his own nongovernmental organization to even better help those in

need around him called the special emergency relief assistance or sera. in the summer of 2013, abdul-rahman moved sera's headquarters to turkey where the organization provided first response assistance to refugees fleeing the syrian civil war. sera provided food and medical supplies to the refugee camps on both sides of the border. sera also provided primary trauma care and first aid training to civilians in syria so others could also provide that same care. when fundraising wasn't going as well as needed, abdul-rahman donated his own money, giving not only his time and his talent but everything he had financially to keep it going and to assist those suffering around

him. he was working on a project for sera when he was detained on october 1, 2013. when he was detained, he was traveling in the back of an ambulance on his way to a town in eastern syria to help provide medical care. he was in the back of an ambulance when he was taken. peter showed incredible strength while in captivity, demonstrating his love for his parents while reflecting on the possibility he might not make it home. in a letter he wrote in captivity, received by his parents paula and ed, in early 2014, abdul-rahman wrote the following -- "it is still really hard to believe that all of this is happening.

as i am sure you know by now, things have been getting pretty intense. we have been held together, us foreigners, and now about half the people have gone home. i hope this all has a happy ending, but it may very well be coming down to the wire here. if, in fact, that's the case, then i figured it was time to say a few things that need to be said before i have to go. the first thing i want to say is thank you, both to you and to mom, for everything you have both done for me as parents, for everything you have taught me and shown me and experienced with me. i can't imagine the strength and the commitment it has taken to raise a son like me, but your love and your patience are the things i am so deeply grateful

for. secondly, i want you to know about things here and what i have been through straight from me so you don't have to wonder, you don't have to guess or imagine. often, it's worse than the reality. all in all, i'm okay. physically, i'm pretty underweight right now but i'm not starved and i have no physical injuries. i'm a tough kid and still young, so that helps. mentally, i'm pretty sure this is the hardest thing a person can go through. the stress and the fear are incredible, but i am coping the best i can. i'm not alone. i have friends. we laugh. we play chess. we play trivia to stay sharp. and we share stories and dreams of home and loved ones. i can be hard to deal with, you

know me, mom and dad. my mind is quick and my patience thinner than most, but all in all, i am holding my own. i cried a lot the first few months, but a little less now. i worry an awful lot about you and mom and my friends. they tell us you have abandoned us and don't care, but of course we know you're doing everything you can do and more. don't worry, dad. if i do go down, i won't go thinking anything but what i in to be true, that you and mom love me more than the moon and the stars. i am obviously pretty scared to die, but the hardest part is not knowing and wondering and hoping and wondering if i should even hope at all. i am very sad this all has happened, and for what all of you back home are going through.

if i do die, i figure at least you and i can seek refuge and comfort in knowing that i went out as a result of trying to alleviate suffering and helping those in need. in terms of my faith, i pray every day and i am not angry about my situation in that sense. i am in a dogmatically complicated situation here, but i am at peace with my belief. i wish this paper would go on forever and never run out and coy just keep talking to you, just know i'm with you, every stream, every lake, every field, every river, in the woods and in the hills, in all the places you showed me. i love you." if you look at the pictures, you can see peter and his mom in this picture, and you can see peter and his dad off fishing over in indiana. this is the story of

abdul-rahman kassig. nothing you have seen on tv in the past three or four days is the story of abdul-rahman kassig. this is. those are his parents. this is what he did. he devoted his life to others. a young man who was taken from us in the most barbaric way, yet whose life stands for all that is good in our world. abdul-rahman, peter, we will miss you, catching more fish than your dad ed when you go out fishing together, and then laughing with him and rubbing it in that you caught more than he did. best friends right there. we'll miss you giving your mom paula a big hug and telling your parents how much you love them. folks around the world and every american will miss you terribly, but we'll never forget how kind you were, the sick and injured people you cared for and the sick and injured people you made

well. everyone whose hearts you filled with love and with passion and laughter. this was a man. this was a man all hoosiers and everyone else are so proud of, who touched more people and helped more folks in his 26 years than most of us do in a lifetime. i will close with something paula kassig said on monday. our hearts are battered but they will mend. the world is broken but it will be healed in the end and good will prevail. abdul-rahman spent the last years of this life working for good, serving those in the greatest need, in the most dangerous of situations because his fellow citizens of the world needed him. he truly believed good would prevail. let us keep the kassigs and those who are still currently

being held against their will and their families in our prayers and thoughts. abdul-rahman, we have been humbled by your generosity and your love. may god bless you and may god bless the united states of america. i yield back, madam president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, today is our first full week back in session since the election two weeks ago. while we're not -- we haven't had the change of control here yet in the chamber -- it doesn't happen until next year -- senator republicans are setting out our priorities for the new congress and looking forward to getting to work. madam president, two weeks ago on election day, the american people spoke, sent a clear message to washington that they're tired of the status quo, tired of gridlock, tired of obstruction, and tired of washington wasting their money. they want change, and on

election day they asked republicans to make that happen. and so, madam president, republicans are humbled by the trust the american people have placed in us and we're not going to let them down. we look forward to setting a positive and a constructive agenda and getting the senate working again for the american people. for the past several years, senate democrat leadership has stifled debate, ignored the regular order of business and wasted the senate's time on partisan legislation that democrat leaders knew, knew could not pass. and that means that very little has been spent on american families' priorities. even many democrats have grown frustrated with the highly partisan direction the senate has taken under democrat leadership. republicans intend to chart a different course. starting in january, we'll ensure that the senate returns to the committee process and that the senate floor once again becomes a forum for debate and amendments and votes. i'm encouraged that this week a number of rank-and-file democrats abandoned their leadership and joined republicans to support

legislation to approve the keystone pipeline and the more than 42,000 jobs that it will create. republicans hope we can continue to have that kind of collaboration in the new congress. madam president, americans have had a rough time over the past several years. a weak economy, few jobs, high prices on everything from health care to electricity, and the list goes on and on. our first priority in the 114th congress will be enacting policies that will help create jobs and increase economic opportunity for american families. a good place to start is the dozens of house-passed jobs bills that have been gathering dust on the senate democrat leader's desk. many of these bills passed the house with bipartisan support. it's high time they get a vote in the senate so they can get on the president's desk. and we hope, madam president, that the president will work with us on priorities like

expanding trade to open new markets for american agriculture and manufacturing overseas. i have to say, madam president, i'm a little concerned that the president has indicated his intention of continuing to operate on his own. the american people made it clear on election day that they rejected his policies and i hope the president will take that message to heart and to rethink his plans to go it alone on important issues like immigration. finally, madam president, republicans will get to work on some of the big-ticket items that need to get done here in washington, things like reforming our tax code to make it simpler and fairer and to make us more competitive in the global marketplace. things like eliminating the hundreds of inefficient regulations that are driving up prices for american families and killing jobs. and things like conducting oversight of the executive branch to ensure that the cycle of abuses like the i.r.s. scandal and the veterans affairs scandal stops now. madam president, republicans understand the opportunity we've been given.

we don't intend to waste it. we're going to make washington work again. we're going to make government more efficient and effective and stop the waste of taxpayer dollars, and we're going to get our economy going again and put our nation on a path to growth and to shared prosperity. madam president, divided government has been historically a time when great things have been accomplished. go back to social security reform in 1983 when we had a republican president working with a democrat house, or tax reform in 1986 when we had a republican president working with a democrat house. or 1996 when you had a democrat president working with a republican congress on welfare reform. there are lots of examples throughout our history where divided government has led to big accomplishments and big results for the american people. madam president, i submit that we can do that again. the american people are counting

on us. republicans here are ready to roll up our sleeves and to get to work and we invite democrats and the president to join us. madam president, i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, this past saturday the open enrollment period for the obama health care law opened in terms of the health exchanges. people who bought health insurance through that healthcare.gov or through their state's exchange, they're finally allowed to see how much their insurance is going to cost next year. you know, things were pushed back beyond the election so people wouldn't be able to find out before the election what it was going to cost. so the obama administration had all this information for awhile but they intentionally kept it secret until after election day. well, now people get to see the prices and many people across the country are absolutely in shock the increased costs of the

health care law. millions of americans are learning that their health healh insurance is going to cost them a lot more. and, as a matter of fact, when the exchanges opened november 15, front-page "new york times times" - -- right above the fold -- "cost of coverage under care act set to increase." "cost of coverage under the care act set to increase." you read the article, it shows that the bay, on friday unveiled data -- the bay, on friday unveiled -- the obama administration on friday unveiled "substantial price increases next year, in some cases as much as 20%." "substantial price increases." 20%. now, for some people, it's going to be even higher than that. the "wall street journal" took a look at it and they had a large story with a picture on friday

and the headline is, "consumers still confused ahead of insurance sign-ups." the article talks about a man named bob sorey, who's a real estate salesperson in mount juliet, tennessee. he had a plan through blue cross/blue shield and he said his premiums are going up nearly 25% next year. told the newspaper, he said, "i just can't absorb this. president obama promised the american people that they would save" -- president's words -- they would save $2,500 per year slaic per family under his health care --/per family under his health care law. nancy pelosi went on meet the press at one point and said that everyone's rates would go down. everyone, she said. what does the president have to say now? what will he tell those people who've rates have continued to go up? what does he say to this real estate appropriation broker in o can't absorb a 25% increase?

it's not just in tennessee. in anchorage, alaska, a typical plan is going to cost 28% more next year. now, that's for the second cheapest silver plan, what they call the benchmark plan. in minneapolis, rates are going up almost 19%. and that's just for the premiums. for many people, their co-pays are going up, they deductibles are going up as well. in some parts of georgia, 70% of the plans sold on the exchange have deductibles of at least $2,500. now, how's that affordable for people? millions of americans paying more in premiums as well as more out of their pocket. millions of people like bob sorey, the real estate broker in tennessee, who, as he says, just can't absorb the cost. these skyrocketing premiums may explain why the president's health care law is more unpopular right now than ever before. according to the latest gallup

poll, only 37% of americans approve of the law. it was supposed to get more popular. that's what the democrats on this floor told the people across the country and told us. instead, the opposite has happened. people see how much their costs have increased because of the law. and many people are learning that having coverage under the law is not the same as having care. there is a difference between coverage and care. that's what the "usa today" found out. they had a front-page article last friday with the headline, "rural hospitals in critical condition." so not just the cost of coverage under the care act set to increase but rural hospitals are in critical condition. obamacare critics say loss speeding up demise of facilities, of rural hospitals. -- say law speeding up demise of facilities, of rural hospitals. that's the article. the article talks about a small hospital in georgia that had to

close this spring, the spring of last year, because of all the new burdens of the health care law. people in that town now have to travel many miles to get to another hospital in another town. one of those people was bill jones. he was a peanut and cotton farmer who lived about nine miles away from the old hospital. according to the article, bill suffered a heart attack about a month after the hospital had to close. an ambulance had to take him to another hospital in a town further awaymen away. i can tell you as a doctor who practiced medicine for 25 years, when someone has a heart attack, every minute counts. well, bill jones didn't survive his heart attack. maybe he wouldn't have survived a trip to a closer hospital. we won't know that. but the hospital is gone now and it's gone because of the president's health care law. for people living in rural states like georgia and my own state of wyoming, this is a terrifying prospect. now, the article says that since january of 20010 -- january of 2010, more than 40 rural hospitals have closed across the

country. now, there's a map of the country, of all the places where hospitals have closed. now, azekiel emanuel, who worked on the health care law, says that 40 hospitals? that's not enough. he's one of the architects, of course, of the president's health care law and he says that over the next six years, more than a thousand hospitals will close. more than a thousand. in more than a thousand american communities, people will be further away from medical care. now, that's precious lost time for people who have heart attacks or for women with high-risk pregnancies who are further from the help that they need to deliver a healthy baby. they may have coverage under the president's health care law but that's not the same as getting the care they need. and we're also seeing this for people who the law has pushed into medicaid, because medicaid, of course, which the president's

goal was to push more and more people into medicaid, that pays less for services than traditional insurance companies pay. a lot of doctors and other providers can't afford to take new medicaid patients. and there was a front-page story in the "wall street journal" last friday that says, "as more join medicaid, health systems feel strain." as more join medicaid -- the president's goal -- health systems feel the strain. the article says that about a third of all primary care physicians aren't taking new medicaid patients. one of them is dr. holly abernathy. she's a family physician in farmington, new mexico, and she says that she just can't afford to take any new patients under the program. shetsz -- quote -- she says -- quote -- "i would love to see every medicaid patient that comes through my door." she says, "if you give people coverage, they should be able to

utilize it." "if you give people coverage, they should be able to utilize it." premiums are going up, out-of-pocket costs are going up, hospitals are closing, doctors are having to turn away patients -- all because of the president's health care law. obamacare was too long, too complicated, too expensive and it took way too much from the people who liked the care and the coverage they had before the law was passed. that's why republicans are going to vote to repeal the entire health care law. meanwhile, we will also vote to strip away the worst and most destructive parts of the law. things like the employer mandate, the arbitrary 30-hour workweek. that has been devastating to part-time workers across the country. things like the unfair medical device tax that sends american jobs overseas and that threatens life-saving innovation. republicans are going to keep

fighting for americans who have been harmed by the president's health care law. we're going to keep offering the real solutions that people wanted all along -- access from the care they need to a doctor they choose at lower cost. that's what the american people are demanding and that's what they deserve, and it's what republicans are going to give them. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: madam president, i rise today to emphasize the importance of keeping our technology industry at the forefront of our global economy. america's made extraordinary strides in innovation. for decades, we have been the world's leader in developing new

technologies and advancing the internet age, but we are not the only nation in this hunt. across the globe and particularly in china and other parts of asia, our international competitors are working furiously to catch up. if the united states is to enjoy continued success in the technology arena, policymakers must ensure that we have a legal and regulatory landscape that will enable our innovators to thrive. as chairman of the senate republican high-tech task force, i have been producing with colleagues and stakeholders to develop an innovation agenda for the coming congress. today i would like to highlight several bipartisan initiatives that we should prioritize early next year to help ensure the continued success of our high-tech economy. first, congress must act to protect america's innovation and inventiveness. an essential part of fostering

innovation is protecting legitimate intellectual property rights. and particularly -- in particular, we must enact legislation to combat abusive patent litigation. patent trolls which are often shell companies which do not make or sell anything, are crippling innovation and growth across all sectors of our economy. it is estimated that abusive patent litigation costs our economy over $60 billion every year. with so much on the line, how can we afford not to act? yet the current senate did exactly that and ignored the real -- the very real opportunity that we had to follow the house of representatives and pass bipartisan legislation that would be supported by the white house. why would anyone walk away from the opportunity to enact pro-innovation policies that would do so much good for our

economy? it's no secret that trial lawyers and others told the current majority leader not to bring patent troll reform up for a vote. and we all know that when the trial lawyers say jump, the only answer for some of my democratic colleagues is how high? well, i am disappointed the senate failed to act during this congress, i intended to help ensure -- i intend to help ensure that we pass such legislation next year. fortunately, combating patent trolls is a priority for incoming senate judiciary committee chairman chuck grassley and house judiciary c.i.a. committee chairman bob goodlatte. i look forward to working with them and others who are committed to making long overdue reforms to our patent laws, including mandatory fee shifting, heightened pleading and discovery standards, demand letter reforms and a mechanism to enable recovery of thieves

against shell companies or those who are behind them. in addition, we must improve the quality of patents issued by the united states patent and trademark office. low quality patents are essential to a patent troll's business model. i am optimistic that we can reach agreement on how best to improve our patent process. we also need a high-functioning and well-funded uspto. a fully funded patent office would at the very least mean more than -- would mean more and better trained patent exercise, more complete libraries of prior art and greater access to modern information technologies to address the agency's growing needs. all of these. improvements would lead to higher quality patents that are granted more quickly. and the good news is we can make these changes at no cost to

taxpayers since the uspto is a fee-generating agency. now, there are some who argue that patent troll legislation is not necessary in light of the supreme court's decisions in the octane fitness and high mark cases. miss charlene mauro and brian lattey writing in the trademark and copyright journal confirmed that -- quote -- nothing in these cases addresses the proposed reforms to make the real parties in interest who are managing patent assertion entities responsible for fees and costs, unquote. something that i have worked on for quite a few months. as these experienced practitioners acknowledge, such legislation is essential to address fee collection concerns faced by defendants in present litigation, present patent litigation. one of the legislative approaches miss morrow and

mr. lattey proposed is to make bonding more readily available at an early stage of litigation. i could not agree more. we must make sure that those who defend against abusive patent litigation and are awarded fees will actually get paid. even when a patent structured as a shell company has no assets, there are other parties with an interest in the litigation. these parties are often intentionally beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. they stand to benefit if their plaintiff shell company forces a settlement and are protected from any liability if they lose. it's a win-win situation for them and a lose-lose situation for america's innovators. since we cannot force parties outside a court's jurisdiction to join in a case, we must incentivize those -- incentivize those interested parties to do the right thing. that's the whole purpose behind my recovery of award provision.

under this provision, those who are deemed interested parties may either voluntarily submit to the court's jurisdiction and become liable for any unsatisfied fees awarded in the case or they may opt out by renouncing any meaningful interest in the litigation. if interested parties stand aside and do nothing, the original plaintiff must post a bond to ensure that any shifted fees are paid. bottom line -- without such bonding measures, all defendants have is a toothless joinder provision that can be easily circumvented by bad actors with no intention of paying the court-award fees for their abusive lawsuits. i've said this before but it bears repeating. fee shifting without a recovery provision is like writing a check on an empty account. you are purporting to convey something that isn't there. only fee shifting coupled with this recovery provision will

stop patent trolls from litigating and dashing. the house has already demonstrated that members from both sides of the aisle can come together to craft and pass commonsense legislation to combat abusive patent lawsuits. president obama supports such efforts. it is past time that the senate does its part. we ought to get rid of this phony attitude of obeisance to the certainly injury lawyers and trial lawyers in this country. i'm determined to make such patent reform a priority early next year and to make sure we send the president a bill that he can sign into law for the good of the -- of all american innovation. madam president, in addition to patent troll legislation, there is strong bipartisan, bicameral support for creating a harmonized uniform federal

standard for protecting trade secrets. here in the senate, senator chris coons and i introduced a defend trade secrets act on april 29, 2014. in the house of representatives, representative george holding introduced a trade secrets protection act on july 29, 2014. through our collective efforts, we have shed light on an often overlooked form of intellectual property. trade secrets such as customer lists, formulas and manufacturing processes are an essential form of intellectual property, yet trade secrets are the -- the only form of u.s. intellectual property where misuse does not provide its owner with a federal private right of action. currently, trade secret owners must rely on state courts or federal prosecutors to protect their rights. the multistate procedural and jurisdictional issues that arise

in such cases are costly and complicated, and the department of justice lacks the resources to prosecute many such cases. these systemic issues put companies in a great -- at a great disadvantage since the victims of trade secret theft need to recover information quickly before it crosses state lines or leaves the country. unfortunately, in today's global information age, there are endless examples of how easy and rewarding it can be to steal trade secrets. while the maximum penalty for trade secrets theft is ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine, few of these thefts actually result in federal prosecutions, and while $250,000 may sound like a steep penalty, most stolen trade secrets amount to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in lost profits and sales. even when thefts are prosecuted,

victim companies rarely recover the full extent of their losses. we have made some progress in moving forward trade secret legislation. earlier this year, the senate judiciary committee on crime and terrorism held a hearing on the importance of creating a private right of action for secret theft, and the house judiciary committee reported its bill by voice vote on september 17, and although we did not get the bill across the finish line this congress, we are well positioned to move trade secret legislation early next year. it's past time to enable u.s. companies to protect their trad. madam president, another bipartisan initiative ready for congressional action relates to our privacy laws. i speak about the need to update the electronic communications privacy act or ecpa to require a warrant for all email content within the united states and to

safeguard data stored abroad from improper government access. enacted in 1986, ecpa prohibits communications service providers from intercepting or disclosing email, telephone conversations or data stored electronically unless such disclosure is authorized. virtually everyone agrees americans should enjoy the same online communications that they do in their off-line communications but congress has not adequately updated the law since its enactment resulting in disparate treatment. as currently written ecpa requires law enforcement to obtain a wearnt for e-mails that are -- a warrant for e-mails less than six months old but only a subpoena for electronic communications. think about about your e-mail account.

you might have hundreds of e-mails you received over many years. ecpa allowed law enforcement to access e-mail that has been opened with just a subpoena even though a search warrant would be required for a printoff for a communication on your desk. this should cause great concern to everyone who values personal privacy. to make matters more complicated, ecpa is silent on the privacy standard for accessing data stored abroad. storing digital information around the world, a practice that did not exist when ecpa became law is now routine. the federal government has taken advantage of this statutory silence to require its own standard requiring access to data abroad if the company storing it has a presence in the united states. for that reason alone, congress should amend the law. that is why together with senators chris coons and dean

heller, i introduced the law enforcement access to data stored abroad act. this act would require a warrant when the government demands customer communications from third party service providers. such a warrant would only apply to data stored in the united states unless the data is owned by a u.s. corporation, citizen or lawful permanent resident. to provide additional protections, the bill requires courts to modify or vacate such warrants if they would require the service provider to violate the laws of a foreign country. the practice of extending warrants extra territorial presents unique challenges for a number of industries which increasingly face a conflict between american law and the law of the country where the electronic data is stored. additionally if the u.s. expects to extend its warrants extraterritorial we should not be surprised if other countries

including china and russia seek to do the same for the e-mails of americans and others stored in this country. congress must ensure that law enforcement has the tools to execute search warrants where necessary and so long as officials comply with the laws of the foreign country where the electronic data is stored. the leads act also provides needed improvements to the mutual legal assistance treaty process which are formal agreements for ensuring evidence between the united states and foreign countries in international investigations. currently the mlat process is slow and unreliable, sometimes taking several months to access data held by foreign jurisdictions. the department of justice not only needs additional funds to hire more people to handle mlat requests but reforms to the underlying program are needed to improve transparency and efficiency.

the legislation recognizes through a sense of congress that data providers should not be subject to data localization requirements. such rimplets -- requirements -- the senator consumed ten minutes. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to finish my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: such requirements are incompatible with the border lessness nature of the internet. they are an i am -- impediments. it is times to update our online communications privacy laws. there is widespread consensus and real opportunity for bipartisan, bicameral reform of our outdated visa system for economically essential high skilled immigrants. our country has been unable to meet the demand for ever increasing workers trained in

the stem fields. as a result, some of our nation's top technology markets are in desperate need for qualified stem workers. we face a high-skilled worker shortage that has become a national crisis. in april for the second year in a row the federal government reached its current h-1b quota just five days -- five days -- after it began accepting applications. employers submitted 172,500 petitions for just 58,000 available visas meaning american companies were unable to hire nearly 90,000 high-skilled workers essential to help grow their domestic businesses, develop innovative technologies at home rather than abroad and compete internationally. this is one of the principal reasons why i together with senators amy klobuchar, marco rubio and chris coons introduced the bipartisan immigration innovation, or i squared act.

today the legislation has 26 bipartisan cosponsors. among other things the act provides a that you -- a thoughl framework that would increase the number of visas to attract highly skilled workers and innovators. the bill reforms fees on h-1b visas and employment based green cards to fund a grant state-based program to promote stem education and worker retraining. the i squared act addresses the immediate short term need to provide american employers with greater access to high skilled work erstwhile -- work erstwhile addressing the need of stem education. it will help us thriech and compete in today's economy. no doubt a concrete legislative session victory where there is already considerable consensus

would help build trust and goodwill among those who disagree sharply over other areas of immigration policy and it would mark a critical first step along the path to broader reform. i look forward to working with my senate colleagues in introducing i squared early next year. there is a lot we can agree on and much we can and much accomplished. looking ahead to the next congress, i intend to do everything in my power to enact protechnology, pro-innovation policies that will ensure the continued success of our high-tech economy. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: madam president, i rise today to voice my continued support for the enactment of the marketplace fairness act this year. there have been a number of editorials and letters and

e-mails and other things that have left out part of the story and have some of the other parts wrong. i'm not sure they have read the bill. but last year the senate passed this bill with a strong bipartisan vote of 69 members, and i believe that now is the time to get this issue done. i've been working on this sales tax fairness issue since joining the senate in 1997 because as a former state legislator and a mayor and a small business owner, i believe it's important to level the playing field for all retailers in store, catalog and online, so an outdated rule for sales tax collection does not adversely impact small business and main street retailers. in the last century the supreme court challenged us to solve this problem, and we've been working on it. and thanks to a suggestion by senator alexander we changed this to a states' rights one. the states have passed laws a long time ago that required the

collection of the sales tax, but if it isn't collected from out of state, then it has to be paid by the people from in state, and that creates even more confusion. and in fact most people don't even know about it. i do understand in wyoming we collect about $1.5 million by people voluntarily realizing what the law is now and paying it. right now thousands of local businesses are forced to do business at a competitive disadvantage, disadvantage of 5% to 10% because they have to collect sales and use taxes and remote sellers do not, which in some states can mean that 5% to 10% advantage, meaning people come in -- i talked with a fellow that had a camera store and a person came in. he was interested in this $2,000 camera and accessories. of course the store owner helped him to figure it all out and gave him instructions in it and the guy pulled out his iphone, clicked on the bar code and said

that he could get it cheaper. and of course the owner of the store wondered how much cheaper, and it happened to be just exactly the amount of sales tax. and he lost the sale, and i'm willing to bet that if the person has a problem with the camera he's going to come back to that store and ask for help with it. those people that have those small businesses hire locally. it's actually people from the community that are earning money that they can then spend in the community. they're paying a property tax and i'd be willing to bet that nont online companies -- none of the online companies, unless they are local are participating in the community the way those businesses are. additionally the sales taxes go directly to state and local governments which brings in the needed revenue for maintaining our schools, fixing our roads, supporting local law enforcement, fire departments and emergency management crews. an interesting part of that is the smaller town, the more important that is. in wyoming, the smaller towns really rely on their sales tax

to provide the police protection and the fire protection. and people in small towns in wyoming are kind of surprised to find that out but realize then that they really ought to be paying this sales tax. so the smaller the town, the bigger the impact. if congress fails to let states collect tax on remote sales this year, we're implicitly blessing a situation where states will be forced to maybe raise other taxes such as income or property taxes to offset the growing loss of sales tax revenue. do we want this to happen? there's another side to it too, and that's that some of the people, some of the governors and other entities have said, you know, if that passes, we'll reduce the tax tbhaws' a more -- reduce the tax because that's a more constant flow of dollars we can rely on than virtually he think else that we d now is the time for congress to complete action on this issue by

enacting marketplace fairness this year, and today we want to spend a few minutes debunking some of the myths and allegations that have been raised against the bill. first, some opponents argue that the bill is unfairly burdensome to online retailers by forcing them to comply with the various sales tax rates across the country. in response, i'd first note that marketplace fairness act includes a small-seller exemption, $1 million in remote sales each year. until they pass that $1 million mark in a given year they don't have to comply with this. if they do pass the $1 million mark, then marketplace fairness requires that the states provide the sellers with the software free of charge that can calculate the sales and use tax due on each transaction at the time the transaction is completed. it would also file the sales and use tax returns and be updated to reflect any rate changes.

all they have to know to be able to do this is the zip code and they're going to have to know the zip code if they're sending something somewhere. it's not that complicated a process. incidentally, some of the online companies opposing this sell the very same program. they make it available to a number of providers. and so it's already being used by retailers across the country to accurately collect and remit state and local sales and use taxes. in addition, opponents of the marketplace fairness act argue that our bill violates states' rights by setting tax rates. in fact, our bill does not change state law. it doesn't require states to do anything. the bill doesn't create new taxes or increase existing taxes. it simply gives the states the ability to collect the taxes, to enforce that our own sales and use tax laws. our bill is a states rights bill which is why the national governors association, the

national conference of state legislators, national association of counties and the national league of cities support the bill. wyoming passed this law in 1934, and it says if you buy something out of state and you don't pay sales tax on it, by the end of the month you have to fill out a form that they have and submit the money. most people don't realize that. they're coming to realize that. but it's much easier if the person collects it that sells the item. opponents of marketplace fairness also suggest it benefits big business at the expense of small online retailers. you do remember that i mentioned that $1 million exemption? you sell less than $1 million online, you're not subject to this. that's to give the small businesses a chance to grow into being big businesses and we hope that he do pass that $1 million threshold. in fact, a $2 million threshold, it would be nice. last year a small business administration study determined that the small seller exemption included in marketplace fairness

act would exempt 99.96% of all sellers in the bill's requirements. so it's just the big ones that fall into this. and opponents of marketplace fairness suggest that it creates a massive new tax requirement. the truth, mr. president -- madam president, is that the bill that passed the senate with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, more than two-thirds of the senate last year, does not create any new taxes. consumers already owe the sales and use taxes on the goods they purchased if they reside in a state that has a sales tax. whether those purchases are made over the foarntion by mail or over the internet. most consumers are unawear that they're required to pay this tax when the retailer does not collect it at the time of the purchase. marketplace fairness allows states to enforce existing state and local sales and use tax laws

and eliminates the competitive disadvantage for the small retailers in the state, and that's an advantage that's currently enjoyed by the remote retailers at the expense of those local businesses. additionally, madam president, the marketplace fairness act does not tax internet use. it does not tax internet use. it doesn't even tax internet services. for many years i've worked with all the interested parties to find a mutually agreeable legislative package to enact this. senators durbin, alexander -- i mentioned already that he inserted the states' rights approach to this. he reduced the bill from about 35 pages down to about nine pages -- and senator heitkamp, because she's been involved in the court system, as all of these things have progressed.

the and when the supreme court challenged us and realizes that there's some other things coming along that could greatly distress states if they don't take some action because of quhoortwhatthe courts could dovi worked with 26 of our senate completion to produce a bipartisan bill that helps sellers and states and local governments to simplify sales and use tax collection and administration. we're working with our house supporters including representative steve womack, jackie spear, peter welch and john conyers and have found common ground on this important issue that's supported by more than 200 groups. i want to publicly commend -- all of my senate and house colleagues in taking a leadership role and i strongly encourage my colleagues to support the goals of states' rights and a level playing field for all businesses and making sure that the revenue that's

owed particularly for small towns makes it to the small towns. by pushing for the enactment of the marketplace fairness act this year. and again i want to congratulate my colleague -- the presiding officer: the senator has consumed ten minutes. mr. enzi: thank you. i was just going to yield the floor to my colleague, who's done an outstanding job on this. i yield the floor. mr. alexander: thank you, madam president. senator enzi -- the presiding officer: the senator from ten tep. mr. alexander: thank you, madam president. senator enzi has been the leading proponent of the marketplace fairness act, and i urge -- i congratulate him for his persistence in recognizing the importance of it. i'd like to make three points in support of what he said. one, why conservatives support it; two, why it's easy to do -- that is, to comply with it; and, plea ithree is to ask the basic question, which is do you trust washington or do you trust your

governor and your state legislature to decide what your state taxes ought to be? do you trust washington or do you trust people closer to home? let me start with why conservatives support it. if i were to ask the question, what do the following people have in common -- and the following people would be al car dis, the most recent chairman of the american conservative union, the late william f. buckley, art laffer, who is president reagan's favorite economy -- he was called that; governor mike pence, the goafn of indiana, governor robert bentley, governor mitch daniels, governor jeb bush, what do they all have in common? they're republicans and conservatives. but the other thing you can say is they all support the marketplace fairness act or the principles that underlie it. why is that? because this is a 12-page bill, about two words, which is states' rights. if i'm the goafn o governor govf

tennessee, which i once was, and i'm sitting down there thinking, we've got a state sales tax in tennessee. let's say i am in my hometown, and i want to buy a television set, i can go down there to the local stores and they collect the state sales tax, which is nearly 10%, send it to the state. if i go online or into a catalog and order the same television set, the seller does not collect it. this bill is about allowing the state of tennessee to decide whether it wants to require the out-of-state sellers to do the same thing that in-state sellers do; whether it wants to prefer some distant seller over the local man or woman on main street, the mom and pop stores. that's the decision. and whatever decision they would maker the question is, do you think we should be deciding that for tennessee? our governor doesn't think soavment our lieutenant governor

doesn't think so. our legislature doesn't think so. they don't trust washington to make the decision. they trust themselves to make that decision. ohio doesn't think so. ohio has already taken a look at this and they said, we would prefer to collect our sales tax from everybody who owes it and rather than have everybody in ohio fill out a form every time they go online or order from a catalog, ohio wants to require the out-of-state sellers to do the same thing in-state sellers do, and that is to collect the tax when they sell it. and ohio has said that if they do that, they'll lower taxes. ohio has already passed a law and says if congress passes this law -- marketplace fairness -- the tax rate in ohio goes down, goes down. so, madam president, i'd like to offer to put into the record following my remarks a list of conservatives and republican governors who support e-fairness and why they do that. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: now, the second

thing, how complicated is this for somebody who might sell online? well, as senator enzi has said, it exempts 99% of all sellers online. so if you are saling on ebay today and you're worried about this bill, the chances are 99 out of 100 it is not you this bill affects. because it has a $1 million exemption. but even if it did affect you, how hard would it be to comply with the requirements? must not be too hard because you can also go on ebay, i'm assured, and you can purchase from ebay a little app that costs $15 or $20 and it'll do the work for you. in other words, if you are sealing something online and you're selling it to mayorville, tennessee, you can put that in, they're submit the tax. i go on the computer, type into google and put my zip code in

and get the weather. if you're selling online, unless you are saling more than $1 million it doesn't affect you at all. and if you need some help figure that out, you can for $15 or $20 get an app that figures out the tax for you. all we're asking -- we're not even saying that we think that if you sell online or if you sell by catalog that you ought to be made to collect the tax when you sell. we're just saying, we think states should make the decision about states' tax policy. that's the second -- that's the tenth amendment part of it. and thea's threads me to my -- understand that leads kne leadsy last point. the real issue is two words. you can make a lot of good conservative reasons why this bill attracted half the support of our congress drve our senate and passed with nearly 70 vote when it came up here and why it has so much support from governors and mayors of all political persuasions across the country.

but the bottom line is that all we propose to do is let states make decisions about their own tax policy. the supreme court one time 20 years ago said it was too complicated to do that. but they invited congress to create a way that was simple enough to do that. 20 years has gone by. software is easy. the internet has advanced. and so today it's very easy to do. and there's no reason in the world for washington, for united states senators to say, you know, i just flew up here from nashville today, took me an hour. that makes me a lot smarter than the gone of tennessee, so i'm going to decide for tennessee whether it can collect all the taxes that are already owed, already owed. i'm going to say -- i'm going to let the governor of tennessee make that decision. if i were the governor of tennessee, i'd collect it. and i might lower the taxes for everybody u because i don't think it's fair to say to shop

keepers in mayorville, tennessee, you have to collect the tax and send it to the state but to say to some seller who is in illinois or some seller in a catalog in minnesota, you don't have to collect the tax because that means our local businesses are being dealt with a in an unfair way. and i also don't think the tennesseans will appreciate if we don't act. the governor is going to want to collect the tasm sales tax. he's going to have to start auditing everybody. if you buy online, which almost everybody does today, you'd have to write down every single thing you bought, you'd have to put the tax down. you'd have to send it in under our law every month or two. that's a very difficult thing to do and most people don't do it. so the easy way to do this and the right way to do it is for congress to pass the marketplace fairness act, which is a 12-word

bill, about two words, "states' rights" and say to states, of course, you should make your own decision about how to collect your taxes and let them decide, as ohio decided, the state sales and use tanches which is already owed from everybody who owes it. and that the checkers of the tax will be anyone who sells into ohio or tennessee or wisconsin or wyoming. that's the fair thing to do. that's the right thing to do. that's the thipg that respects our -- that's the thing that respects our constitutional federalism, the tenth amendment to the constitution, and that shows that we in washington, d.c., aren't so arrogant to think that we should make those taxing decisions. i'll conclude by saying this: i just had the pleasure of going through a reelection campaign. about a third of the body here was in an election this year. i was trying to remember this

morning if one single person came up to me in the last two years and said, i just wish you would give washington more control over how tennessee collects its taxes. i don't think one single person said that to me. but i'll guarantee you that about every other person said to me, i wish you'd stop washington from telling us to do things or decide things that we should be deciding for ourselves. that's what this bill is about. this the bill empowers every state to make its own decision about how to collect its taxes. to do what ohio did, to do what other governors have said. we're going to collect it from everybody who already owes it and when we do, that state has said we're going to lower everyone's tax rate. that would be a pretty happy result. so we have two or three weeks left in the session. this senate has fully considered

it. the bill is in the house of representatives. i very much hope that the speaker and the members of the house will decide that it's time to pass the marketplace fairness act and recognize the principle of states' rights in the spirit of the tenth amendment of our constitution. i thank the president. i yield the floor. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i know there's a block of time for the majority that starts at 2:00, but i wanted to say while senator enzi and the senior senator from tennessee are on the floor how much i appreciate and admire their advocacy for marketplace fairness. it is so un-faimplet i g unfair. i go home to nevada. i see the little strip malls. one reason they're not operating and they're for lease is because people can go online and don't

have to pay the taxes that support the people in state of nevada. it is so wrong what's going on, and i can't imagine why we can't move this legislation forward. this has taken years -- years -- and it's so unfair. many, many businesses have gone bankrupt, out of business, as a result of not having a level playing field. so i think it's really unfortunate that we're having problems getting this done. i don't -- i do not understand the house, why they feel the way they do. i don't understand it. but they do, and i think it's unfair. and i don't think we're getting the support that we should from retail people. i think they have to talk to the members when they come home, talk to senators, of course, and there are people in town here that make lots of money representing these shopping centers and retail merchants,

get fade a lot of money to represent them -- get paid a lot of money to represent them here. i don't think they're doing a very good job if they can't convince members of the senate and house that this legislation should have been passed a long time ago. madam president, the hour of 2:00 is almost here and explain to me and the people watching what happens at 2:00. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 3:00 p.m. will be under the control of the majority. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: today marks the 510th day, as so well represented on the poster that the senator from -- [no audio]

mr. president, that's how long it's been since we passed the immigration reform bill, comprehensive immigration refo reform. the house of representatives simply has refused to address this issue. they've refused to address the fact that we have a broken immigration system that needs to be fixed. mr. president, all the speaker would have to do is bring this up for a vote and it would pass. the bill that passed here 510 days ago would pass the house overwhelmingly. but he refuses to bring it up. this bill that we passed 73 weeks ago we were able to pass comprehensive immigration reform because senate democrats and republicans recognized that our immigration laws are failing the american people. we sent that same bipartisan bill to the house 17 months ago and for the last 17 months,

house republicans, led by a small, vocal, really radical group has forced the speaker, i assume, not to do anything. they've neglected to tackle the real issues affecting our immigration system. so we've talked about 510 days. we've talked about 73 weeks. we've talked about 17 months. that's enough time for them to consider a bill that the senate considered and passed in just a few weeks. but they still refuse to do anything. even as families across the country are being ripped apart. and, mr. president, i've been present in meetings, meetings -- the last one i remember at the white house -- where the republican leaders, the house and the senate, said give us some time, give us some time. we've given them time. 510 days, to be exact.

and they're always talking about, let us do something. mr. president, "something's" not enough. they need to do comprehensive immigration reform and they've refused to do that. so in light of the fact that families are being ripped apar apart -- and there's no question they are. the first time i saw this, mr. president, where i really felt it in my heart, bill richardson, i served with in the house -- he was secretary of energy, ambassador to the united nations -- he came to las vegas and he said, let's go out to rafael rivera center. and it was at the time a new place named after the first non-indian to see the las vegas valley, rafael rah vair ravment i've got a paint -- rivera. i've got a painting in my office that depicts that. and we went to that center, and i can remember so clearly these

mostly women crying from the fact that their husbands were being -- they'd lost their jobs, they were being deported and they had little american boys and girls there with them, boys and girls who had been born in the united states. i thought, gee, that's just terrible. i mean, the suffering, the sadness. i've never forgotten that and that's one of the main reasons i've worked so hard on immigration reform. in light of the president's action and our action and our advocacy for this issue, it seems to me what the president said at the state of the union address is really applicable here. and here's what he said. if the republicans continue to do nothing, i'm going to be forced, as president of the united states, to do something by executive order. and i'm glad. i'm glad he's going to in the

next couple of days for sure to use his constitutionally established authority to fix as much of our broken immigration system is as possible. he told everybody he was going to do it in the state of the union and he's waited and waited and nothing's happened. some republicans are threatening to shut down the government -- they've done it once before so i guess we should take their threat seriously -- they want to shut down the government because of what the president said he's going to do and what he is going to do. but this isn't about, mr. president, republicans and president obama. this is about where republicans stand with the immigrant community. the immigrant community. my father-in-law, my wife's dad, is an immigrant. he was born in russia. he came to the united states to

escape the oppression in russia. so this is -- this whole issue's about how republicans stand with the immigrant community. the immigrant community is what has made this country what it is those who will come forward under this executive action that the president's going to take are, with rare exception, hardworking immigrant dads and moms who are supporting their families. they came to america for the same reasons early immigrants came to america, just like my father-in-law, earl gould. by the way, he change the his name when he -- he changed his name when he came to the united states. he came here at israel goldfarb, and he changed his name, as many immigrants have done. he came here and the people who are going to come here under this executive order to build a better life for themselves and

their families. they have deep ties in america. they work hard. as i've indicated, they have spouses and children. and our broken immigration system, there's no line for these people to get into, no process to sign up, no way to remedy their situation. they're in limbo. they're in the shadows. near darkness. president obama fortunately is going to do something to give them just that, a line to come forward, a line that he recognized and that must be done to get the system started. it doesn't end, can't give these people their green cards or put them on the path to citizenship immediately. only congress can and must finish the job by overhauling and rewriting the immigration laws. but i want to be clear, executive action is important but it's not a substitute for legislation. and the speaker should understand that. yes, we passed a bill.

the president would be happy to sign such a bill. but because republicans have refused to legislate, president obama is taking what steps he can to keep the families together and enforce the laws. the president is acting within his legal authority to use his executive power to improve the immigration system. did he just dream this up one night meeting with his staff? suddenly did somebody come to him and say, "i've got a great idea. why don't we try something different?" he's going to do something that's been done 39 times since dwight eisenhower was president. every president virtually since eisenhower was president has done executive actions as it relates to immigration. so i would also say to my republican friends who are always talking about, boy, we've got to do something that's important financially for the good of this country, why not

pass this bill? it would -- it would benefit our country to the tune of a trillion dollars. so i strongly support the steps the president's going to take to support -- and i support him. i hope he does it as soon as possible. his executive action will help keep families together and focus law enforcement resources on real criminals. we've waited a long time for house republicans. since they won't act, the president will and he should act. mr. schumer schumer: mr. presid? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to remind my colleagues that it's been over 500 days since the senate passed a strong bipartisan bill to fix our broken immigration system. now, there's a lot of hand wringing going on on the other side of the aisle about the president taking executive action, as he has now announced he intends to do. republicans are saying that anything and everything is on

the table to stop the president from taking executive action. well, if the bounds are anything and everything, i have a suggestion -- pass our bill. it's a very simple suggestion. if the house votes on our bipartisan bill, the discussion about executive action would be made moot. it is the other body of congress that has led us to the point we're at today. the only reason the administration has to take executive action is because the house has failed to address our broken immigration system. and i think everyone on our side agrees, it would be far preferable to pass the bipartisan bill that passed the senate 68-32 than any executive action. now, let me just say a few things. there's a -- the bill is a bipartisan bill with support from every corner of the political map. business, labor, evangelicals, catholics.

and it's been sitting on the shelf gathering dust for 500 days. so it's the absolute height of hypocrisy for house leadership to say that now congress should be in the driver's seat on immigration reform when they refuse to take the wheel. and let me say this, mr. president. i don't think anyone has any faith that if they were given another three months or six months or nine months, that they'd come to any kind of real bill. they can't. they've got the tea party. such a high percentage of their primary voters strongly arguing doing a bill. in fact, many of those tea party types are saying, shut down the government. the dithering and dawdling on the house side is particularly perplexing because our bill would achieve so many goals the republicans claim are part of their agenda. it would secure the border, create jobs and economic growth,

cut the deficit. the bipartisan bill that passed the senate provides more than $40 billion to secure our bord border. this would mean more than doubling the border patrol presence on our southwest border, completing the border fence, setting up much more surveillance technology, censors, drones, many of them that are so good they can detect -- these are the drones that surveil, not shoot -- they can detect the difference when a deer or a person crosses the border. they're not on the border now. yes, the border needs help. blocking or bill, not passing our bill keeps the status quo, which nobody likes. passing our bill solves the problem with a republicanna repn amendment, offered by the senator from tennessee, senator corker, the senator from north dakota, senator hoeven, that tightens up the border tougher than it's ever been.

the bipartisan bill also strengthened interior enforcement of our immigration laws. so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying everify, everify, everify. well, it's in the bill to crack down on unscriewp yus employers, requiring -- unscrupulous employers, requiring catching of people who overstay their visas. so that law enforcement have the tools they need to keep us safe. for america to remain competitive, we must have a legal immigration system that works. right now we have it backwards. we turn away people who would create jobs. our bipartisan bill will change all that for farm workers, tech firms, entrepreneurs and so many more while leveling the playing field for american workers. because of internal enforcement, when someone crosses the border and doesn't have a real job and has no family connection, they

can't stay. they won't get a job. so that many of our labor friends are far this friend. the construction trades, which probably suffer more from illegal immigration than any other, are strongly for our bi bill. the bill clears the employment and visa backlogs so that american businesses can have access to the workers they need and their families be united. the family decreases wait times at our bridges and ports of entry. it's great for the tourism industry, making it easier for foreign travelerrers to spend their dollars here rather than somewhere else. and a tough to but fair pathway to citizenship. the other side said it's amnesty. here listening to rush limbaugh -- amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. amnesty means you get away with it. but here's what you get if you cross your border illegally. you've got to pay back taxes. you have to keep working. three, you have to admit

wrongdoing. four, you have to pay a fine. five, you have to learn english. six, you have to go to the back of the line, which is what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have always asked for. this system was set up by none other than marco rubio in our gang of eight, and it says if somebody crosses the border illegally in 2008 but someone else has waited patiently at the embassy in 2007, the 2007 person gets to come into this country before the 2008 person. because of all this, here's what the bill does. first, it would grow the economy by 3.3% over the next 10 years and 5.5% over 20. no republican tax cut. no democratic spending program would have that effect. and without any cost to the deficit. in fact, at the same time we're growing our economy with this proposal -- this is c.b.o., not chuck schumer -- we reduce

the deficit by $150 billion in the next ten years and $900 billion over the next 20. a trillion in savings. as we benefit america. so the bill has unprecedented support. the u.s. chamber of commerce, the guardian of business interests, the afl-cio, the protector of american workers, the nate community, evangelicals, process property assistants, catholics, the liberal and conservative religious sectors are for our bill. the growers and american farm workers, law enforcement, the immigrant rights community. so the historic coalition came together because, again, this bill strengthens our borders and national security, provides an enormous boost for the american economy, fairly and conclusively addresses the status of people here illegally and prevents future waves of illegal immigration. when we got this bill passed we were almost certain the house

would pass it. it's a conservative bill. and try and try and try as they might, they couldn't. so now we're up at the last hours of this congress. there's one more chance. just put the bill on the floor, speaker boehner. you don't have to twist a single arm. it has the votes to pass. it will do america so much good. i love america. i want to see us stay number one in every way and economically above all. this bill will do it more than anything else we could do. and i'd say to my colleagues, don't be afraid of the tea party. they're afraid of the word amnesty even though the bill is not amnesty at all as i mentioned but rush limbaugh says amnesty incessanty, and i will my republican colleagues, i'm a political guy, will in some ways, they're afraid primary

voters that skew far right believe it's amnesty. the tea party may be a sliver of the american public but they're a huge percentage of primary voters in too many republican districts. and that's what they're afraid of. talk about courage, talk about loving the country, you talk about doing the right thing. got to pass the bill. the real republican party position on immigration is pre tend to be pro-immigration reform rhetorically but never allow immigration reform to come to a vote. that's the bad news. the good news is, there's still time to fix it and so i would urge my colleagues, avoid this conundrum. avoid your dilemma that have you created. pass the bill and we will not even have to debate executive

action. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i have come today to talk about one of the most important issues facing our nation as we have been hearing for the past 15 minutes, and that is our long-standing desperate need to finally fix our nation's broken immigration immigration system. you know, too often in the debate about immigration it's difficult for some people to understand that the millions of undocumented families in our country are already an important part of our communities. immigrants work hard and they pay their taxes. they send their children to american schools. and they make up a critical part of the fabric of our society. they are americans in all but name. so when we talk about immigration reform, we're not talking about some vague philosophical issue, this is an issue that impacts families, it

impacts our businesses, it impacts our national security, and really, it impacts what we stand for as americans. and it's not a new issue, either, it's something we've been debating and arguing about more than a decade but it's something we've never been able to tackle and that is not for the lack of trying as everyone remembers, more than 500 days ago now the senate did something remarkable. members from different backgrounds and different states and different parties came together to reach an agreement. and here in the senate we passed a real bipartisan coalition of 68 republicans and democrats, a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would finally start to fix our broken immigration system. as you heard from the senator from new york, it would improve our security, provide businesses with the certainty that they need, and provide a

real path to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants who are forced today to live in the shadows. not only was this a bill -- a step towards fixing our broken immigration system, it was good for our economy. the congressional budget office estimated that the senate bill would reduce the deficit by nearly $1 trillion over the next two decades. so we sent the bill to the house of representatives knowing the path forward there might not be easy but we've heard from members of the house on both sides of the aisle that they also knew immigration reform had to happen this congress. and, mr. president, back then in june of 2013, we knew we had time on our side. speaker boehner had a full year and a half to do one simple thing -- bring the bipartisan senate bill up for a vote. and we knew then what we still know today, that if the speaker

brought that bill up for a vote, it would pass with bipartisan support and become law. but instead of doing that, the speaker sided with the tea party and refused to move our country forward. he's made it very clear that the house will refuse to act this congress and ignore the historic opportunity we have. mr. president, for years and years millions of immigrant families who have played by the rules, paid their taxes, raised their children in the united states have waited and waited for action. they have organized, they have hoped and they have prayed. and they trusted that the system would eventually work. mr. president, the system has failed, so now it is time to act. president obama has made it clear that because the house refuses to act, because the house refuses to act, he will take administrative action before the end of the year to

support -- to improve our immigration system and i support his decision to do that. now, the president's authority to take action is well established. in fact, every president since eisenhower including presidents reagan and george h.w. bush have used their authority to improve the administration of our immigration system and to focus enforcement resources on serious criminals rather than on hardworking immigrants with deep roots in our communities. and when the president does act, i have encouraged him to do several things. expand the already successful implementation of deferred action for dreamers, to include people with strong ties to the united states who not have committed serious crimes. to change implementation of our laws to make immigration and border enforcement humane, nondiscriminatory and respectful of due process. and finally, i've asked the president to improve the legal

immigration system to keep immigrant families together to protect our workers and to provide employers from agriculture producers to high-tech firms certainty in a system that has often left them without answers. but, mr. president, i also want to be very clear that administrative action is not a long-term solution. plain and simple, the only way for us to permanently and effectively fix our broken immigration laws is through comprehensive immigration reform legislation. administrative action is a band-aid, but it is better than nothing, and nothing is what the house republicans are offering. so, mr. president, i also want to say it has been deeply disappointing to hear that some of my republican colleagues are now threatening to shut the government down just to keep families from getting some initial relief from the pain our

broken separation immigration system is causing. that is the latest example of extreme republicans creating uncertainty and threatening to hurt our economy if they don't get their way. and it is the exact opposite of the approach that congress needs to take going forward. we all know what happens when tea party republicans go down this road. saw it just last year when we had a 16-day government shutdown that brought the day-to-day workings of the government and businesses across the country to a screeching halt. that shutdown we all know was bad for our economy, it hurt workers' paychecks, it made families across our country question whether their elected officials could get anything done at all. and it was all because of a failed tea party political effort to repeal the affordable care act for the umpteenth time. look, even children understand that flipping the table over doesn't help you win the game.

it just means someone has to pick up the mess that you just made. and when it comes to tea party political tactics, we've done more than -- seen more than enough of that here in this congress. mr. president, as we all remember, the budget deal that i reached with chairman ryan wasn't perfect. i know chairman ryan would say the same thing. but it was an important step away from brinksmanship and towards bipartisanship on the budget. in the next week, republican leaders are going to have an point choice to make. they can choose bipartisanship and continue to push the tea party aside and work with democrats on issues like the budget and fixing our broken immigration system, or they can go back to tea party-style governing by crisis which hurts families and communities and our economy and will make it much more difficult to put in place the lasting, comprehensive immigration reform we need. i urge them to take the

bipartisan path. i'm ready and willing to work with them if they do. and i know my democratic colleagues are as well. and i know our country will be stronger for it now and for decades to come. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i want to thank my colleague from washington for her strong statement. makes so much sense. and we have this poster here of 510 days. that's how long ago the senate passed the bipartisan immigration bill that senator murray talked about and senator schumer talked about. that's 17 months. 510 days is 17 months. so here's the deal -- the republicans in the house refuse to take up the senate bill which strengthens the border while giving a pathway of legality to

hardworking immigrants here who are undocumented. pretty simple. a comprehensive, commonsense, and here's the thing -- they won't take up the bill. so then you say what's your idea? where's your bill? they don't have one. so then president obama, knowing we have 11 million undocumented immigrants living in america realizes that he can't let this matter go on, he's waited 100 days, 200 days, 300 days, 400 days, 500 days the country has waited, now 17 months, so the president is going to do what presidents are supposed to do, which is looking at a problem that's hurting the country and do your best to fix it.

the president has said to the house he'd be thrilled to sign the bipartisan immigration bill the senate passed. take it up and pass it. oh, no. you know what their answer is? to verbally threaten the president and, frankly, the american people by such comments as this is one that i heard mitch mcconnell say, the republican leader, if he does this, if he takes this action, if he takes action on immigration, it would be like waving a red flag in front of a bull. no, it wouldn't be. it would be a president who understands that action is needed and guess what -- 11 other presidents, republicans and democrats, have taken executive action on immigration.

i never in all my years ever heard one republican take to task any of those other presidents. and i'll give you the list of who they are. president eisenhower, kennedy, johnson, nixon, ford, carter, reagan, george bush sr., bill clinton, george w. bush, and president obama used his authority for the dreamers. now, my staff is holding up to show you how many actions have been taken. mr. president, we have these two -- we have these two charts here. these are a lot of executive actions by presidents. what's wrong with my republican

friends? do they not know history, or are they just blindly attacking this president because they are annoyed that he got re-elected? step up to the plate, smell the roses, look at the reality, and the reality is all these other presidents have taken action. look what the immigration council said, the american immigration council. "past republican presidents have not been shy to use the white house's power to retool immigration policy. in fact, obama could learn a lot from presidents reagan's and george h.w. bush's executive actions to preserve the unity of immigrant families and move past congressional refusal to enact immigration reform."

so earth to the republicans. you refuse to take up the bipartisan senate bill which strengthens our border while giving a legal path to citizenship or legality to our undocumented, making sure that those who commit crimes are deported. we look at what's happening in our ag community. fix that. mr. president, they won't do it. so they are stamping their foot and saying what president obama wants to do is unconstitutional. excuse me? unconstitutional? presidents reagan, bush, clinton, eisenhower, i read the list. they never said that before.

they never said that before. carter, kennedy, johnson, nixon, ford, clinton, bush sr., reagan, george w. and obama. now they say to the president -- and i don't have the exact quote. i will fix it in the record. we heard the one from the republican leader. don't -- don't -- what they are basically saying to the president is if you do your job, we're going to be mad. and what the president has said to them is please do yours. if you do your job, i won't have to take executive action. i would prefer to have this in legislation. senator murray said that's the preferable road. but they either won't do it or they don't want to do it or they want another confrontation with the president. so then i think it was john boehner, the republican speaker, who said if the president takes

this executive action, which as i have shown you many other presidents have done, he will burn his fingers. it was something -- something like that, wasn't it? he will poison the well, but he also used some figure about burning fingers. if somebody could check that out, i would really like to know. so is telling the president if the president does his job, my words, as 11 presidents have done, it will poison the well, and what are they going to do about it? who knows? are they going to try to impeach the president or sue the president? i guess they would have to impeach ten others. you know, do some kind of impeachment link, because all

the president is going to did -- and by the way, i wrote the president a letter and i asked him to take executive action, because in my view, not only is it absolutely necessary because if you follow the law, 11 million people could be deported. our neighbors, our friends. families would be split up. i thought republicans were the party of family values, family values. i have been lectured, family values. somehow if you support a woman's right to across -- choose and to get health care, you don't follow family values. but you can break up families and have parents and children separated, that i guess doesn't fall in the definition. so it's been 17 months since we passed our bill, and either they are too lazy to take it up or they don't want to take it up.

they would rather threaten this president. you know, i just have to tell them we have a congress, we have a court system and we have a president. we don't have president mcconnell. we don't have president boehner. we don't have president reid. we don't have president boxer. we have president obama. and he has to do his job. if you don't like it, that's fine. lord knows, i've served with five presidents. i didn't agree with them half the time. but i didn't threaten to shut down the government or impeach them or sue them. now, here's the deal. why can't they find time to take up our bill? they have voted 50 times to

repeal the affordable care act, 50 times. but they can't find time to debate or pass a bill to reform our nation's immigration laws. i served in the house for ten years. the rules of the house are easy. it's nothing like the senate where you need unanimous consent to do anything, to even open up the senate. there if the majority now the republicans want to bring the bill up, all they have to do is bring the bill up. they won't do it. 17 months. and then the president says oh, my god, we have got an issue here. everyone agrees we have 11 million undocumented immigrants here. we have issues at the border. we have issues at detention facilities. we have issues in the ag industry. we have issues of families being torn apart. i'm going to do what i can do. just as ten other presidents

did. and so what does he get as a response from our republican friends? not anything that would allay our c they don't say, mr. president, we understand your frustration. don't worry. we'll get a bill done. it may not be the same as the senate. we have other ideas. they will do nothing, they will do nothing. and they want our president to do nothing when it comes to immigration. and frankly, if our president terrible, terrible mistake.d be i have already established that he is within his rights, his constitutional rights, he would be joining ten other presidents, who by the way acted on 40 occasions over the last 60 years. so here's a group of republicans threatening to impeach the president, sue the president,

shut down the government over something that 11 presidents have done over the past 60 years on 40 occasions. i never, ever, ever heard one republican or democrat threaten to shut down the government when a president took action over immigration. the republicans won't act, so what do they think is going to happen? status quo? the status quo doesn't work. it's not working at the border. it's not working for our families. it's not working at the workplace. it's not working in our communities. you know, i was here when president reagan -- i was in the house -- signed into law a major immigration bill legalizing three million immigrants in

1986, and then the congress didn't do the next step. they didn't take the next step, so he took executive action to stop deportations that would interfere with family reunification. president reagan. i didn't hear one republican threaten to impeach the president, sue the president, take action, shut down the government, make life miserable for the american people. no. but they're doing it now. in 1990, president george herbert walker bush directed his attorney general to halt deportations of an estimated 190,000 salvadorans who were fleeing the civil war there. and he used his power to halt the deportation of up to 1.5 million spouses and children. i did not hear one republican, not one threaten to sue the

president, threaten to take him to court, threaten to impeach him, threaten to shut down the government and make life miserable for the american people. i'll tell you president bush's family fairness policy, the executive action he took was sweeping. it affected more than 40% of the undowmed population in the united states at the time. he thought big. george bush sr. he thought big. and this president should think big. and i'll tell you why. i'll tell you why. if you ask economic experts one of the best things that we can do for our economy, they are very clear on it. one thing they say we should do is raise the minimum wage. we democrats are trying to do that, and we'll never give up trying to do that. but another thing that they tell

us is that reforming our immigration system is one of the best things we can do for our economy and jobs. and it's all laid out in a u.s.c. study which show that immigration reform with a path to citizenship would inject -- and listen to this, mr. president -- $8 billion into my state's economy, just my state, california, each year. $8 billion each year. nationwide, it would increase our gross domestic product by $1.5 trillion over ten years, increase wages for workers and lead to between 750,000 and 900,000 new jobs, almost a million new jobs, according to the center for american progress. so help me out here,

republicans. what is your problem? you never complain when -- complained when republican presidents took executive action to fix a broken immigration system. you say you're for jobs in the economy and business, and if you look at the support for immigration reform, it runs right through our society, from the chambers of commerce to labor and everybody in between, and if we don't act, the dire situation of undocumented immigrants will only get worse. families will continue to be torn apart. people will continue to live in the shadows. the reason our economy will be thriving once people get out of the shadows is they're not afraid to come out, they're not afraid to buy a house, they're not afraid to spend money, they're not afraid to start new businesses, they're not afraid to hire workers. it's a no-brainer. this is one of the most

important things we can do for our economy, for jobs, for prosperity, for our communities. so in closing because i see my friend is here from connecticut and i want to yield the floor, there are two priorities that are at stake -- a healthy economy, and i have laid that out, and family values. now, the american people, including the people of california, support bold and compassionate action on immigration reform. we have already established the president has the legal authority to act, just as other presidents of both parties have in the past, and i say to the president today, as i have said to him in writing, if you act, you will have my strong support and you will have the support of so many people across this country. you will keep our families together.

you will strengthen our economy. you will make our country stronger. and i say to the house again today, while you're still here in washington, if you don't want the president to fill the void of your lack of action, take up and pass the senate bipartisan immigration bill. get to work. if you don't like that bill, pass a different bill. but take care of this problem. because if you continue to be a do-nothing house, a do-nothing house, when it comes to immigration, i can assure you this president is not going to follow your lead and be a do-nothing president when it comes to immigration. that would be terribly wrong. it would be wrong not only for our immigrant community but for every single one of us. and i would ask unanimous consent to have two articles placed in the record along with

another article in the national journal that details the number of times presidents have used their authority to act on immigration. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: and i want to say to my colleagues who have come to the floor this afternoon and are still to come, thank you for this, because i got to say, when i see the republicans stand up and threaten to close down this government because they're having a temper tantrum because they refuse to act on immigration and want to paralyze the presidency, i say it is time to get behind this president. it is time to get behind the american people. it is time to take a stand for this economy and for family values. and i thank you very much, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i am grateful for the strong and eloquent words of my colleague from california, senator boxer, and grateful really to so many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle for supporting the president as he considers executive action that would essentially enforce the law on immigration more rationally and effectively which is what prosecutorial discretion means. i know about prosecutorial discretion as a former federal u.s. attorney as well as the state attorney general of my own state for 20 years. and i know that in exercising his discretion that the president is aware that there is

simply no way that every person undocumented in the united states of america can be deported tomorrow let alone this year, probably ever. 11.5 million people live in the shadows undocumented, and the question is how to use the resources of the federal government most rationally and effectively to serve the public interest? and uphold the rule of law. the question is essentially how law enforcement should use its resources. that question arises every day in the united states, in federal prosecution, state and local law enforcement. it arises every day on our borders when the agents of our federal administrative law

enforcement apparatus make decisions about law enforcement, as i've learned from my experience in law enforcement, it best serves citizens when it uses those resources efficiently, effectively, humanely in a concerted effort to address direct threats to public safety. law enforcement has a job to do, and it can't do everything all the time everywhere. decisions are necessary in the real world, in practical circumstance to preserve public order and protect public safety. that is what the president is doing in issuing executive order which in effect directs federal resources to deport undocumented immigrants who represent a threat to this country by virtue of their criminal activity or

criminal background or other circumstances that justify that rational and selective approach to law enforcement. this approach is hardly novel. it is highly unoriginal. in fact, president obama's authority to direct how federal immigration resources will be marshaled in the service of protecting public safety is very much in the tradition and history of this office. every president since dwight eisenhower, whether democratic or republican, has done exactly what president obama is doing in this executive order. in 1990, president george h.w. bush took executive action to defer removal and grant work permits to roughly 1.5 million

undocumented individuals. nearly half the undocumented population at the time. think of it for a moment. three million people, president bush decided that 1.5 million of them should in effect not be prosecuted. he set law enforcement priorities. that was his job. that is president obama's job. now many of us -- and i'm very much in this camp -- would prefer to address this situation through legislation. and i worked hard along with the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee, but really members on both sides of the aisle of the judiciary committee and of this body, to approve legislation. it was resolved and written

through several days of detailed, painstaking markup. i'm told that's the way legislation used to be routinely done in this body. members trading ideas, exchanging views and perspectives, drilling down on facts, arriving at a bipartisan solution that eventually was approved by 68 members of this body from both sides of the aisle. that's a matter of history. and my hope was, and still is, that we have legislation along the lines of what was approved by the united states senate. now, that legislation was far from perfect. in my view, it was way short of the ideal immigration reform that i would favor.

but the good cannot be the enemy of the perfect. the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. and what we need now is a practical approach to this problem through legislation. the house refused to take up the senate bill, didn't even consider it, never voted on it. the president has a responsibility, and his job is to take actions that are within his legal authority to address a system that is broken and takes a toll on human lives that is intolerant. threatens to divide families, to put people out of work not just undocumented immigrants out of work, but citizens of this country because they work for businesses that are owned and operated by those immigrants who

might be deported. and i've seen that firsthand in connecticut, and i know it's true around the country. this measure is not only good for human lives, it's good for our economy. it's essential to make sure that our immigration system, a broken, failed system is at least repaired in the short term while we work toward legislation that is absolutely necessary to exree hen civil re -- to exree exree -- to comprehensively revise and reform that system. every dayed federal government fails to act on immigration reform people in this country are forced to live in fear, in anxiety and apprehension, that children suffer when they fear that they will lose their

parents and sibling. connecticut citizens live in fear of losing their neighbors and their employers, their congregants in church, members of their immediate and extended families. and millions of immigrants who have lived in this country for years -- 5, 10 years or longer -- people who are working hard, paying taxes, abiding by the law and contributing or giving back to their communities, they're forced to live in fear that they will have to live everything they have worked so hard to build, everything that means so much to them, their families, their homes, and the country that they have come to love. and sometimes they appreciate the freedoms of this country, the opportunities it offers in ways we take for granted

routinely. for them, this country is a beacon of hope and opportunity that they appreciate so deeply and fervently that they are willing to lay down their lives for it. and in fact sometimes do, as members of our armed services. the lask action on immigration hurts everyone. when businesses deploy workers under the table, our economy and our nation are deprived of their taxes often. they are ducking regulations and taxes. it drives down wages for every american, and immigrants should be enabled to come out of the shadows not just for their sakes but for the nation's. they are a resource that can be used so much more fully for the benefit of our nation. when they come out of the

shadows, they should be forced to undergrow background checks, obtain work permits and provide the kind of proof that they are abiding by the law that is necessary to show they are not a threat to public safety. when immigrants live in fear, law enforcement can't know who lives in the communities they police. immigrants who live in fear are simply not going to be as willing to report individuals living near them, who represent a real threat to public safety because they feel uncomfortable report crimes and cooperating with authorities when they feel they may be then the object of enforcement. getting more people already living in this country into the

system will allow law enforcement to go after the truly bad actors, serious criminals, serious national security threats. people who seriously should not be in this country. so as the american people wait for legislative action, wait for the house to act on the senate's bill and perhaps wait on the senate to act against, president obama has both the authority and the moral responsibility to institute these reforms. the reforms are crucial. he has the authority under law to exercise his discretion. he has the moral responsibility to fix this broken system as long and as well as he can using that responsibility. i'm encouraged to hear that the

president intends to focus his authority on serious criminals, not law-abiding individuals, and at a minimum my hope is that he will ease the minds of children, put to rest the anxiety children feel living in fear of losing their parents, whether they are dreamers or a u.s. citizen, they should be spared that apprehension and anxiety that interferes with everything else they do in school or work. and my hope is that he will exercise that authority on behalf of the parents of those children. u.s. citizen, permanent resident and dreamer. my hope is that he will ease some of the arbitrary restrictions that prevent the daca program from achieving its full purpose, restrictions like the cutoff age.

and as he acts to exercise his prosecutorial discretion with respect to deportation, he should also consider his administration's policies with respect to detention. as i wrote to the president earlier this year along with my colleague and friend, chairman leahy, i believe the administration's decision to dramatically expand the detention of whole families, many of whom have shown a credible fear of being returned to dangerous situations in their home countries is counterproductive and harmful. they must be given to show they have a valid claim as refugees. the policy of indiscriminately holding families in enormous privately run facilities leads to inhumane living conditions. violence again women and children and simply inefficient

use of resources are more the rule than the exception. warehousing young children in complexes that are little more than jails is deeply incompatible with our national values, and it serves really none of the goals of an effective immigration system. mr. president, tomorrow marks the 25th anniversary of the u.n. convention on the rights of the child. faith leaders and community members from around the country will be doing vigils and telling the stories of children and mothers who are spending this holiday season behind bars. yes, in the greatest country in the history of the world, children and their moms will be spending thanksgiving behind bars. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. blumenthal: may i have one more minute, mr. chairman? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: these families are not flight risks and they're

not dangerous. we owe it to them to do better. i am proud to stand with my colleagues today in calling on the president to keep families together, target federal resources effectively and run an immigration system that enacts america's values and builds a stronger future. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time -- morning business is now closed. under the previous order, the senate will now proceed to executive session. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the mows t the motion to recn the -- motion to invoke cloture on the pepper nomination. the clerk will report -- mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i ask permission to yield time back. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, all time is yield back. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion:

we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of pamela pepper of wisconsin to be united states district judge for the eastern district of wisconsin, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of pamela pepper of wisconsin to be united states district judge for the eastern district of wisconsin shall be brought i to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

test test test test test test tesof vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? seeing none, on the motion to invoke cloture, the yeas are 58,

the nays are 39. cloture is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary, pamela pepper of wisconsin to be united states district judge for the eastern district of wisconsin. the presiding officer: under the previous order -- under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a motion on the the -- prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the sannes nomination. the senator from new york. is there objection? without objection. all time is yielded back. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of brenda k.sannes of new york to

be united states district judge for the northern district of new york, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that the debate on the nomination of brenda k.sannes of new york to be united states district judge for the northern district of new york shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 55, the nays are 42, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: brenda k.sannes of new york to be united states district judge for the northern district of new york. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the arleo nomination. a senator: we yield back all time. the presiding officer: without

objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of madeline cox arleo of judge to be united states judge for the district of judge, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that the debate on the nomination of madeline cox arleo of new jersey for united states district judge for the district of new jersey shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: