alleviated. members of the committee were denied a chance to ask her questions during an open confirmation hearing, something that previous nominees for this position have undergone. as a matter of fact, senator grassley, the ranking republican on the immigration -- on the judiciary committee and i invited ms. saldana to appear at an informal question-and-answer question since the chairman of the judiciary committee denied us an opportunity to have a formal hearing just to answer our questions and clarify her position, the positions she took in the written answers to the questions to the record which i referred to earlier. i don't know whether she got bad advice or whether she herself decided that it would be a futile effort, but she decided not to appear for that informer give-and-take. well, maybe it would have helped her clarify her answers to the questions sent by the committee, maybe not.

maybe she would have stood by them, but we'll never know. so, mr. president, it is for these reasons i regrettably cannot support her nomination. ms. saldana, as i said, is somebody who i admire and respect, but if she is determined to help the president implement this deeply flawed executive action and refuse to enforce the law that congress has written and has been signed by previous presidents, i can't support her nomination. i will not aid and abet a president dead set on unilaterally defying our nation's immigration laws. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask the chair report the saldana nomination calendar number 1084. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. the clerk will report the nomination.

the clerk: department of homeland security, sarah r. saldana of texas ton an assistant secretary. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, my colleague has just stepped off the floor from texas. he has spoken at some length about his position on this nomination, and i would like to address the same issue. first, with the utmost respect, for my colleague from texas, we disagree on many political issues but we are truly friends. we work together on the senate judiciary committee. i respect him very much, although we may disagree, as we do on this issue, and i want to say -- put in context what i am about to say in expressing my respect for the senior senator from texas. but, mr. president, i'm at a loss to explain the position of the senator from texas and the republican party of america when it comes to the issue of immigration. what are we to make of what they

tell us when we talk about immigration? without fail, mr. president, they say to us, first, first and foremost we must have enforcement at our borders. once we have secured our borders from the inflow of illegal immigrants, then and only then can we discuss fixing our broken immigration system. mr. president, how often have you heard that? i have heard it every time the republicans address the issue of immigration. first, fix the border, then we'll talk. well, mr. president, it was about 540 days ago on the floor of the united states senate when we called for consideration an immigration reform bill. that immigration reform bill was put together, comprehensive bill, by democratic and republicans. i was one of eight. we sat down for months and

negotiated that. on one side of the table, on the republican side of the table, john mccain of arizona, former republican candidate for president, jeff flake of arizona, a border state senator with passionate feelings about this issue. marco rubio, one of the two hispanic members of the republican senate caucus. and lindsey graham of south carolina, a man who is an attorney, who works in the reserve, air force reserve for the judge advocate general. a conservative by every measure. those were our four on the republican side. on the democratic side, myself, senator charles schumer, chairman of the senate immigration subcommittee of the judiciary, bob menendez of your state of new jersey, our hispanic member and michael bennet of colorado. mr. president, we negotiated not for weeks but for months.

we went through laboriously every aspect of immigration in america and to the amazement of ourselves as well as the public, we reached an agreement, a compromise. i wasn't happy with parts of it. some of it i didn't like at all. other parts i thought were excellent. that's the nature of a compromise. we brought this bill to the senate judiciary committee and opened it up for amendment, and we said to republicans and democrats alike improve it if you can, and there were scores of amendments that were offered in that committee. the bill was favorably reported from the senate judiciary committee and came to the floor of the united states senate where once again it was amended, and one amendment offered by senator corker of tennessee, a republican,cally increased border enforcement. mr. president, we currently have more federal law enforcement

officials on our border between the united states and mexico than we have in the combined law enforcement complement of the entire federal government. we have made a huge commitment, and the corker amendment increased it. 700 miles of fences. more personnel than ever in history, to the point where they could literally, literally from san diego to galveston stand one every half mile 24/7. are we serious about border enforcement in our comprehensive bill? yes, we are, and we adopted the corker amendment, although some said you're overdoing it, we adopted it in the spirit of compromise and offered this on the floor for passage. mr. president, the final vote was 68 senators in favor of comprehensive immigration reform

14 republicans and the democrats made a majority of 68 that passed comprehensive immigration reform. sadly, the senior senator from texas voted no, no on comprehensive immigration reform. we did our job. a bill endorsed by the u.s. chamber of commerce and the afl-cio, a bill endorsed by faith leaders all across the united states. a bill that had the support of the civil rights community as well as conservatives like grover norquist. we passed it. that's what the constitution said we had to do. and we sent it across the capitol, through the rotunda and across the capitol to the house of representatives where it fell into this dark and gloomy pit, never to be seen again. for 540 days now, we waited,

waiting for the house of representatives to at least acknowledge it, maybe even to debate it, perhaps to change it, even to offer it on the floor of the house of representatives. but no, they chose not to. they chose to do nothing. a broken immigration system in the view of the house of representatives was to be left untouched. and so the president said time and again to speaker boehner when are you going to accept your responsibility when it comes to fixing this broken immigration system? and the speaker kept saying give me some time, give me some time, give me some time. 18 months passed, and the president said i'm sorry. i have to do something. if you are going to do nothing, nothing in the house of representatives when it comes to immigration, i must do something

as president. and he went in to an effort -- i know because we spoke. he went into an effort of research to determine what previous presidents had done when it came to immigration by executive order. he started off skeptical, i can tell you. he said as much publicly, as to the limits of what he could do, and he said i need to carefully research this, and he did. and he found that some 11 presidents have been issued executive -- have issued executive orders on immigration, and so he set out to do the same, to carefully construct an executive order to deal with our broken immigration system and to do it recognizing that the republicans in the u.s. house of representatives and many here in the senate were going to do nothing when it came to immigration. he issued his executive order a few weeks ago. what did it say? it said if you have been in the united states at least five

years, at least five years and you will come forward and register with this government, giving us your name, your address, vital information, we will then submit you to an extensive criminal background check to determine whether you have done anything while in the united states or before that makes you ineligible to stay. if you fail that initial criminal review, you are gone, gone. no questions asked. but if you pass it, and if you are prepared to register with this government and if you are prepared to pay your fair share of taxes for working in the united states, you will be given a temporary work permit that must be renewed as we review every so often, every several years whether you are still eligible to stay. that is the executive order that

has given the republicans to distraction. the notion that this president is going to try to fix a broken immigration system by at least guaranteeing that those who are here working legally have no criminal background problems and are paying their fair share of taxes. they are so distraught over this that they have come up with a strategy which is incredible. the republican party which has insisted time and time again that border enforcement is their highest priority have in protest to this executive order by the president decided to do two things. first, they passed a spending bill in the house of representatives which funded all of the federal government with a budget for the next year except for one agency. well, which agency would that have been? it turned out to be the

department of homeland security, which is responsible for border enforcement. the party that is dedicated to border enforcement as the starting point for an immigration discussion starts off by tying the hands of the agency responsible for border enforcement when it comes to their budget. why would you do that? if you really want the border enforced, if you want people there doing their job, why would you limit their resources? why would you like it more difficult for them to operate? but the republicans protesting the president's decision insisted on it. that was the first thing they did. and now we're seeing the second part of the republican separate just, in protest of the president's executive order. they are prepared to stop the nomination of sarah saldana to

become the assistant secretary for the u.s. immigration and customs enforcement. now, that title describes what she would do, but for the record, she would be responsible for making certain that the people who were on our border, protecting our border, doing their job right, spending their money well, and it turns out she is imminently qualified to do it. let me read to you a quote about mrs. saldana, a quote from her confirmation hearing, and i quote -- "ms. saldana is the first latina u.s. attorney in texas history and only the second woman to hold that position in the 135-year history of texas northern district. in her role as u.s. attorney and prosecutor over the past decade, ms. saldana has served our state with honor, fighting corrupt

public officials, organized crime, sex traffickers and other dangerous criminals. throughout her career, mrs. saldana has developed a reputation for her decisive and fair temperament and her commitment to excellence." end of quote. what is the source of this glowing tribute to mrs. saldana? it turns out the source is the senator from just left the floor, the senior senator from texas, who announced today he is voting against her. after this, he is voting against her. why? he said because she would aid and abet this president of the united states in implementing his executive order. well, mr. president, elections have consequences. i noted that president obama was re-elected by the people of the united states of america and given the responsibility to lead

this great nation. he's asked for a team to do that, and whether i agree or disagree with any given policy of this president, it is clear the american people said mr. obama, heed this nation. -- lead this nation. he has asked for help to lead this nation, and it's help long overdue. do you know how long, mr. president, it's been since we filled this spot, this critical spot to protect our border from illegal immigration? over two years. july 2012 is the last time the spot was filled. there are those people who have suggested over and over again. by the same political party who insisted that border enforcement is their highest priority, their highest priority. yet they will not fund the agency responsible for it in systematic, orderly way, and they refuse to fill the vacancy of the person responsible for administering this border

enforcement. i'm at a loss to explain this. it appears to me that their feelings about this president have reached a point they're not thinking clearly. they cannot announce on one hand that first we must have border enforcement and then fail to fund the agency. they cannot announce that first we need to make sure we stop the flow of illegal immigrants and then refuse to fill the position responsible for administering that responsibility. and yet, that's exactly what they want to do today. i hope that good sense prevails. i hope that mrs. saldana is given her chance to serve this nation, and i am certainly going to support her in that process. it is time we had a senate-confirmed head of this agency and it is overdue for us as a senate and a house of representatives to address comprehensive immigration reform. the republicans who are critical of the president's executive orders when it comes to

immigration, in the words that we learned in law school, do not have clean hands. they have failed to support immigration reform, they have failed to call it in the house of representatives, they have failed to fund the agency responsible for border enforcement and they want to fail today in even filling the spot to administer it. leadership requires that we step forward with the president and do what's necessary, and i'll close, i see the minority leader on the floor and my colleague from utah, i'll close by saying president obama when he announced the executive order said to his critics on the other side of the aisle there's a way for you to deal with this issue and to stop this executive order. pass a bill. we've waited over 500 days for the house of representatives. i hope we don't have to wait much longer. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: today i rise to honor the life of a brave soldier in the u.s. army special

forces from kentucky who gave his life to defend his country. staff sergeant daniel t. lee of fort wright, kentucky was killed on january 15, 2014, in afghanistan from wounds received during combat actions in the prowan province looking for militants involved in attacks on baghram air force base. he received many awards, medals, and decorations, including the bronze star medal, the purple heart, the meritorious service medal, the army commendation medal, the army achievement medal, the army good conduct medal, the national defense service medal. the afghanistan campaign medal, the iraq campaign medal, the global war on terrorism service medal, two noncommission

officers development ribbons, the army service ribbon, two overseas service ribbons, the nato medal, the combat infantryman badge, the basic parachutist badge and the special forces tab. dan eye yes mother frances lee has this to say about her son. danny became consumed with being all that he could be. not only in special forces but as a father, a husband, a brother, and son. he never lost his sense of humor and was rarely without a smile. his smile was infectious, even in dire times. a northern kentucky native, danny's childhood was filled with friends, family, and sports. he was a member of the beachwood diving team from the age of 5. in the eighth grade he transferred to turkey foot junior high school and began playing football. he also played basketball,

baseball, and softball. danny graduated from dixie heights high school in 2003 and moved to tennessee for a fresh start, says danny's mother. he began working for an a knoxville electrical company but moved to lowe's hardware chain where he got a job as a manager in crossville, tennessee. while in crossville he enlisted in the u.s. army, a move that took all of us by surprise, says frances. we packed up the house and off went to fort bennett. he's the only person i heard say he loved basic training. enlisting in the u.s. army in october, 2007, danny complete ed basic training at fort bennett, his first assignment was with the second squadron at fort lewis, washington. while serving in with the first cavalry regiment danny deployed to iraq in support of operation

iraqi freedom in 2009. daniel's service in iraq compelled him to join the elite ranks of some of the finest fighters in our armed services. responsible his return from iraq he became a man with a mission, says danny's mother. that mission was to become a special forces green beret. he began his special forces training in march, 2011 and ultimately earned his green perai when he -- were bray. to earn that green beret, he attended airborne school and went to qualification school at fort bragg, north carolina. for approximately 20 months he completed a series of rigorous classes, covering skills and tactics such as languages, leadership, navigation, survival, evasion, resistance, and escape.

while in qualification school, danny also married his wife, suzanne, whom he met while stationed in fort lewis. danny graduated from special forces training in may, 2015 and -- two 2013 and he and his wife had a child that same year. in august, 2013, he was assigned to be c company, special forces group airborne based in fort bragg. in september of that year he was deployed to afghanistan in support of operation enduring freedom. after danny's death, the kentucky general assembly appropriately designated a portion of kentucky route 1072 in northern kentucky's kenton county as the sergeant daniel tyler lee memorial highway. we're thinking of danny's loved ones today as i recount his story for my colleagues in the u.s. senate including his wife, suzanne, his son daniel, his

parents, frances and daniel patrick lee, his sister, jamie hahn, and many other beloved family members and friends. mr. president, the motto of the united states army special forces of which daniel t. lee was a proud member is "deopresso liber." or "to liberate the oppressed." as an el lethal member of the armed forces with service in both iraq and afghanistan, staff sergeant lee certainly fulfilled the mission to the best of his ability. the commonwealth of kentucky and the united states senate are both grateful for his service and for his sacrifice. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i rise in opposition to the nomination of sarah saldana to be in charge of immigration and customs enforcement within the u.s. department of homeland security. as we all know, the president of the united states recently announced that he will take unilateral executive action on immigration. in so doing, he circumvented the democratic process. he broke the law and he's subverted our constitutional order. it's incumbent on every member of this body no matter what their politics or what immigration policies they might prefer to enact, to oppose that usurpation of legislative power and to defend the rule of law. fulfilling that duty, the duty

to defend the rule of law and our constitutional order, leads me to oppose ms. saldana's nomination to be the director of immigration and customs enforcement or i.c.e. as it's commonly known, as the director of i.c.e. although i respect her and respect her record of public service, including an admirable and independent streak that she demonstrated as u.s. attorney, i'm concerned that she's also demonstrated that her commitment to the rule of law may falter where at the immigration and nationality act is concerned. in response to a question raised by several members of the senate judiciary committee including me, ms. saldana said that she agreed with d.h.s. secretary jeh johnson that immigrants who entered the country illegally and have now been targeted for

the so-called deferred action program have -- quote -- "earned the right to be citizens." that's bold. this is an extraordinarily bold assertion on her part. now, no doubt congress could and many people think that congress should ease the path to citizenship for some aliens, some immigrants who are currently here ununlawfully -- unlawfully. but to assert that citizenship, not just the right to remain here for a time but full-blown citizenship is a matter of right and that it has been earned by the very act of breaking our immigration laws is an unacceptable view for a person who has been nominated to be the head of our nation's immigration enforcement office. but as i told the senate last

week, this seems to be precisely the mentality of this administration. although president obama has repeatedly denied clearing a path to citizenship for those who have crossed our borders illegally, his denial is false. and he knows it. in a 2010 department of homeland security memorandum, explicitly contemplating this very thing, we see some evidence of this. there was a 2010 memorandum within the u.s. department of homeland security, one that made it all the way up to then- secretary of homeland security janet napolitano. that explicitly contemplated using a legal device called parole who enable aliens who crossed our border unlawfully to

become sense steppes. the law makes it possible for aliens with u.s. citizen children to have been paroled into the united states to adjust their immigration status and become green cardholders, but parole is supposed to be very rare. in other words, there is a way to get here, but not by use of parole. federal law specifically i.n.s. section 212 d-5-a forbids the president, forbids the executive branch of government from paroling aliens into the opportunity except for very limited circumstances including -- quote -- "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit." that's the text of the statute enacted into law by congress. but now despite denying having cleared the pathway to citizenship, the administration has begun granting parole to

beneficiaries of deferred action under the very thinnest of pretexts. the president's policies now allow deferred action recipients to get advance parole so long as they have a client meeting or an interview or some academic research to perform overseas. hardly an urgent humanitarian crisis. when they get back from their trips these same individuals would then be paroled into the country and will eventually become eligible to adjust their status and get green cards, exactly as the 2010 d.h.s. memo suggested. all of this is illegal but it's worths than illegal. it's illegitimate. if congress decides to make it easier for illegal immigrants who have children here to obtain citizenship, then so be it. but that is a decision for the

american people through their elected officials in the legislative branch of the federal government to make. if the president dislikes the law, he, like any other citizen, must ask this body to change that, must ask congress to change that law. he he has no more right than anyone else who lives in this country to ignore or to change the law outside the constitutional process. but he, the president, and his administration have talked themselves into doing just that. they can try to rationalize that action to us and perhaps to themselves only by donning the mantle of moral indignation. it isn't just it would be prudent or merciful to reform our immigration regime.

instead, the administration's argument is that those who flout our laws have by the very act of breaking them earned some type of moral entitlement to have the law changed or at least to have the law ignored. and if congress will not oblige them, then, why, they will just do it themselves. they will draft up a law called executive order that overturns national immigration policy as established by law, passed by congress, and announce it at a press conference. there will be no debate, there will be no amendments, there will be no vote. in short, there will be no democracy. we have passed through the looking glass, mr. president, and to see how far we have done inside. object serve -- today the president asks us to install as

custodian of our border a person who evidently believes that crossing our border illegally earns you the right to vote. the constitution gives the senate the responsibility to give the president advice about his executive nominations and ultimately consent. my advice is this -- the president should not proffer a nominee for the job of executing our immigration laws who affirmatively supports subverting those very same laws, those same laws that she would be called upon to enforce and implement and execute if, in fact, she were confirmed to this position. but that's exactly what the president does. that's exactly what the president has done by submitting this name to the senate for confirmation, and i cannot and will not give my consent. thank you, mr. president.

i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. president menendez: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: i come to the floor to speak on two separate and distinct topics. the first is about cyprus. this year marks the 40th anniversary of the turkish invasion. we hoped that it would have brought a fair settlement of the cyprus question, that it would have brought an end to a 40-year long occupation and division of the island by turkey. now, there's always cause for optimism and room for faith that the realization of a reunified cyprus is in the near future. global and regional dynamics have made the reunification of cyprus a priority driven in part by cyprus' new found energy resources. this is particularly true in light of russia's machiavellian like power plays in central

europe that placed cyprus and israel at the forefront of the discussion of european energy security. the natural resources that have been discovered this year in the eastern mediterranean offer both both freak and turkish cypriots a like an incentive to reach an agreement. cyprus can play a pivotal role in regional energy security. but the dynamics have again changed. which is why i rise today to express my grave concern over the republic of turkey's incursion into cyprus' exclusive economic zone. on october 20, turkey sent a russian vessel, the barbaros into cyprus' exclusive economic zone to stop the government of cyprus from exercising its lawful and sovereign right to explore the natural gas within the exclusive nick economic

zone. in the days following, turkey dispatched warships to support the illegal activities, where they remain to this day. the incident is merely the latest in a long series of violations on the part of turkey against cyprus' sovereign right to explore and exploit its natural resources within its own exclusive economic zone. turkey, of course, also illegally occupies with 40,000 turkish troops the northern portion of the island and has for 40 years prevented any meaningful reconciliation efforts. now, this map of the national oceanic and atmospheric administration shows the positions of the turkish ships in red. they are sitting between the island of cyprus and its own ships in its own exclusive

economic zone. mr. president, there is no doubt in my mind that turkey's actions have endangered peace talks between the greek and turkish cypriots that began in february with a joint communique issued by the two communities. that communique committed to finding a durable solution based on a bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality. but because of turkey's bullying practices, peace talks are now on hold. for peace talks to resume, turkey must immediately withdraw its ships operating in and around cyprus. the international community has been abundantly clear in supporting cypriot president nikos ansialis in recognizing cyprus' right to explore the resources within its economic zone and in condemning turkey for this blatant violation. on november 13, the european parliament adopted a resolution

strongly condemning turkey's -- quote -- illegal and provocative actions in cyprus, stressing that the republic of cyprus has the full and sovereign right to explore the natural resources within its exclusive economic zone. now, turkey's recent actions in cyprus are only one instance of its bereligion can't and bellicose -- belligerent and bellicose rhetoric and backsliding on democracy. in recent weeks, the president and his cabinet have used unusual antiwestern rhetoric to attack the west. he actually said -- and, mr. president, i'm amazed at the rhetoric. he said -- quote -- "americans look like friends, but they want us dead. they like seeing our children die." they like seeing our children die. this is the president of turkey. he also said -- quote -- "women

are not equal to men. further quote, "our religion has defined a position for women: motherhood." urduwan said, unjustice for women. he went on to say -- quote -- "some people can understand this while others can't. you cannot explain this to feminists because they don't accept the concept of motherhood." he then went on so far as to say muslims discovered america, not columbus. he vowed to make lessons in the arabic alphabet ottoman language compulsory in high schools, a highly symbolic move which enraged secularists who claimed he is pursuing an extremely -- an increasingly, i should say, extremist agenda. these statements along with turkey's illegal actions and

cypress' schiewk economic zone -- exclusive economic zone are a shift away from democracy and its partners in the west. and in my view, requires an immediate and forceful response. the sip -- cypriot need a strong voice on this issue so reunification talks can resume. cypress' leaders deserve credit for trying to change the dynamics and return to talk. they deserve credit for being an ally of american interests. cypress' active role in supporting counterterrorism efforts, terror financing and in the removal chemical weapons from syria have not gone unnoticed to this senator. cypress is clearly positioning itself as part of the western security architecture and is a resource advocate and an ally for our interests. these developments have led the white house to play an active role on behalf of cypress and i

was pleased to see our former colleague and now vice president -- vice president biden -- visit in may and his commitment to resolving the cypress question. i share his support for the confidence-building measures in phama husta where cyp ri ots control their destiny and territory and at the end of the day from the people of cypress, by the people of cypress and for the people of cypress and cypress alone. to that end i sent a letter to president obama urging his continued engagement on the issue of reunification of the island and restoration of human rights for all of its citizens. i also rode to ambassador power urging her active involvement in the extension of the island's u.n. peacekeeping operation and was pleased when it was formal ized at the end of july.

i hope their president will use this opportunity to find a fair settlement. we hope progress will depend on a true commitment by the turks to the peace process. as the chairman of the foreign relations committee i believe the united states is committed to supporting cypress as a friend and ally. as we mark the 40th year of a divided cypress, let us hope and pray that a fair and mutually beneficial settlement will be reached very soon and that once again the island will be reunited. but above all, let the warship and let the other ships that did not belong in cypress' waters ultimately be removed and removed now. mr. president, at this time i'd like to switch the topic, and i ask that my following statement appear separately in the "congressional record" for the nomination of sarah saldana.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i want to reiterate my strong support for sarah saldana, a woman eminently qualified to serve our country to lead i.c.e. as our next assistant secretary of homeland security. is the junior senator began this long legislative weekend engaged in his own political battle wholly fent on -- dependent on a strategy of obstruction, delay and some quixotic delay to ensure documents are filed in a timely manner. unfortunately some of my friends on the other side joined in the politics of obstructionism. now they want to prevent a duly eelected president from filling a position they themselves feel is of paramount importance.

they have railed about the need for strong immigration and customs enforcement and now given the chance finally to confirm a director of i.c.e. to give them the strong enforcement they have demanded, they refuse. they obstruct. they delay. they reverse their positions when they voted for her to be a united states attorney and now use her nomination to score political points with their base because they disagree with the president's politics. not with the qualifications of the nominee but with the president's policies. sarah saldana is qualified and senators cruz and senator cornyn and senator sessions and everyone on the other side of the aisle know it. i think they said so themselves. she currently serves as the u.s. attorney for the northern district of texas. she is the first latina u.s. attorney for the northern district of texas and would be the first latina to head i.c.e.

in 2011 she won bipartisan approval to serve as the u.s. attorney in the dallas-based northern district of texas. senators john cornyn and kay bailey hutchison at that time of texas backed her for that post. she's been endorsed by the law enforcement community including the major city chiefs association president and the philadelphia police department police commissioner charles ramsey. she is an effective, qualified, competent, outstanding united states attorney. in fact, the senior senator from texas, my friend, senator cornyn, has praised her as being tough, smart and fiercely independent. now she is being denied confirmation for that same toughness, intelligence and independence. why? because surprise of all surprises, she happens -- she happens to agree with the policies of the president who

nominated her. just as attorney general herbert brownum agreed with president eisenhower in 1956 when he paroled foreign-born orphans into the united states for adoption. just as attorney general edward levy agreed with president ford in 1976 when he granted extended voluntary departure to lebanese citizens. just as ed meese agreed with ronald reagan in july 1987 when he shield nicaraguan refugees from deportation and when he shielded polish nationals from deportation and in october 1987 when president reagan protected from deportation minor children of parents legalized in the 1986 immigration law. just as attorney general richard thornburgh agreed with george herbert walker bush in 1989 when he protected chinese nationals from deportation after tiananmen square. and in february of 1990 when

president bush extended president reagan's family fairness policy to spouses and unmarried children, all undocumented at the time. and just as john ashcroft agreed with president george w. bush when he expedited naturalizeation for green cardholders who enlisted in the military in 2002. so this isn't a fundamental republican policy issue backed by history or by the facts. it is a modern-day extreme conservative issue driven by politics despite the facts, contrary to their own history. the fact is they don't agree with the president on just about anything. certainly not on immigration as proven on the statements we have heard on this floor. but i want to be very clear, we cannot judge the qualifications of sarah saldana to run immigrations and customs enforcement based solely on the fact that she agrees with the

policy decisions of the president who nominated her. that's an absurd and completely illogical standard. we judge nominees based on their qualifications, their integrity, their record and their willingness to serve the nation. the fact is we don't deny confirmation to score political points. we may disagree on the issues. but we cannot raise the bar so high -- the political bar, i should say, so high -- in this chamber that we no longer are able to carry out our constitutional mandate of advice and consent. i don't believe that is what my colleagues would suggest, but that appears to be how they are judging this nominee and why they have chosen to hold up the confirmation of so many nominees. they've raised the political bar so high as to deny any ability for this president to fill key positions in government. and in our embassies abroad.

all to score political points and diminish the ability of this president and this institution to govern. now, mr. president, sarah saldana is more than qualified to head immigration and customs enforcement. she is more than qualified to oversee the agency my republican colleagues fully support. that is responsible for enforcement of immigration laws, national security, drug smuggling, human trafficking, cybersecurity and child exploitation. she will direct the agency that tracks down people without documentation, and that is what my republican friends want. and yet, they have set the political bar so high that they have made it impossible for them to get what they claim to want most when it comes to immigration policy which is immigration enforcement. the illogic of their position is just about mind-boggling. the gentleman from texas comes

to this floor for one purpose and one purpose only in, my view. to rail against the president, to castigate him for doing what his own party's iconic ronald reagan did when he was president, and george h.w. bush did when he was president. and what every president has done to defer deportation when keeping people's lives and families together were in the balance. my friend from texas wants to join his house colleagues and score political points with the most extreme elements of his party, so be it. but i just want to remind everyone that this isn't a game. and i would say that instead of floor theatrics and playing politics it's time to step up and govern. it's time to confirm sarah saldana and put her in charge of immigration and customs enforcement. let's do the work we were sent here to do. i say to my friend from texas what i've said before on this floor. there is a simple anecdote to executive action. toss have the friends -- our

friends in the house of representatives pass immigration reform, pass it, call it up for a vote. that's the antidote. not in information in misleading speeches about what the president's action does and does not do or blocking this nominee. let's be clear. the president's executive action will not grant anyone -- anyone legal status or citizenship. it is not a free pass. but it will clear the way for many to come out of the shadows, come forth, register with the government, pass a criminal background check, pay taxes, and no longer live in fear of having their families ripped apart. as a result of the president's actions, which is replicated actions by 11 presidents for the last 60 years on 39 different times, more border patrol will be sent to the southern border, more felons will be deported,

more people will pay taxes like the rest of us, and more families will stay together. those are all goals and values i think we would want to expose to. the fact is the senate is being prevented from conducting the people's business, and for some members, that's the goal. for them, it's all or nothing. for them, it's an ideological war that can only be won or lost. for them, it's not go governing; it's about winning. so i would say to my colleagues, there is a very important difference, and that difference is the faces of millions of americans who expect us to work for them. they don't care if we win or lose political battles. they want us to help them win their battles, win their battles in their lives for their families. that's what they want. that's what they deserve. and i ask my friends to help us

do the people's business. our agencies have waited long enough. they need positions filled by qualified appointees and sarah saldana is more than qualified. so i urge my colleagues to confirm this nominee and fill the position that is responsible for law enforcement activities that keep our country safe. that keep our country safe. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i rise to discuss the work that congress still must do regard america's ongoing war against isil. i'm pleased to join my colleague, the chairman of the committee, who's played such a critical role in the first major step that congress has taken. and i want to talk about that step and the steps we would continue to engage in. it was my strong hope as of

december 2014 that congress would have spoken by now with a clear voice regarding isil and authorizing the military action commenced by president obama on august 8. well, that has not occurred. action tang b taken by the senae foreign relations committee last week finally moves the body regarding this ongoing legislative action. i first began speaking about this in the spripg of 2013. i ha-- in the spring of 2013. i had become concerned that the administration had been using the iraq authorization to justify military actions significantly beyond what congress had intended when those authorizations passed. and so during an armed services hearing in may of 2013, i told administration witnesses that

any decision to introduce u.s. forces into syria would require in my view, a new authorization. i was pleased when president obama sought congressional approval for military action in syria in august of 2013, and i believe that the senate foreign relations committee's vote at that time helped lead to the ultimate destruction of the syrian chemical weapons stockpile, one of the largest stockpiles in the world. and there was an important lesson: a president's determination that u.s. military action is necessary is made more powerful when congress joins in that decision. in june of this year, when it became apparent that the advances of isil in iraq and syria posed a threat to humanitarian values, to regional allies, to u.s. citizens and embassies and our broader national interests, i publicly argued and encouraged the administration to address the threat but only using military

force after consultation and approval by congress. make no mistake, isil is a major threat, but presidents cannot constitutionally start military action without congress unless this is a direct and imminent threat to the united states. in this instance, with isil's activities occurring halfway across the globe, and with the administration admitting that the torsio organizations poses o imminent threat, congressional authorization is necessary. i regret, mr. president, that the administration started military action, what president obama called "going on offense against isil" in august without congressional approval. the white house asserts that the current action is justified by the 2001 and 2002 authorizations. but most outside observers and most members of congress believe that the current campaign against isil needs its own legal authorization. the white house has not proposed

authorizing language, and so it's up to congress to do the job of providing a legal framework for this war. i introduced a proposed authorization for war against isil within days after president obama addressed the nation on television the evening of september 10. since then i have been working to have the matter heard, first in the foreign relations committee and then by the full senate, and i had been greatly assisted in miest bassisted in f my colleagues, by senator menendez who has worked passionately. the pace of our effort has been frustratingly slow. but last week the senate foreign relations committee voted on an authorization to authorize the ongoing military action. the authorization is a sound product that does a number of things. first, it authorizes and describes the military campaign

against isil. second, it establishes a three-year duration of the authorization with the ability for a reauthorization if congress determines it to be in the national interest. third, the authorization repeals the 2002 iraq authorization and sunsets the 2001 al qaeda authorization in three years as a mechanism for forcing congress to review and revise that al qaeda authorization. and finally, mr. president, what we did last week places limitations on the use of u.s. ground troops in the war on isil, in accord with president obama's clear pledges to the american public and our considered judgment that the u.s. role should be primarily to assist ground troops from the region in battling the region's own extremist violence. after reporting the authorization out of committee, senator menendez filed it as an amendment to the omnibus budget

bill with numerous cosponsors, including me. that was entirely appropriate because the budget contained funding for the ongoing operation against isil. but the amendment was not allowed and, thus, in all likelihood we will adjourn our 2014 session without taking action beyond the sfrc vote. but just as the sfrc vote in 2014 played a significant role, i believe that the authorization we passed last week will also have a significant effect. it becomes the first formal action by congress in providing a legal framework for the war that until now has been carried out without any clear legal authority. and it will be the basis for our discussions in january as we cleacomplete the necessary workf authorizing this necessary action. it is my hope that the

authorization passed in senator menendez's committee will be introduced early in 2015 with dozens of cosponsors and ultimately enable a full congressional vote on this most important matter. madam president, i do believe that the dialogue here in congress since august, since the president initiated unilateral military action on august 8, does offer some important lessons. first, not surprisingly, and especially as a virginian i have to say this, the framers of our constitution had it right. those framers, like mason and madison and jefferson, we shouldn't go to war without congressional approval. unilateral action by the executive without congressional support deprives the public of the full debate necessary to educate everybody about whether military action is in the national interest. and just as importantly, maybe more importantly, it's unfair to

send american troops into harm's way without a clear political consensus supporting the mission. we've already had three americans who've lost their lives in operation inherent resolve. congressional debate and approval expresses a support for the mission, but the lack of clear congressional support suggests an ambivalence about whether military action is a good idea or bad, and that is not healthy when we are asking people to risk their lives. second, when a president decides that military action is needed, i think the vaunts of th eventst few months demonstrate it's best for the president to propose a draft authorization to congress. when the president spoke to the nation on september 10, he should have sent a draft authorization of the war against isil to congress immediately. a clear definition of the proposed mission by the president is the best way to encourage full congressional debate and build the national consensus in support of a

proposed mission. now, if a president does not propose an authorization, that doesn't give the article 1 branch p be, th, the legislaturs from our congressional obstacl obligations. but the process works better if the president initiates military action with a clear proposed authorization to congress. third, the administration's reliance on the 2001 and 2002 authorizations in prosecuting this war on isil, without congressional action, demonstrates the profound need to revisit those authorities, because, madam president, using a 13-year-old authorization crafted in different times for a different circumstance under a different administration for a different bit of geography with the support of a vastly

different congress to justify a new war 13 years later is the not the way that the nation should make the grave decision about whether to go to war. that is why the repeal of the 2002 authorization and a significant revision of the 2001 authorization is so important. finally, the events of the last months reveal, yet again, the weaknesses of the war powers resolution of 1973 and add to its provisions have been ignored by presidents and congresses of both parties since the ink was dry on the original. this fall, just to use this fall as an example, the president provided congress with the notice of the start of military action, as provided in the 1973 act, but he then completely ignored the 60- and 90-day time deadline for ceasing military action and instead continued

military operations in a unilateral way. it's time to update the 1973 law so that it will work, for gosh sakes. senator mccain and i have introduced a significant revision of the law to improve the consultation between congress and the president on matters of war, to define the magnitude of military conflict that should trigger a required congressional vote, and also to set up mandatory time lines for congressional action. now, madam president, i'm fully aware that a better, more consistent process for initiating more will not make our security challenges easy ones. the world is a difficult place. we have bellicose authoritarian regimes, north korea and russia. we have nonstate terrorist actors like isil. or boko haram or the al nusra front or al qaeda.

it is a complicated security issue we're faced with and if we have a better process it's not going to make those security challenges easier. it will not make them easy. but i maintain and my belief in this has only groarn stronger with every day -- grown stronger with every day i've been in this body that the absence of making clear decisions about war coupled with congressional overh and abdication make it harder to do the right thing with clarity and with speed. the events of the last month show that america can make decisions about war in a better way and it is my hope that we will address this important issue promptly as we reconvene in 2015. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor.

madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. carper: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: are we in a quorum call, madam president? i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thank you. madam president, over the past two years, as you know, i've had the great privilege, along with dr. tom coburn, leading the committee on which you serve as a valued member of the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs. our committee has many responsibilities. one of those responsibilities is the oversight of the department of homeland security. although our committee, the nature of our committee, as the presiding officer knows, we have oversight over the whole federal government, but a special focus on the department of homeland security which was created about a dozen, almost a dozen years ago. the department is shy of 12 years old, pretty young compared

to most other agencies. it was established in 2003 following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. it brought together under one umbrella, one department, 22 different disparate agencies trying to form one unified agency has not been easy. it's not been easy. as the presiding officer knows, there have been growing pains aplenty. however, our current secretary, secretary jeh johnson, our deputy secretary, their leadership team have made great strides with hundreds of thousands of people part of that department. tried to address the challenges and i'm confident their hard work will continue and pay off. but behind the leadership team at the department of homeland security are the more than 200,000 men and women who go to work each day to fulfill one critical mission, and that is to create a safe, secure and resilient place for the american

way of life can thrive. whether these employees are encountering terrorism, securing our borders and our airports, responding to national disasters or bolstering our defenses in cyberspace, few other federal employees affect the lives on a daily basis more than homeland security. as chairman of the homeland security and governmental affairs committee, i've had the great honor and pleasure of meeting with many of these men and women and learning more about their work, learning about their families, learning about their frustrations, learning about the dedication to the service of our nation. i've also heard the department of homeland security leadership from across the department including secretary jeh johnson, sing their praises in describing the mission critical work these men and women perform every day,

every day, day in and day out throughout the year and in communities across america and, frankly, around the world. a young man named don marfeesi of kansas city, missouri, is one of those employees. i want to talk about him to acknowledge his service today and putting the spotlight on don marfeesi to honor the women in which he serves in the police department. don grew up in omaha, nebraska, not all that far from with the presiding officer is from. he is the son of a civil servant and lawmakers. -- and homemaker. his father worked for the department of justice. clearly public service is a tradition in his family and from what i hear, it is something don takes to heart. don began his federal service more than 24 years ago as a

supply clerk, supply clerk within the u.s. department of agriculture farm service agency in lincoln, nebraska. four years later, in august of 1998, he joined the immigration and naturalizeation service in the department of justice. and after a little over a year there he was transferred to the citizenship and immigration service in this new department of homeland security. within citizenship and immigration services, don works at the national records center where he is responsible for logistics, for procurement and property management. you can still find him there today. in fact, his colleagues consider him a cave pillar, having worked at the center since opening day. what is the national records center exactly do? according to the department, it's the keystone to the record keeping of the agency for which he serves.

we call it uscis. it is one of our acronyms we use around here. housing their millions of paper records that have been centralized into the single state-of-the-art facility. the center where don works improves the integrity of uscis's record keeping and dramatically reduces the amount of time it takes to retrieve a file or paperwork meaning faster application for an agency charged with overseeing our nation's immigration system. don's current title, missions support specialist, doesn't quite do his work justice. his colleagues tell me that don is not just a support specialist but an integral part of the national record centers mission's support team and plays an important role in nearly all the logistics-related projects executed at the center. in his position, he develops and administers best practices for federal procurement and property management. while he avoids the spotlight,

he is highly valued and sought out for expertise. don's colleagues tell me -- quote -- "he has provided a super yor level of customer -- superior level of customer service to local employees and other stakeholders." don's attention to detail ensures folks within immigration services have the tools and resources they need to get their job done. the job, don's critical eye, expertise and procurement is credited with saving our government, our taxpayers over $500,000 in the last fiscal year, in 2013 and over $800,000 in the year that just ended, fiscal year 2014. let me repeat that. don saved the american taxpayers in the last two fiscal years $1.3 million. but his service and his

stewardship don't end there. at the same time he saved the department hundreds of thousands -- taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, he's finding a way to give back. along with the money he's been able to trim off the federal deficit, he's managed to arrange the contribution of nearly $800,000 in equipment to local schools through the general services administration property disposal program. through this program, he ensures that unused or older government equipment goes directly to local schools to help them. and because of his efforts, computers and other equipment that would otherwise be trashed or hopefully recycled are used to boost education and to raise student achievement in schools across our country. as you can imagine, the educators, the communities, the students themselves who receive the equipment have been overjoyed with these generous donations. but don't just take my word for it. in 2012 -- in a school district

in miami, a school district called miami h-1, in the middle of cornfields and cow pas pastus received $45,000 worth of technology equipment. the school technology administrator said, "blessed by the g.s.a. general services administration's program, we are limited in our funds and budget so we don't always have a chance to purchase the latest technology or equipment to boost student achievement. because of your generosity, we will put these computers, montanmonitors, speakers to goo. we found some great friends like you that gave us 10*78 some much-needed support along the way." another school in missouri thanked us for the blessing of this new technology they

received through his efforts. but there's more. don was also a member of the office of equal opportunity inclusion, minorities serving institutions program which facilitated more than $1 million in computer equipment donations in the past fiscal year 2014. don has been recognized for his extraordinary accomplishments in years past. in 2013, for example, he was recognized as the employee of the year for his agency and as one of the national record center's employees of the quarter. yet despite these great accomplishments and high praise from his colleagues and really from people all around the country, don insists that every team he's received is a team award, a team award. and when he learned that he was gathering such high praise for his work, he said, "being recognized for your efforts is

appreciated. however, i am the fortunate one. i get to reuse items and give two things i enjoy doing. likclose quote. don reminds me of something i learned from secretary jeh johnson during his confirmation. i learned that one of secretary johnson's guiding principles is a lesson from dr. benjamin mays, benny mays, former president of more house colleague who once said that you are learning from when you get, your life by what you give. think about that for a second. think about that. and then think about this man right here. think about this man right here. and think about don and all the giving he has done throughout his career in his service to our country. i just want to say to jeh johnson, secretary of the department, you've got a remarkable employee in your ranks, you've got a bunch of

them. don is certainly at the top of the list. don's service doesn't at the at the department. he is a husband, a dad. he and policeman have been married for 30 years, they've got a son and daughter and when he's able to find some well-deserved downtime, he enjoys watching one of those big ten teams, the nebraska cornhuskers, with his family. and i think, as i say as a proud ohio state graduate, enjoyed playing you guys this year, don, and we look forward to the opportunity for you guys to get some revenge maybe next year. to pam and joe sighia and anna, i want to say thank you for sharing your husband and thank you for sharing your dad with us. he's done extraordinary work for our country and for a lot of communities. we're proud of thim and i bet that you are, too, and finally, to don mofisi, let me say on

behalf of my colleagues here, don, democrats, republicans, a couple of independents as well, the folks that work here in the capitol, even the pages that are sitting at the bottom of the presiding officer's deck, we want to thank you for what you do every day for us, for your tiffless service and immeasurable generosity to our great nation. i think ali menorcas, we were visiting and meeting with some employees of the department of homeland security's security's job it is to -- not their day job but their additional responsibilities to try to figure out how to raise morale of the folks at the department of homeland security for 129 or so years it's been in existence. the department is suffering from low morale, and sadly still does. i think that's starting to

change. i'd like to say i'm an old navy guy. things that are hard to do are like turning the course of an aircraft carrier. i think the course is starting to turn at the department of homeland security. as the presiding officer knows, at the beginning of this year, you look at the top leadership ranks in the dment of homeland security, there were -- in the department of homeland security, there were gaping holes in it. one of the things we sought to do, our committee, was when the administration, when the president now makes somebody a talent capability, good leadership skills, bring those nominations to the senate and to debate them and to vote them up or down and we've been able to make great progress in year. and i'm grateful to senator height kafn, our presiding officer, for being a big part of that. we have a vote yet again this afternoon on the critical

nomination of a woman named sarah saldana, leads our operation up in the justice department in the northern part of texas, 100 counties in her great ^staeut, trying to make sure that the federal laws are enforced across those 100 counties. she is been nominated at the office of immigration and customs enforcement, we call it i.c.e., a huge job with tens of thousands of employees working all across america. my hope is when we debate her nomination, she's been supported very graciously by john cornyn, the senior senator from texas who introduced her to our committee at her hearing, my hope is that our colleagues will join together and support her nomination. we have this photograph here, and i said earlier, this is don here in the middle. also known as pam's husband. but don mafisi, who we are

honoring today. i am i'm going to be doing this about once a month, coming to the floor and just talking about the department. it doesn't get the kind of credit that they deserve. and the people that work there don't get it. we're trying to make sure that that changes. you can't say thank you enough to people doing a good job. don is just one of many. we have in this photograph over here, right here, this handsome young man is ethan cole, supervisor for the work that don and his folks do. also we have here -- this lady is terry sloan, the deputy director of the national records center. we're proud of her and her service, along with ethan. and another t.c., a couple t.c.'s led to our committees -- that would be me and t.c. west would be tom coburn from oklahoma. and tom choppa was national

record center director, now the chicago district director. we're visiting, meeting with a umin of department of homeland security employees, and i just want to mention something that -- i'll tell you a story that he told us about. a visit that someone made to nasa headquarters. i don't know if it was an evening or a weekend. but it was like off-hours and this person was going through one of the big buildings or whatever, nasa space, and he came across a guy that was a janitor there. the guy was responsible for keeping the place clean or cleaning it up. and the visitor said to the janitor, the custodian there that night, he said, well, what are you doing -- what do you do here? and the janitor looked him right in the eye, madam president, and he said, i'm putting a man on the moon.

i'm helping to put a man on the moon. well, these people right here, including don marsisi, they're helping to ensure that our country is safe and secure. we're in their debt. and with that, i'm looking to see, madam president, if there's anyone else trying to speak. i understand that there's the senator from south dakota maybe emerging from the republican cloakroom, looking for a moment to shine. and if he doesn't get out here fast, we'll just note the absence of a quorum and real let him call it off when he gets here. thank you very much, madam president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. thune on thamr. thune: i ask thm call be dispensed with. officer sphr without objection.

-- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: the people are ready for change in washington. senate republicans are, too. in fact, i think even some senate democrats are ready for change in wawrchl washington. when republicans take the majority in january, things are going to look very different here in the senate. it the mark an end to the dysfunction that has characteristickized the senate under the democratic leader's regime. under republican learnings the senat-- under republican leader, the senate will return to regular order. bills will be drafted in committee with ink put from members of both -- with input from members of both parties before the bills are fully debated on the senate floor. and members of both parties will be able to offer amendments in strong contrast to the democratic senate where the minority party has been almost entirely preventorred from getting votes. the senate functions benevolent when all members are allowed to offer amendments and receive votes.

in the early years of the reagan administration, president reagan aggressively pursued tax cuts that faced opposition from republicans as well as from democrats. however, after two weeks of debate and consideration of 141 amendments, the senate passed the bill by an overwhelming vote of 89-11, and presiden in presit reagan's second term, the tax reform act saw three weeks of debate on the senate floor. after consideration of 109 amendments and 24 roll call votes, the bill received 97 votes in the senate. these are just a couple of examples of a senate functioning as our founders intended. an open amendment process so s softens. the result is reforms that are not only historic but longstanding. madam president, in addition to

returning to regular order, the senate will also focus on its oversight responsibilities. our job is not just to pass legislation. we also have a responsibility to take a look at all government programs in existing legislation to make sure that government is doing its job in the most efficient and effective way possible. whijt the i.r.s. targeting conservative groups or the department of veterans fairs that is failing our veterans, senate republicans will conduct aggressive oversight to hold unelected bureaucrats and executive branch political appointees accountable for their actions. finally and most importantly, republicans are going to change the senate's priorities. no longer will the senate's time be tied up with partisan legislation designed to please democrats' far-left constituencies. instead, americans' priorities will be our priorities. jobs, the economy, and the

middle class. as even the third-rank democrat in the senate admitted recently, democrats haven't done well on focusing on americans' priorities. the senior senator from new york said, "unfortunately, democrats blew an opportunity the american people gave them. we took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem: health care reform." well, madam president, republicans don't intend to blow the opportunity the american people have given us. we're going to get right to work on legislation to create jobs, to grow the economy, and to expand opportunities for hardwork being americans. we will take up the dozens of jobs bills that have passed the house but have been collecting dust on the democrat leader's desk in the senate. we'll take up legislation to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline and the more than 42,000 jobs that it would support. we will work with the president to reauthorize trade promotion

authority to open new markets to american farmers and manufacturers and to make sure that american goods are competing on an equal playing field nmgly. we will take up legislation to improve flexibility for working families so that parents can meet their responsibilities at work while still having the time that they need for their families at home. of course we'll take up legislation to address obamacare. the president's health care law is not only making our health care system worse, it's also hurting our already sluggish economy. senate republicans want to repeal and replace this law with real health care reforms, reforms that will actually lower costs and improve americans' access to care. in the meantime we will work to chisel away at the law's most damaging provisions, provisions like the medical device tax which has eliminated thousands of workers' jobs in this industry and is driving up the price of lifesaving medical devices like