quorum call:

mr. paul: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each and with the majority controlling the first half.

quorum call:

'

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. a senator: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the snoot besenate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president i ask unanimous consent to rescind the

quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been approved by the majority and minority leaders and i'd ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president i would ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president i want to take a few minutes to talk today about my growing concern over president obama's policies regarding several major national security issues. of course, the president has just today sent over to congress an authorization for use of military force against isil, the islamic state. but over the last six years as the quantity and frequency of national security crises have grown, there have been some pretty clear trends that have

emerged from this administration's foreign policy. first, we could -- we've seen what might be dubbed the red-line syndrome in which the president uses stern language and strong rhetoric towards a hostile foreign regime or terrorist group and then backs it up with either total inaction or ineffectual action, thus inviting not respect not fear but ridicule. the most infamous example, of course is when the president remarked that the use of chemical weapons by bashar al assad of syria would constitute a red line, and then after assad crossed that red line and used chemical weapons on his own people, the president did essentially nothing in response. thus damaging the united states credibility on the world stage

in the eyes of both our friends and our foes, and i don't have to remind the senate what's happened since that time. more than 200,000 syrians have lost their lives in this terrible civil war and millions of syrians have become displaced, either internally within the country or outside of the country in refugee camps like those i visited in turkey and others in lebanon and jordan just to name a few places. so there are consequences associated with tough talk and no action. the second pattern i have observed what might be called -- what my dad called when i was growing up. he had a phrase he called paralysis by analysis. in other words this is what some have called just plain dithering. now, i think what the president

seems to regard as a deliberative process and as a virtue others really call this dithering or paralysis by analysis and you can think of numerous examples, starting with the snail-like pace of the president's decision process early in his administration with regard to whether or not to surge u.s. forces in afghanistan, and if so, what long-term role we should play there. again, in today's "washington post" when i got up and was getting my first cup of coffee, i was reading now apparently the administration is starting to reassess again their commitment to afghanistan. but the list of the president's paralysis by analysis is lengthy. the situation in ukraine is another painful example. in ukraine, the president has stood idly by and watched russian president vladimir putin carry tout a de facto invasion

of ukraine starting with crime crimea and continuing today in eastern ukraine. from -- quote -- mysterious little green men -- close quote -- to columns of fullup russian tanks, the hand of putin in the ukraine has been unmistakable. it has been the most blatant land grab by force that europe has seen in quite some time, yet the best president obama has been able to do is more hollow rhetoric. now, there have been modest economic assistance and nonlethal military resources to ukraine's government and there have been some sanctions but they apparently have not worked to dissuade putin. the senate might recall what i recalled when the president of ukraine came to speak to a joint session of congress just a few months ago when he asked for more aid lethal aid to fight and defend his country but he did say thank you for the

blankets. obviously, you can't win a war with blankets. by the way, the president's policies toward russia have been an unabated disaster dating all the way back to his 2009 reset of relations with russia, and vladimir putin has taken full advantage of the opening that he sees and the lack of resoluteness on the part of the u.s. government. we have little to show for this so-called reset except realities like this -- the aforementioned russian aneckation of ukraine a russian violation with impunity of president reagan's landmark intermediate range nuclear arms treaty which now poses a direct threat to the security of our nato allies in europe. we've also seen a steady flow of russian weapons and other support to the blood-thirsty butcher of syria bashar

al-assad who as i mentioned earlier has slaughtered more than 200,000 of his he own countrymen and women. the president's paralysis by analysis has also infected his incoherent approach in dealing with the terrorist army of isil, the so-called islamic state. in 2011, after he pulled the plug on negotiations with the iraqis on a status of forces agreement, the obama administration proceeded with a misguided plan to pull the plug on the american presence in that country, thus squandering the blood and treasure that americans invested in trying to liberate the iraqis and provide them a better future. while it is true that the iraqis have not agreed to the u.s. conditions to enduring american presence including legal immunity for our troops, the administration simply gave up and failed to expend the

political capital necessary to secure a status of forces agreement and to preserve the security gains at iraq that as i said have been paid for by american blood and treasure. the resulting security vacuum, coupled with an incompetent and corrupt prime minister, set the conditions for isil to make alarming gains in territory and power in iraq last year. as chaos took hold in syria isil and other terrorist groups were flourishing. we know that in 2012, many of the president's most senior national security advisors, including then-c.i.a. director david petraeus, then-secretary of state hillary clinton then-chairman of the joint chiefs of staff martin dempsey and then-secretary of defense leon panetta all of them recommended at that time that the president initiate a program to arm vetted moderate syrian

rebels. president obama refused publicly remarking just one year ago that isil, islamic state in the levant, was the j.v. team of terrorist groups. today the irony is the president has now sent authorization for use of force to fight this j.c. team as he called it a year ago. then last summer when the challenge had grown many times more complex and more difficult the president had dusted off the idea and moved ahead with it. this is not exactly a picture of decisive leadership, nor is this designed to instill respect indeed fear in our enemies nor confidence in our allies. today with isil growing in strength in the region, our commander in chief cannot even

bring himself to call the evil that they represent by their rightful name. he refuses to acknowledge that isil is a radical islamic group even after these jihadists have beheaded numerous american citizens and other western captives and burned alive a pilot from one of our closest allies jordan. and then, of course, there is the most recent tragic news about kayla mueller the young humanitarian aid worker who tragically lost her life in the hands of isil terrorists after being held captive in syria since 2013. kayla from phoenix arizona had been assisting the group doctors without borders. she said in 2011 in a video she posted on youtube remarking about the slaughter by bashar assad of his own citizens in syria and the rampage of isil,

she said that -- quote -- silence is participation in this crime. well, the president chose to use his recent speech at the national prayer breakfast that i attended along with my wife and friends from dallas to paint a picture of moral equivalence between the barbaric entity known as isil and christian crusaders from centuries ago. and i have to say it. i'm not the only one apparently who was confused by this equivalency or this comparison the president used during that -- his remarks that morning. this week, as congress has now received the president's draft authorization for the use of military force against isil, most of us still lack a clear understanding of the strategy that the president seeks to

employ in order to degrade and destroy this threat even though the military campaign began last august. i know the presiding officer has served with distinction in the united states marine corps and one of the things i hope the president will answer is how he hopes to defeat isil with just air strikes. indeed as i understand from the military experts you can't hope to win a conflict like this by just blowing up things with air strikes. you actually have to hold the territory so that the enemy doesn't reoccupy it once you have moved on somewhere else. so the strategy that we heard so much about of clearing, holding and building, which seems to be an essential strategy when it comes to winning a conflict like this is nowhere to be seen, and the president's strategy just to have air strike after air strike

after air strike. so i hope the president will enlighten us on what strategy he seeks to employ in order to degrade and destroy isil. if not i trust that members of the senate on both sides of the aisle will offer their ideas about the kind of strategy that could have a reasonable chance of success. i personally am reserving judgment on this authorization for the use of military force until i learn more about the president's strategy and hear more about what sort of consensus we can have in the senate about a strategy that has a reasonable chance of success. i take very seriously as i know every single member of the senate does, the granting of authority to use military force putting our men and women in uniform in harm's way to protect not only us but our national security interests around the world. so this is one of the most serious and most important sorts

of debates that we can have as members of the united states senate. but i worry mr. president about the flawed policies that i have identified and that these are really just the tip of the iceberg. in future remarks i want to come back and address the national security threat that i think is perhaps the most urgent and that is of iran's relentless quest for nuclear weapons, as well as the impact on our closest ally in the middle east, the state of israel. recently one of america's finest generals and former commander of the united states central command marine general james mattis, testified before the senate armed services committee that -- quote -- "the united states needs to come out from our reactive crouch and take a firm strategic stance in

defense of our values." close quote. i couldn't agree more. the world is safer and more stable when america leads leads from the front not from the rear and when we say what we mean and we mean what we say and we back it up with action. if the president can't do that, then over the last two years of his administration, it will be incumbent on republicans and democrats in congress to lead the way in the absence of presidential leadership and to do what we can do within our authority to prevent further erosion of american credibility on the world stage. mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. barrasso: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you mr. president. mr. president, last tuesday president obama met with ten people at the white house. these are people who had written him letters about the health care law. the white house said it was designed that this little publicity stunt was to remind people to sign up for insurance on healthcare.gov by the deadline date of sunday, february 15. at his meeting the other day the president said that the people there were, as he said, a pretty good representative sample of people whose lives have been impacted, as he said,

in powerful ways. well, i will tell you mr. president, if president obama really wanted a representative sample he would have included some of the people his law has affected in alarming and expensive ways. what does the president have to say to those people? why didn't he invite any of them to the white house for his photo op? here's what "the new york times" wrote on sunday, february 8. sunday review, "the new york times," headline, "insured but not covered new policies have many americans scrambling." why isn't the president willing to talk to those people who are scrambling all across the country who may have insurance but are not covered? the story starts off by telling the life of one woman in new york city, her name is karen pineman. now, she lost her existing health insurance policy because it didn't meet all the mandates

that president obama said a health insurance policy had to include. now, it might have worked very well for her but it didn't work well enough for president obama so she lost her coverage. so the article says that -- quote -- "she gamely set about shopping for a new policy through the public marketplace. after all she had supported president obama and she supported the health care law as they say as a matter of principle. but the article goes on, ms. pineman who is self-employed, accepted that she'd have to fay a higher premium for a plan with a narrower network of providers and no out-of-network coverage. so here she is, supported the law, but then lost her insurance, had to buy other insurance, and narrower network providers, higher premiums. now she accepted that she would have to pay out of pocket to see her primary care physician because her physician didn't participate, wasn't part of that narrow network. she even accepted "the new york

times" reports having co-pays of nearly $1,800 to have a cast put on her ankle in an emergency room after she heck bureaucracy her ankle playing tennis. they go on. her us from bubbled over when she tried to arrange a followup visit with an orthopedic surgeon in her network. the one that she had to buy the insurance under president obama's law because she lost her own insurance even though the president had promised her if you like your insurance, you can keep it. well the article goes on, the nearest doctor available who treated ankle problems was in stamford connecticut. she's in new york city. she lives in new york. the closest doctor for her ankle who was in her network was in connecticut. she's had it. she said it's ridiculous. didn't they notice it was in another state? so what does president obama have to say to this woman in new york? i see that she wasn't included in the photo op they had at the white houser who ten people who wrote letters to the president. what does he think about the

powerful negative ways that his health care law is affecting her life? after all, "the new york times" thought it was enough that they would devote the front page of the sunday review section this past week to insured but not covered, new policies have many americans scrambling. the article sums it up this way. says the affordable care act has ushered in an era of complex new health insurance products featuring legions of out-of-pocket coinsurance fees, high deductibles and narrow provider networks. all of obamacare's mandates forces insurance companies to use things like dukes and narrow networks to keep premiums from going up even faster. remember, the president promised the premiums would go down by $2,500 per family. they've actually gone up, not down and they've done all of these things so they wouldn't go up even faster.

"the new york times" article says under obamacare these insurance plans come with a -- quote -- "with constant changes in policy guidelines, annual shifts in what's covered and what's not monthly shifts in what doctors are in and out of the network and surprise bills for services people thought would be covered." is the president proud of that? he stood up and said democrats should forcedlifully defend and be proud of the law. i don't see one democrat on this floor of the united states senate who is standing here to forcefully defend and be proud of this law. the article goes on to say for many people, it's also cop -- all so confusing and so expensive they just avoid seeing doctors. just avoid seeing doctors. what does president obama have to say to people who are so confused by their insurance now that the easiest payoff is to just not go for health care? according to a recent poll, 46% of americans said that paying for basic medical care is a

hardship for their family. 46% say it's a hardship for their family. so where was it a year ago? well it's actually up by 10%. the president said things are going to get better, people are going to like this health care law, democrats should defend and be proud of it. 10% more people this year than last year say it's harder and harder to pay for basic medical care, it is a hardship for their family. what does he say to these people? what does the president of the united states say to these people who are saying that his affordable care act is making their life more of a hardship? this is an extensive article insured but not covered in the sunday issue of this week's "new york times" so there's another example from this article about alexis gerstein who lives in work as well in a town called east quad. she bought obamacare insurance coverage for her family then she found out they did have insurance, but they weren't

covered. when her son needed an ear nose and throat doctor, the nearest one in her network was in albany, new york, which is five hours away from where she lives. even though her own cardiologist was on the network list, he didn't take her plan. she ended up driving an hour to see a new cardiologist, finally there was a dispute or deductibles that left her with a pediatrician's bill for 457 dollars dollars. five hours to take her son to a specialist. is that what the president means when he -- democrats in the senate should defend and -- democrats in the senate should defend and. almost $500 out of pocket to see a pediatrician? is that the powerful effect president obama wanted to have on families? that's what he said last week, powerful effect on their lives. what does he have to say to this woman, to alexis?

the reason health care costs aren't higher is because the obama administration decided to give subsidies to some people to help hide the true cost. over the next few months, the supreme court is going to decide if president obama is breaking his own law by giving out some of shows subsidies. millions of people in 37 states may suddenly find that they have to bear the expenses of obamacare entirely on their own, buying insurance that many of them don't want, don't need can't afford, covering lots of things they would never buy insurance for having given the personal choice to do so, the president says they must because he seems to think he knows more about what they need for themselves and their family than they do. last december, several of us asked the administration to start warning people, people who buy insurance through the healthcare.gov web site, you remember that web site, and inform those people because they may lose their subsidies come

this summer when the supreme court makes its ruling. so we asked the administration, we asked the secretary of health and human services, the secretary of the treasury, asked them to let us know how the administration plans to protect people who might get caught in the mess that president obama and his administration and all the people who voted for it in that mess created. all we've heard in response is that the administration has no plans, no plans to warn anyone or to do anything to help americans harmed by the president's health care law. this has the potential to be yet another obamacare train wreck. another study came out last month looked at the change in health insurance coverage for the first nine months of 2014. it found there was a total change of about eight million more people who have coverage. the problem is most of those people were just added to medicaid. medicaid is a program that has

is already broken, doesn't work well as a doctor who has taken care of patients in wyoming for almost a quarter century i can tell you that medicaid across the country is a broken system. yet the people who have gotten insurance -- not care, the president is quick to use the word coverage but doesn't use the word care because there is a huge difference, i can tell you that as a doctor -- but there were about six million people enrolled mostly through the exchanges except five million people lost the insurance they had gotten before through work. so you take a look at the net effect on coverage, 89% of those enoughly covered got it through medicaid. -- newly covered got it through medicaid. that works out to a net gain a little under a million people who have actually gotten private insurance? spite of the exchanges in bite of the subsidies. 7.5 million got it through medicaid. all of that expense all of the hardship that president obama caused on american families,

families who have suffered as a result of the president's health care law and most of the net gain in coverage is people who went on to medicaid. the american people didn't ask for this. if president obama actually talked about with a real representative sample of americans, he would know that. but he doesn't. he only hears what he wants to hear. he disregards the rest. he didn't do that last week, still refuses to listen to people who have been hurt by his law. it's time for the president to be honest with the american people about the ways that his law has harmed them. this is it. "new york times," sunday, february 8 insurance but not covered, new policies have many americans scrambling. it's time for the president to start working with republicans to give people the kind of health care reform that they wanted all along. access to the care they need from 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 when we get the opportunity to do so. it's time for president obama to join us. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

qrl quorum call quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you mr. president. now, mr. president we're running out of time until the department of homeland security shuts down and the majority doesn't seem to have any real plan to avoid it. there are 17 days left with a week of recess in between until tens of thousands of d.h.s. workers are furloughed, fire

grants to local fire departments are no longer sent out and training local first responders in handling terrorist attacks stops dead in its tracks. and yet each day comes with a new round of finger pointing from republicans eager to pass the buck to the other chamber. the distinguished majority leader my friend, senator mcconnell, my friend from tennessee, senator alexander and many other republicans in this body have said it's time for the house majority to come up with a new plan. the house of course says it's the senate majority that needs to act again. this morning, speaker boehner astoundingly said the house would not pass another d.h.s. bill. he is tied in such a knot he can't move even though he knows his failure to move risks a government shutdown. the house of course says it's the senate majority that needs to act again.

and the majority leader said the onus was now on the house to fund d.h.s. this morning the majority leader says the onus is now on the senate. we have all kinds of abbott and costello going. the funny thing is the finger pointing is not at democrats they're pointing at each other as to who is to blame. mr. president, the american people are getting whiplash from helping to the republican leadership on this issue. the republicans need to sort out the divisions within their own caucus before they deflect any blame on democrats. while democrats remain united in both houses in support of a clean bill, the republican majority is busy playing a game of hot potato with national security funding. the disunity and delay has led a few republicans to talk about a short-term continuing resolution that would guarantee another cliff and more brinksmanship and underfund d.h.s. in the

meantime. delaying this same stand-off by a few weeks or months sanity very good plan b it's hardly a plan at all. secretary jeh johnson has described a c.r. for d.h.s. this way, it's like going on a 300-mile trip with a five gal -- five-gallon tank of gas. let me give you a couple of reasons --. a senator: mr. president would my friend from new york yield for a question? mr. schumer: i will yield for a question when i finish my remarks as he was nice enough to yield to me a few days ago. first without the bipartisan null-year bill the u.s. secret service cannot move forward with the critical reforms recommended by an independent panel of experts of a the white house fence jumpingens department. second we can't upgreat the biometric system that prevents terrorists from coming into the

country. democrats depends negotiated an additional $25 million to upgrade the system that stops allowing terrorists coming through an airport or a cargo ship. a c.r. does not provide that funding. third, secretary johnson has said the department would be constrained by a c.r. from improving security along our southwest border and maintaining the resources we added to deal with last summer's border crisis. you say why does a c.r. constrain all this? because it's just ratifying last year's funding and when new things have happened, new terrorist threats new trouble on the border, you can't change the budget. it makes no sense. no could would simply pass last year's budget when they had new challenges. neither should our government. in short a c.r. just doesn't work. it's not how we should be funding homeland security. so mr. president we implore our republican colleagues,

don't shut down homeland security don't shut -- set up another showdown and don't underfund the men and women who work 24/7 to keep us safe. pass a clean appropriations bill and give the people the tools they need to get the job done. i'll happy to yield for a question to my good friend, the senator from texas. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i would ask my friend from new york i don't hear any republicans talking about shutdown, i don't hear any republicans talking about continuing resolutions. i just hear republicans talking about taking up the bill the house has passed which is a $40 billion appropriation bill and having a vote on it. isn't it true that democrats are united in blocking our ability to even consider that $40 billion appropriation bill? mr. schumer: i thank my friend -- my friend for the

question. it's nice to see him standing on the democratic side. try it, you like it, you might do it more often. but by say this -- we all know what speaker boehner did. the hard right in the house said we want to force the president to undo his executive orders. now, they know if they put it on the floor alone the president might veto it. so they attach it to homeland security and they basically say to the president the only way we will fund social security -- homeland security is if you take these unpal atable riders which the president says he'll veto. so there's a simple solution here. that would force a shutdown. what the house did is say if you don't do it our way we're shutting down the government. that didn't work two years ago led by the junior senator from texas, not my friend, the senior senator from texas and it's not going to work today. everyone knows what our

colleagues in the house did. they're playing hostage. they're holding a gun to the head of america and saying unless do you it our way we're going to shut down the government. that's why they attached it. no one -- let me repeat to my dear friend from texas no one objects to debating what the president did on executive orders. we welcome that debate. it's the act of tying it to funding the government, the same thing they did with obamacare a few years ago that says we're going to shut down the government unless we get our way. and so the logical conclusion -- i'll yield in a sec -- is very simple -- pass the homeland security -- if you don't want to shut down the government has a clean homeland security bill and then you have the majority, put immigration on the floor and let's debate it. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd ask my friend --. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i'd ask my friend

from new york, again i don't hear any republicans talking about shutting down the government. indeed the deadline as i understand is february 27 for this appropriation bill. what we are having is a discussion about the president's abuse of his authority under the constitution by issuing the executive order. i understand we disagree about that and we ought to have that debate and the public i think would insist that we honor our oath by making sure that we protect and defend the constitution of the united states including against presidential overreach. but i ask my friend, is it going to be the consistent position of our democratic friends in the senate that you're going to block us from even getting on the bill so you could offer amendments to strip out the parts you don't like. that's the way the senate is supposed to work but it doesn't work that way when democrats are filibustering this $40 billion

appropriation bill. mr. schumer: i thank my colleague from texas for his good question. i agree with parts of what he said. first, i agree we disagree on the executive order. second, i agree we ought to debate it. we ought not to debate it in a hostage-taking situation. our colleagues in the house may not have used the word shutdown doesn't matter, their actions speak louder than words. when you attach these proposals to homeland security, and say we are not going to fund homeland security unless we get some of these proposals that is saying we will shut down the government unless we get our way. sure. they won't shut down the government if we vote for all of their immigration provisions, extraneous and next time they'll attach something else and something else. but they are using the threat of a government shutdown to try and get their way. that has not worked in the past and it won't work today.

so we democrats are not blocking any debate. we're happy to debate funding homeland security. we're happy to debate immigration. challenge us. pass homeland security, put immigration on the floor see if any democrat tries to block that debate. we welcome that debate. we think we'll win that debate. i know my good friend from texas disagrees with that but that's not the issue. the issue is, again unless you do it our way, we're shutting down the government. that's what the house did and so far, that's what the republican majority in the senate is going along with. that is government shutdown, that is hostage taking, that hasn't worked in the past, it will not work now. it's unprecedented. the junior senator from texas came up with this kind of thinking and unfortunately too many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle go along with him either out of conviction or out of something else. mr. cornyn: will the senator

yield for one last question? he's been very gracious. mr. schumer: i enjoy these debates. mr. cornyn: while i don't agree with his answers i appreciate the spirit we're having the discuss discussion. i wonder if he could explain how it is the majority is blocking homeland security funding when the house has passed a $40 billion bill, republicans have been united in voting to proceed to get on the bill and then to allow an amendment process where the minority can then move to strike the provisions you don't like. that's the way the senate is supposed to operate. how is that that republicans are blocking homeland security funding under these circumstances? don't understand it. mr. schumer: okay. i would just ask the rhetoric question. i thank my colleague. why did they attach these provisions inimical to president and to us, to the homeland security bill which it has nothing to do with? not because they wanted a debate debate.

not because they wanted to fund homeland security. there are easy ways to do that. they wanted to say unless you do it our way we're not going to fund homeland security, we're going to shut down a major portion of the government. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. a senator: mr. president are we in morning business? the presiding officer: we are. mr. wicker: mr. president i rise briefly today to recognize the extraordinary story of my fellow mississippian malcolm butler who hails from vicksburg mississippi, and attended heinz community college. mr. butler a corner back for the new england patriots, made the game-winning interception in super bowl xlix on february 1 2015. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the following article by rick cleveland. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: thank you mr. president. rick cleveland is executive director of the mississippi sports hall of fame and museum.

this story appeared on february february 3 2015, in a number of newspapers including my hometown of tupelo's "northeast mississippi daily journal q the article points out how malcolm butler overcame adversity. how he came from working at a popeye's fried chicken to being the hero of this year's super bowl. mr. president, my home state of mississippi has a long and storied football tradition. gridiron legends such as archie manning, eli manning michael orr, jerry rice, walter peyton, brett favre and a host of others from the magnolia state are included in this list, and as pointed out in this article malcolm butler joins mississippi's remarkable super bowl pantheon. thank you mr. president.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the sna is the in a quorum call. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent to lift the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: madam president i just want to take a few minutes today to talk about a piece of legislation that i am introducing today legislation i have written to improve access to health care for our nation's veterans because, madam president, there is no more

solemn promise we make as a nation than our commitment to care for the men and women who serve in the united states military. these men and women put life and limb on the line to protect our country, to protect our freedoms and to protect our way of life. and in return, we, as a country make a promise to care for them, no matter what. and just as important we make a promise to care for their families their wives their husbands their children. but, madam president many of the young men and women who serve in the military enter at a very young age often before they have children of their own and like so many other americans, they have big plans for their lives after their service. many of them plan to buy a house or go back to school and vaunts -- and eventually have a family. in a time when our military conflicts involve roadside bombs and makeshift explosives and life-threatening danger at every

corner many of our servicemen and women are coming home with injuries that leave them unable to start their own family. in fact, military data shows that over the last decade, thousands of service members have suffered injuries that make it nearly impossible to have children. madam president, we should be doing everything we can with the best science and health services available to help our veterans and their loved ones have children despite their injuries. but instead outdated policies at the pentagon and the v.a. are making it harder, not easier, for seriously injured veterans to have children. and that's because when severely injured servicemen and women and veterans seek reproductive health services, like in vitro fertilization, their coverage often does cover this very expensive procedure. as a result, the only option for these heroes and their partners

to have children is to pay out of their own pocket tens of thousands of dollars to try and conceive. so today i'm introducing the women veterans and family health services act of 2015, and it would basically do two things. first of all, it will expand the reproductive health services available for active duty service members and their families and second, it would finally end the ban on in vitro fertilization services at the v.a. madam president, i have introduced similar legislation in the past and as i've done before, i wanted to share with everyone the story of staff sergeant matt kyl and his wife tracy. he was shot in the neck while on patrol in ramadi, iraq, on february 24, 2007, six weeks after he married the love of his life tracy. the bullet went through the right side of his neck, hit a major artery, went through his spinal cord, and exited through

his left shoulder blade. he instantly became a quod dry plegic. -- quod dry plegic. doctors injured tracy he was be 0 on a ventilator the rest of his life and would never move his arms or legs. he defied the odds and found himself off the ventilator and found himself in a very long jorny of rehabilitation. they started exploring the option of having a family together. with staff sergeant kyl's injuries preventing him from having children naturally tracy turned to the v.a. for assistance and began to explore her options for fertility treatments. feeling defeated after being toll the v.a. had no such programs in place for her situation, tracy and staff sergeant kyl decided to pursue i.v.f. through the private

sector. while they were anxious to begin this chapter of their lives they were confronted with the reality that tricare did not cover any of the costs related to tracy's treatments because she did not have fertility issues beyond her husband's injury. left with no further options shall the kyls decided this was important enough to them that they were willing to pay out of pocket to the tune of almost $ed 32,000 per round of treatment. on november 9 2010, just after their first round of i.v.f., staff sergeant kyl and tracy welcomed their twins matthew and faith into the world. tracy told me the date we had our children, something changed in both of us. this is exactly what we always wanted. our dreams had arrived. the v.a., congress, and the american people have said countless times they wnts to do everything -- they want to do everything they can to support my husband or make him feel whole again. this is your chance. having a family is exactly what

we needed to feel whole again. please help us make these changes so that other families can share in this experience." madam president tracy is here in the gallery today because she is a champion for this issue. she does not want to see other service members and their families go through the struggle that she and matt did because of outdated policies that don't reflect modern medicine. and while the kyls' story may be unique, they are not alone. thousands of veterans and service members have returned from their service only hoping to have children only to find that they are unable to obtain the kind of assistance that they need. some have spent tens of thousands of dollars in the private sector like tracy and her husband to get the advanced reproductive treatments they needed. others have watched sadly their marriages dissolve because

of the stress of infertility in combination of the stress of readjusting to a new life after a severe injury driving their relationships to a breaking point. any service member who sustains this type of serious injury deserves so much more. they deserve our support to help them start a family and our support to raise that family. this bill is so important because access to child care is one of the most significant barriers to care for women veterans and young veterans. this bill makes permanent the highly successful pilot program in v.a., expands it across the country. so, madam president i'm really hopeful that republicans and democrats can come together and support this bill. just a few years ago we were able to pass similar legislation through the senate. but, unfortunately it didn't pass the house in time to get the president's signature and signed into law. this time has to be different. because this bill is about nothing more than giving veterans who sacrificed

everything the option to fulfill the dream of starting a family. it's a bill that shows when we tell our deploying service members deploying to a war zone that we have their back, we mean it. and it's a bill that recognizes the men and women who are harmed in the service of this country have bright, full lives ahead of them. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: and, madam president, it is my understanding that we have

someone coming down at -- in about ten minutes a understand that i would be recognized shortly after 2:25. i want to lock that in. senator hoeven and then me. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: madam president i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: madam president i'd like to speak today on the subject of the keystone x.l. pipeline. the keystone x.l. approval bill which we passed in the senate will be voted on in the house and i believe the house will pass with a strong bipartisan majority just as we did in the senate. this bill is about energy. it's about jobs. it's about economic growth. and it's about national security through energy security. and i've been down on the floor here in the senate talking about all these issues as we worked on this bill, and the keystone x.l. pipeline approval bill was the first bill we took up in the senate in this congress. it's s. 1. i think there were on the order

of 250 amendments filed on the bill and we voted on more than 40 amendments. roll call votes. we debated. senators brought forward their amendments and we voted. we voted on the bill and the bill passed, as i say, with a strong bipartisan majority. now the senate will -- excuse me. now the house will vote, as i say, this afternoon, on the bill as well. and i think it's remarkable that today's the day that we'll pass the bill completely through the congress. i think it's remarkable because it's on the very same day that the president has sent to the congress an aumf, authorization for use of military force to deal with isis. so on the very same day that the president has sent us an aumf, authorization for use of military force to actually send our soldiers, our men and women our combat resources to the

middle east, to a conflict in the middle east, that's the very same day that we're passing legislation that will help our nation with the production of more energy not only here in the united states, but also working with our closest friend and ally canada. this pipeline is about the infrastructure we need to help us move to energy security, meaning we produce more energy than we consume. right now today in the united states we consume about 18 million barrels of oil a day. about 18 million barrels a day. of that total we produce about 11 million barrels a day. and we import from canada about three million barrels a day. if you do the math, that means there's about four million barrels a day we need to import from other countries. we get about half of that from opec. so roughly two million barrels a

day. the keystone x.l. pipeline will move 830,000 barrels a day. some of that will be produced in canada. some of it will be produced here in the united states. but it will move 830,000 barrels a day to our refineries. that's almost a million barrels a day we don't have to import from somewhere else. so go back to the math. i just said we're importing from countries other than canada about four million barrels a day, about half of that from opec. that's about two million barrels a day. this project is almost half of what we're importing from opec right now. so that's why i say it's remarkable on the very same day that we're working to build energy security for this country, where we're working to develop the infrastructure we need to move oil from where it's produced to where it's consumed, where it's refined and consumed in this country, we're also dealing with conflict in the middle east. opec. we're getting oil from the middle east, we're dealing with

conflict in the middle east. let's break that cycle. at the point where we produce more energy than we consume we're energy secure. it's not only about growing our economy and creating jobs but it means we don't have to get oil from opec anymore. and that's one more reason we may not have to be involved in a conflict in the middle east in the future. so here we are in a bipartisan way in the congress doing the work that the people sent us here to do in the senate and in the house on a project that has overwhelming bipartisan support on a project where all six states on the route of this pipeline -- montana, south dakota nebraska, kansas, oklahoma texas, all of the states have approved it. they didn't have to particularly hustle because they have had six years to do it. the administration has held this project up for six years. but here we are with something that congress overwhelmingly supports on a bipartisan basis. all six states that have this

pipeline they've approved it. and the american people overwhelmingly support it. in poll after poll, 65% to 70% of the american public says, yes, build this infrastructure, create an energy future where we produce the oil and gas we need here in america and we work with canada. we the american people, don't want to rely on opec or the middle east anymore for our energy. we don't want to have to import oil from the middle east. and so that's what this legislation is all about. so on the very day that we're approving this bill through congress we're getting the president's request for the use of military force. he's sending that agreement to us and i believe the president is saying to us, congress, join with the obama administration to work to deal with the terrible problem of isis. and we need to do that. and we're going to give that

aumf authorization for use of military force careful consideration. i think that congress will work its will, and then we will together as representatives of the american people -- the executive and the legislative branch together work to defeat isis. but just as the president is sending us that document today we're sending him a document. we will be sending him a law dutifully passed by both the senate and the house on a bipartisan basis saying mr. president, we need you to work with us too. just as you want congress to work with you on an authorization for use of military force, we want you to work with us on behalf of the american people who have spoken loudly and consistently that they want energy security. mr. president, we need you to work with us to build that vital infrastructure so that we can produce our energy here at home and work with our closest friend and ally, canada, and not be

dependent on energy from the middle east anymore. and don't be fooled. don't be fooled. we are in a battle right now for global market share to determine who is going to produce energy in the future. is it going to be opec? is it going to be russia? is it going to be the united states? who's going to produce energy in the future? the reason that the price at the pump has come down over $1 over the cost of the past year is because we're producing so much more oil and gas in the united states and because we're getting more from canada, more supply pushes prices down. if that were a tax cut, it would equate to more than $100 billion tax cut for the american consumer. so what's going on? well on a global basis opec's pushing back. because if they know they push back and instead of our industry our energy industry in this country continuing to grow,

it starts to shrink again who's back in the driver's seat? opec is back in the driver's seat. and what do you suppose is going to happen then? prices will go right back up, and that benefit that consumers get at the pump, we won't have anymore. and that security issue that i'm talking about we won't have because we'll have to continue to bring in oil from the middle east. this is about a long-term strategy for national security, and it's more than just sending our combat resources into a conflict. a long-term strategy for national security also includes energy security. and just as the president is sending us an aumf today, we are sending him legislation today that will make our nation more energy secure. i hope the president will join with us in that endeavor on behalf of the american people. thank you madam president and

with that i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized for such time as i shall consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: madam president, i was listening very carefully to the senator talking about our situation with the pipeline, and there's something else i was going to talk about here, but i want to make sure that we say as often as we can -- and i've said before and will stall until a poster gets down here a picture i want to share with this group with the senate.

my state of oklahoma is more than just, has more than a passing interest in the pipeline. we have a town called cushing the is en treks of the pipelines going -- the centrex of the pipelines going through east, west north and south. the picture if it gets down here is one of our president i guess trying to insult our intelligence by having it both ways. i think the senator from north dakota made it very clear in that the president has dragged his feet and he's been able to successfully stop the pipeline from coming through. the picture i'll show you is a picture of the president obama coming in to my state of oklahoma and standing up with all the barrels behind him in cushing, oklahoma, saying he's announcing that he's not going to stop the pipeline from going

south from oklahoma down to the texas border. well that's very good because he can't do it. the only place he can stop it is when it crosses an international border. of course that's where he has continued to stop it. and i have to say this, that he's lost the war on words on this. because people know that we have an opportunity everything that the senator said is correct. we can be totally independent in no time at all and we're not talking about years. we're talking about weeks and months that we can have our total independence just by lifting up all the restrictions that we have right now. not just the pipeline, but what's happening on federal land. it's interesting that we've gone through this shale revolution in this country and it's been so overwhelming in the last five years, it's been in spite of the president because he continues in his budget to have all kinds of punitive provisions for the oil and gas industry.

and yet, because of what's happened with the shale revolution the use of hydraulic fracturing horizontal drilling and all the obvious things that we're all aware of, we have increased our production over the last five years by 61% i say, madam president. 61%. but all of the 61% is in private land or it's in state land. we have on federal land a reduction, whielgt -- while the rest of the country increased by 61%, it has been reduced by 6%. that is the dilemma we have right now. it goes far beyond just the pipeline. we have an opportunity to be completely free, and i'm talking about our northern hemisphere here be free from dependence on anyone in any part of the world for our ability to produce the energy necessary to run this machine called america. let me share though, another

thing that happened last week. i'm introducing a bill today because there's something that people are not as aware of as they should. we don't have a better friend than king abdullah of jordan. i've real pleased to get to know him as a personal friend as well as a friend of america. i was over there with him just last october and we were on the syrian border looking at the -- all the things that are going on right now with isil, with isis, and it's been a real tragedy. then it happened that last week, king abdullah was in the united states for the national prayer breakfast, and while he was here there were several of us who were with him when he got the news that his friend and relative and f-16 pilot he got the news that he had been caged soaked with gasoline and burned

alive. we saw the emotions that hit. people america and the whole world looked and they saw what kind of monsters are these people over there that are doing this, that are beheading children and women and pregnant women and burning people alive and yet this -- this is going on. and people have to understand this. they do understand it in terms of isis, but what i want to be -- to come forth this morning to share with you and introduce legislation to correct it's not just there. it's also happening right now in ukraine. i happened to be in the ukraine -- well, let's see. it was in october late october of this year. i went over there because they are having their parliament elections at that time, and ukraine has been such a good friend of ours, not just poroshenko but the rest of the administration that went through the parliament election. let's keep in mind the presidential elections were way back in may so these were the

parliament elections and we were there just to see what's happening in the ukraine. in the ukraine, they have a -- a constitutional requirement that you cannot have a seat in parliament unless you have 5% of the -- of the vote, and this is the first time after the vote when we were there in october that they had a parliament vote where not one communist got a seat in parliament. it's the first time in 96 years not one communist has a seat in parliament. and so as bad as things are with isis i suggest that what is going on -- and i only preface what i'm saying to demonstrate what a good friend poroshenko and the leadership of the ukraine as they are to the united states, that what is going on there.

we have the russians in there with the separatists doing horrible things, things that are just as bad as the things that are taking place in isis, in syria and other places. and just to demonstrate this, i brought back -- and it's not a very fun thing to look at, but you have to understand what's happening there. hold up the tank one first. these are -- madam president these are t-72 tanks. now, putin keeps saying we don't have any russians in there with the separatists. it's not us. we're not doing it. look here they are. this is pictures we brought back with us. those are the tanks all lined up all of that within that area of ukraine and clearly that's what they are. now, if you want to see how brutal putin and everyone else is it's not something you enjoy looking at but you have to know that this is going on so the

tragedies that are taking place in syria and other parts of the world are also taking place in ukraine. this is a picture the other one, if you would, of the murders that are taking place torturing in what's going on these people have been disembodied, the heads cut off hanging from, and this is going on around -- these are ukranian citizens. these are legal citizens. they are the ones who are being fought by -- by putin and the rest of them. so for that reason, i've introduced legislation to require that the united states offer the weaponry. by the way, i was making a presentation to this and senator mccain was there and he commented. he said if you look at all of those -- those tanks we don't -- they don't have one piece of equipment that could offer a defense to those tanks.

i mean, so what have we been giving them? we have been missing them m.r.i.'s and blankets, and when for schenk owe was here in the united states in the speech that he made to -- to both houses, he made the statement he said you can't win a war with blankets. even more, we cannot keep peace with a blanket. in other words, we have to share with them the very best defensive weapons or weapons that could be used offensively. they can't be left naked there in facing this kind of abuse. now, we know that shortly after the heavily armed russian soldiers invaded and look control of the crimean region in february of 2014, the ukranian government and its people have faced sustained and deadly force from heavily armed rebel separatists equipped, trained and supported by the russian federation. now, we have seen pictures of that. it's the first time we have

shown pictures that document, number one that this is equipment that has come here from russia with putin and number two the type of thing that they are doing. now, we passed a -- a -- a law last year saying that we want to give defensive weaponry to -- to the ukranians but one thing that it fell short of, it was prescriptive. it said what kind of equipment can do it? the bill that i am introducing does two things. it offers the equipment that we can give them with no restrictions whatsoever, and secondly it does something else that i think is very -- very significant, and that is we require the president to come up with a strategy. you know, people are always saying well, the president doesn't have a strategy against isis. it's true, he doesn't have one. it's deplorable that he doesn't have one. but he also doesn't have one against what's happening in the

ukraine. and without a strategy, it's not going to work. last week, we had a hearing in the senate armed services committee. it was kind of fun because we had people from the past. we had george shultz, madeleine albright henry kissinger and some of those people. i asked the question of them, i said we're talking about the ukraine at that time and offering some equipment to go there, and they said well, you've got to do that but you also -- you can't send in just equipment. you specifically are going to have to give demand that you get a strot just. so in this bill, we are saying to the president of the united states not only do we send equipment over, but we also provide a strategy that we can come up with and massage as time goes by. so it's not just the ones i mentioned. on february 2, 2015, eight of the former senior ranking diplomatic and military officials were -- testified. they included the former united

states ambassador to the ukraine, steven feiffer someone most of us know, former under secretary of defense michelle flournois, supreme allied commander admiral james stravis and former deputy commander of the u.s. command general charles wald. they all served under both republican and democrat administrations. they released a nonpartisan report calling on president obama to provide ukraine with lethal weaponry -- this is what we're talking about in this bill -- and encourage other nato countries to do the same, and particularly those that possess and use former soviet equipment and weaponry to do the same. and finally on january 25 when president obama stated at a news conference in new delhi india that the aggression by the rebel separatists in eastern ukraine

had russian backing russian equipment, russian financing russian training and russian troops finally even the president agrees to that. so this is not something that's debatable. it's not something that might be happening. it is something that is happening. and as you see the horrible things that are going on over there, you can see the reason that it's really necessary to get -- to get this done. some time ago -- this is back when carl levin was still in. he is retired. he served, did a great job as chairman of the senate armed services committee for many years. he and i -- at that time i was ranking republican on the committee of armed services. we wrote in "the washington post" -- and i'm quoting what we said at that time. this is back a year ago october. quote -- "we believe that the united states should begin providing defensive weapons that would help ukraine defend its territory. such weapons would include antitank weapons to defend

against russian-provided armored personnel carriers, as you just saw the picture of, proof that's happening, ammunition vehicles and secure communications equipment. this would present no threat to russia unless its forces launch further aggression against ukraine. in other words these weapons are lethal but not provocative because they are defensive. now, that came from carl levin and me, and this is back before we knew the results of the parliamentary election that was so successful and so complimentary to the west. so i would say that we are in a position of being overdue to get this done. there is no one who disagrees with it, and even the president recognizes now that -- that -- that they have the equipment and we are not doing the job we should be doing. with that, i'm going to introduce senate bill 452 -- does that sound right? yeah 452.

we're going to be asking for cosponsors to come down. we have quite a long list of cosponsors. and, you know, it doesn't bother me if other members want to introduce like resolutions because we need to get something passed. we need to raise the visibility so that the people of america know it's not just in -- in syria and some of these other countries, but it's also in the country of one of our very best friends worldwide and that best friend is the ukraine. with that, i yield the floor suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the senate proceed -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: cowboy unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of s. 295 one hour divided in the usual form, following the use or yielding back of that time the hatch technical amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and the senate proceed to vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate. following disposition of the bill the senate will resume the motion to proceed to h.r. 240, the d.h.s. appropriation bill. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: no objection. the presiding officer: without

objection, so ordered. the clerk will report s. 295. the clerk: calendar number 16, s. 295 a bill to amend section 2259 of title 18 united states code and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order there will be one hour of debate equally divided in the usual form. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i thank the majority leader for moving ahead on s. 295, that we call the amy and vicky act. the need for this bill comes because the supreme court's 5-4 decision last year in paroline versus united states.

the court at that time limited that the recovery of a victim of a child pornography offense could receive even as additional wrongdoers saw her images as it was repeatedly posted on the internet. rather than making the offender provide restitution for all the harms caused by the repeated viewings, the supreme court limited recovery against any one defendant to the relative harm that the defendant caused. this bill will expand the categories of loss for which the victim could recover. it would reverse then, the supreme court by permitting the victim to recover up to the full loss from any one defendant subject to a minimum amount depending on the defendant's conduct. no longer, then, would the

victim receive restitution from each defendant limited to that defendant's own actions. each defendant would be jointly and severally liable for the victim's entire loss, and the bill sets up a contribution procedure for those defendants who make the victim -- which would then make the victim whole. and, of course, that is the main point. the choice is between the convicted child pornographer offender being held responsible for the full loss, and the innocent victim not receiving full compensation. the supreme court ruled that the victim could not receive all of her restitution from any one single defendant even as her

damage was compounded. this bill appropriately rejects that and i hope it is not the last time that this congress overturns a supreme court decision. i'm proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation as i was in the last congress. i was pleased that the first legislation that the judiciary committee took up when i became chairman was this bipartisan child pornography bill, and i'm glad to have shep hearded that bill through -- shepherded that bill through the committee so the senate can take it up as one of its first legislative items and we should all commend as i do senator hatch for his work on this very important piece of legislation. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i would ask unanimous consent any time in quorum be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president i ask i ask for the call of the quorum to be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: later this month on february 27 exactly funding for the department of homeland security will run out. i think we all agree that this is a critical time for our country's national security, and it's important that we fully fund the homeland security needs to protect americans against terrorist attack and other things that could happen in this country that homeland security is addressed to -- is in a position to address. but in recent days, several of my friends across the aisle have spoken on this floor asserting

that republicans are trying to force a department of homeland security shutdown, and nothing, nothing could be further from the truth. the argument essentially is that is -- has been made by some, is that unless republicans refuse to completely not say anything about the president's egregious constitutional violation of his executive powers relative to major changes in our immigration law to implement those without the voice of the elected representatives, without the voice of congress, that's a major issue and republicans will be responsible they say for any lapse in d.h.s. funding if we try to even debate or talk about that subject. so to put this all in perspective, let me -- regarding this situation the

assertions that few have made, let me give you some thoughts here. let's remember how we got into this situation to start with. in 2008, a presidential candidate by the name of barack obama said the following -- and i quote -- "i take the constitutional seriously. the biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch. bring more power into the executive branch and not go through congress at all. and that's what i would tend to reverse when i'm president of the united states. he went on to say when he was president a the nation -- america is a nation of laws which means that as president i'm obligated to enforce that law. i don't have a choice about that. that's part of my job. but i can -- i can advocate for

changes so we can have a country that's respectful of the law but also continues to be a great country of immigrants. with respect -- here's the key statement -- with respect to the notion i can just suspend deportation through executive order, that's not the case because there are laws on the books that congress has passed. i could go on and on and on about what the president has paid said about his limitation of powers both as a candidate and as president of the united states. of course, he has violated and taxed on every word he said broken every promise he's made, taken the reverse position than that everything he said on the senate floor as a senator and as a president. and so republicans have responded by simply saying that is a violation of your executive power and we think that these issues ought to be debated and worked through the people's representatives as they have been in the past and not simply have you saying i don't like

what you did and therefore time i'm going to do what i want to do regardless of what you representing the people say we should do. and because there is an association between the department of homeland security funding and funding for certain aspects of immigration republicans thought it would be worthwhile to bring a debate to the floor so the public could hear what we had to say on this issue and so that we could make adjustments through this process. now, having suffered through six years of -- for me four years but for the senate six years of this presidency led by then majority leader, the democratic party and not allowing republicans to debate on the floor for any significant issues that perhaps didn't fit their agenda, we've seen a new

management take over here and open up the process so that we can be again the people's representatives speaking and debating on the floor offering amendments winning some, losing some, coming to a conclusion and looking for the right vehicle to do that, the only real vehicle that would allow us to object and to at least debate and offer our amendments against what the president was trying to do has been totally stifled through a democrat filibuster, not even allowing us to go forward with the bill. so we're stuck here in a difficult situation wanting to address this egregious abuse of constitutionally designed power for the presidency and at the same time needing to fund for necessary security needs through the department of homeland security. by not allowing us to even bring this issue to the floor of the

senate to debate it back and forth, to allow each side to offer their amendments, if the other side wants to make adjustments, doesn't agree with the language, they have every right to offer an amendment debate that amendment and if they're persuasive enough, they'll pass that amendment. and we ultimately will end up with a product that addresses these two important needs. one, the funding for our national security and our domestic security through homeland security, and number two, addressing the issue of the president's breach of constitutional duties. so we stand here frustrated, frustrated with our inability to be able to go forward in the way that the american people expect us to go forward and the way that traditionally this senate has operated and here we stand in stalemate because one party says no, we don't even want to let you talk about it. one party says that no, we

don't even want to take it up, offer our amendments, maybe -- we're afraid they won't pass. that's how it works here. the irony here is that at least eight democrats as i count when the president issued his executive order regarding immigration were very critical of that. they basically said yeah, that does exceed his powers and he shouldn't have done that. now, here's an opportunity for them to way in with their votes instead of just their rhetoric, and yet they will not allow even that to happen. and so we are caught here in this dilemma. let me make a couple of things absolutely certain and sure at least from my prospective. i do not -- perspective. i do not believe that a government shutdown is the appropriate response to this issue. funding essential and paying for

essential functions of the department of homeland security at a time when threats have never been higher is absolutely essential. so we have to achieve that by whatever means we have to achieve this. by the same token addressing this egregious violation and broken promises of the president's own words relative to executive powers on immigration, which is a key issue which the american people want debated need to be debated, we -- both sides have agreed we need immigration reform but it ought to be done through the people's representatives and not through the wishes of the president of the united states when he doesn't have the power to make these changes. and so i trust that we will be able to work through this in the next several days leading up to -- leading up to our recess or the end of this month when we have to come to a conclusion, we're working hard to do that. we just would like the opposing party, the democrat party to allow its members or come to the

conclusion that yes these issues are important enough to be debated on the floor of this body are important enough to allow each side to say where they stand important enough to allow members whether republicans or democrats to offer changes, 0 to offer alternatives to offer amendments, important enough for us to do what we were sent here to do and that is to to represent the people in this body on critical, important issues that lie before us. mr. president, with that i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask that -- we are not in a quorum call, i understand. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. hatch: okay. the bill before us provides the axiom that big things come in small packages. this bill, the amy and vicky child pornography victim restitution improvement act is a very big bill. by enacting the violence against women act congress required the defendants who commit certain crimes pay restitution to their victims. i had a lot to do with that bill. these are crimes such as the sexual exploitation of children that have a particularly devastating impact on victims and they need help to put their lives back together. last year in a case titled

paraline versus the united states the supreme court concluded that the restitution statute cannot provide the restitution that congress promised for child pornography victims. the only way to fix this problem is to amend the restitution statute in a way that accounts for the insidious and evil nature of child pornography itself. the supreme court held in paraline that under the institute as currently written a victim can seek restitution only for losses that are directly related to an individual defendant's distribution or possession of specific images of her abuse. that is not only virtually impossible to prove but it pretends that defendants and images are isolated and self-contained. the truth is that in the internet age defendants are a part of a growing shifting, and constantly active group of individuals who keep the victimization going. as the supreme court put it in paraline last year, each

viewing of child pornography is a repetition of the child's abuse. everyone who drives to trafficking in those images repeats the abuse -- that repeat that abuse and they contribute to the victims' losses. some of them will be caught and prosecuted will while others hide in the shadows and seek safety in numbers. the hars -- the harsh reality is the internet has multiplied the number of individuals that harm her and statement made it harder to identify them so she can seek restitution -- or, should i say she aollyshe really can't seek restitution. this bill is named for amy and vicki, two victims. when i reintroduced this bill in january -- on january 28, i also shared the story of andy, a young man in utah who was the

victim of another widely distributed child pornography series. he is the named victim in more than 700 cases that has been granted restitution under caroline in only one quarter of the cases in which he has sought it and actually received restitution in just two of those cases. this bill provides judges with options for calculating a victim's total losses and imposing restitution in different kinds of cases. that is not always easy for the very reason that i just described. a judge must impose restitution in an individual case for losses that flow from ongoing harm, but that is the diabolical nature of chile pornography and we must equip the criminal justice system to address it. this bill helps victims in another important way. today a victim must chase every defendant to seek restitution only to be told that she must

approve the impossible and therefore receive next to nothing. in addition to providing a way for judges to require meaningful restitution in individual cases this bill allows defendants who harm the same vum to seek contribution -- victim to seek contribution from eacher to spreadfrom eachother to spread the restitution cost. the current statute minimizes the victim's restitution. this bill minimizes a victim's burden and maximizes her restitution. both amy and vicki personally endorse this bill. national victim advocacy groups also support it, including the national center for missing and exploited children, the national organization for victim assistance the national crime victim law institute the national interest for victims of crime, the national task force to end sex and domestic violence against women and the rape, incest and abuse national

network. last october i received a letter endorsing this bill signed by the attorneys general of 43 states 22 republicans and 21 democrat attorney generals. this has in fact been a truly bipartisan effort. the senior senator from new york senator schumer, has been my partner from the start in developing this legislation and has been a champion for crime victims for many years. it's important to have hill on this bill. he's one of the great leaders here in the united states senate today. and we intend to do more together in the future. the cosponsors include 22 republicans and 17 democrats. big things really do come in small packages. i've been contacted by advocates working with dozens of countries around the world to tackle the problem of child pornography and exploitation. they emphasize the need for meaningful restitution and say that this legislation can be an example for other countries to

follow. congress in 1994 required full restitution for child victims of sexual exploitation. the supreme court last year confirmed that the restitution statute cannot keep that promise to victims of child pornography. enacting this legislation shows congress at its best stepping up and taking the action necessary to address this problem. amy, vicki and andy can counting on us. mr. president, this is an extremely important bill. it means that victims of child pornography, usually videos that are shipped all around the world and seen by maybe millions, have a chance of being able to get true restitution under this bill. where before that they'd have to go and sue everyone who is involved and there's no way they could find out that, no way they could really do that, no way that they could get enough

restitution to justify the attorneys' fees, no way that they could really vindicate themselves and show these people these horrible people who do these thunk things to children that they're not going to get away with it any more. this bill eliminates that. this bill makes it possible for the victims of pornography and childhood exploitation to be able to recover and to get restitution from the very, very poor treatment they've undergone. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president i rise today in support of the amy and vickie child pornography and restitution act which my good friend senator hatch has requested a vote on this

afternope. first, i want to thank senator hatch for his important work on this legislation. i was proud to work alongside of him as the democratic cosponsor of this bill, and he's been an absolute force in pushing this bill in the judiciary committee and to the floor today. we've had a great partnership and worked on many things together and i think i join every one of my 99 colleagues in telling the senator utah how much respect we have for him. mr. president, our bill is it one important thing. it fixes a flaw in our restitution system for child pornography victims. you see in this day and age victims of child pornography face ongoing harm every time a video or picture of them is shared and viewed on the internet. as the supreme court explained about a victim, these sexual abuse crimes are compounded by the distribution of images of her abuser's horrific acts, which meant the wrongs inflicted

upon her were in effect repeated for she knew her humiliation and hurt were and would be renewed into the future as an ever-increasing number of wrongdoers witnessed the crimes committed against her." the horror of sexual abuse can be long-lasting. it can constitute the loss of income medical care, psychiatric counseling and therapy. the victims of sexual abuse therefore, can absolutely in the right to seek restitution from those evil criminals who perpetuate the original crime by sharing and viewing images of the crime. the 2014 supreme court case paroline v. the united states placed a heavy burden on the victims trying to recover restitution. the tragic effect of the supreme court's decision in the paroline case was this: the more widely viewed the pornographic image of a victim,

the more offenders there are the more difficult it is for the victim to recover for her anguish and her damages. for the perpetrators of child pornography there should not be safety in numbers. now the bill that senator hatch has led on and i was proud to cosponsor, that bill rights this wrong. our bill provides a method for these victims to seek restitution for the total harm they endured from this horrific victimization. specifically the amy and vickie act does three things that reflect the nature of these crimes. first, it considers the total harm to the victim, including from individuals who may not yet have been identified. second it requires real and timely restitution. and, third it allows defendants who have contributed to the same victim's harm to spread the restitution cost among themselves. these specific changes are supported by the attorney generals of 43 states and

countless national victim advocacy groups such as the national center for missing and exploited children. and they have wide bipartisan support here in the senate. mr. president, once again, i want to commend my colleague senator hatch for the great work he has done on this and other things. the and as i said while he was not in the room, i look forward to us working to the on many other causes together. he is a great leader and very well-respected by me and by all of his colleagues. i urge my colleagues to pass this important measure to give more power to the victims of sexual abuse to seek redress closure, and justice for the crimes the dastardly crimes committed against them. i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president i ask that we viesht the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i yield back. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order amendment number 250 is agreed to. under the previous order, the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 16, s. 295 a bill to amend section 2259 of title 18, united states code and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order the question occurs on s. 295 as amended.

is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll vote:

vote:

vote: does any member of the senate wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, it is the yeas are 98, the

nays are zero. the bill as amended is passed. mr. leahy: mr. president i'd ask consent to proceed as in morning business for about four minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president along with some of my colleagues, i just had the opportunity to be at the unveiling of the statue of senator barry goldwater in statuary hall. i had the privilege of serving with barry goldwater. we traveled together many times. he came to vermont at different times with me. we became very, very close friends. it was interesting to watch senator goldwater form alliances across the aisle with different people. but i remembered especially while there one very personal thing. i was very close to my father and when my father passed away late one evening in vermont the

next morning the first two telephone calls my mother received of condolences, one was from barry goldwater one was from ted kennedy. the two had both talked before they called. i mention that because it was the type of person both of them were. had nothinged to nothing to do with ideology it was who they were. and in 1980, i had the second closest election in america. somebody suggested to me it must be because of my philosophy. i thought probably but i can't figure it out so i called up the man who had the closest election of 1980, the year of the reagan sweet, and i said, senator goldwater, what is the message we are being sent? barry laughed and said, we have to change our luck. he suggested that he move into

the retiring senator abe riboko ribokoff from connecticut a democratic senator from new england, so i'm going to move into his office and change my luck. you, you better be smart enough to move into mine. i had suggested i didn't have quite the seniority to do that. he said, i've arranged that you move next week. i did. now, when i was sworn in for my second term, in january 1981, i was in that office. i stayed in senator barry goldwater's office ever since. i stayed there -- well, now it's my 35th year in senator goldwater's office. i consider it a matter of pride and i consider it a matter of pride to have served with him. with that, mr. president i yield the floor and suggest -- i see senators seeking recognition. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: mr. president i move to reconsider the previous vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: i move to lay it on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: mr. president i ask to be recognized -- i ask -- are we in quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not in a quorum call. mr. rubio: i ask to be recognized to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senator from florida is recognized without objection. mr. rubio: thank you mr. president. i wanted to touch on two topics. the first is for the president to submit a request for authorization of use of force with regard to isil or isis as some call it. i believe it's good the president made that submission. i believe he is right when he says it makes the congress and the president stronger. i would say there is a pretty simple authorization he could ask for and it would read one sentence. that is we authorize the president to defeat and destroy

isil period. that's what we need to do. i look forward to reading through his submission. i understand it contains a time limitation it does not contain geographic limitations. it contains some language that supposedly will make people feel more comfortable with the use of ground troops. but i want to point out that it's an authorization to use force that has limitations built in a it are really quite unprecedented. we did some research earlier today and found the congressional research service informed us that there really are only two previous authorizations that have limited the president in terms of the use -- the force to be used and the duration of the conflict. one was in 1983 in lebanon and the other one was in 1993 in somalia. and both of those were u.n. peacekeeping missions, and so it made sense to limit to that peacekeeping mission the use of force. but it appears that never before in certainly modern history has the congress of the united states authorized the president

to take on and defeat an enemy but has done so with limitations on the time or the geography or anything of this nature. i think that's an important point for us to understand because under no circumstances can isil, can isil stay. what we need to be authorizing the president to do is to destroy them and to defeat them and allow the commander in chief, both the one we have now and the one who will follow, to put in place the tactics the military tactics necessary to destroy and defeat isil. and by the way it's important to point out that circumstances on the ground might rapidly change. they already have. for example when this began just -- if you look back a year and a half ago, if i were to stand on the floor and give a speech about defeating isil or isis no one would know what i was talking about. at the time, most americans in fact most members of congress had no idea what that was. so that's how quickly this has developed into a threat. i would remind everyone that

when they actually crossed over from syria into iraq, the president called them the j.v. team. and even today the facts on the ground continue to evolve very rapidly. for example we now know as open source reports that isil has now established a presence in darna in libya which gives them access to a port facility, and it is a completely uncontested space. there is no government shooting at them, there is no air strikes, there is no one coming after them there. they can do whatever they want in libya and they are doing it. they are using it as a place to train, as a place to recruit as a place to resupply, as a place to raise money and they have access to a port that allows them to bring all these things in. there have also been open source reports of groups in afghanistan beginning to pledge allegiance to isil. in at least four countries in africa, there are now groups that have pledged allegiance to

isil. while we continue to focus on the conflict between iraq and syria, we cannot overlook the fact that they are sprouting affiliates throughout the entire region. i think after the brutal murder of numerous americans we saw last week what happened to the jordanian pilot i don't have to spend much time convincing people how dangerous this group is. what we don't hear enough about is the atrocities being committed on a daily basis on the ground. what they are doing to the sunni population, for example of areas that they have now conquered, the brutality the way they enforce sh. a -- sharia law with brutal tactics. not to mention the women being sold off or given away to isil fighters children trafficked into slavery entire population slaughtered, fighters who are captured and killed in mass killings. this is what this group envisions for the world.

the goals of this group are not simply to govern what we knew once as iraq or syria or libya or any other country. their ultimate goal is for the entire world the entire world including where we stand today to one day live under their mandate, under the rules that they have established under their radical version of sunni islam. you may say that's a far-fetched thing, and it may be today but that is their clear ambition, to spread their form of radical islam everywhere and anywhere they can and they openly talk about this. this group needs to be defeated. i wish we had taken this group on earlier. i wish, in fact, that we had gotten involved in the conflict in syria earlier and equipped moderate rebel elements, non-jihadist rebel elements on the ground so that they would have been the most powerful force there. the president failed to do that in a timely fashion and as a result, a vacuum was created and that vacuum was filled by this

group who has attracted foreign fighters from all over the world to join their ranks and now we're dealing with this problem. but i would argue better late than never. had we dealt with this two years ago or a year and a half ago it wouldn't have been easy but it would have been easier, but i think it's important to deal with it decisively now. we can debate the tactics but ultimately it is the job of the commander in chief in consultation with his military officials that surround him and advise him to come up with the appropriate tactics to defeat the enemy but for our purposes, it should be very straightforward -- isil is the enemy, they need to be defeated, and we should authorize this president and future presidents to do what they can and with a they must to defeat isil and erase them from the equation. i also want to take a moment now and talk a little bit about what's happening in venezuela. tomorrow february 12 will mark the one-year anniversary since students and others across venezuela took to the streets in peaceful demonstrations,

demanding a more accountable government and a better future than the current one which is corrupt, incompetent and is providing no leadership to the country. by the way tomorrow also marks the one-year anniversary since the venezuelan government responded with a violent crackdown that has left dozens of people dead, thousands injured and hundreds in jail as political prisoners. there have been at least 50 documented cases of torture by government forces on peaceful demonstrators and more than 1,700 individuals await trial today in venezuela before a judiciary that is completely controlled by maduro's government. this, by the way includes lee polled quo lopez who has been languishing in prison for almost a year. in the year since people took to the streets demanding more of their government, more opportunities, more upward mobility more accountability and more freedom basic necessities have vanished from

the shelves. one of the richest nations in the hemisphere, its economy is in shambles. venezuela, by the way is also plagued with one of the world's highest murder rates. rampant corruption related to state assets, a 57% inflation rate a junk rating on the global bond market and unprecedented scarcity of goods as basic as toilet paper. in fact, lately, things have gotten so bad in venezuela under mow diewro that they are -- under moduro that they are no longer just kidnapping people. people are now kidnapping dogs and other pets in venezuela and holding them for ransom. that's how bad things have gotten. why is this happening? why is the cradle of latin american independence, a country blessed with oil and energy wealth with the talented and hardworking people, why has this nation become a failed state? for starters, it's because it's modeling its economy under cuba, which itself is a failed state.

but second, for years venezuela has been in the grips of incompetent buffoons, one after another. first it was hugo chavez. now it's nicholas moduro. they have squandered the nation's richest. third, the country is being run by corrupt individuals. just last week a report came out again that the speaker of the national assembly is himself a drug kingpin. and fourth, even with all the oil wealth that venezuela has squandered it still possesses some of the largest oil reserves on the planet, but oil prices are dropping, and in a country like venezuela where innovation and entrepreneurship are stifled, where wealth and power are concentrated in the government and its cronies the entire economy is the oil industry. 96% of venezuela's export revenues come from oil. so in december, i'm proud that the u.s. senate and the house passed and the president signed

a bill that sanctions human rights violators in venezuela. it mandates that their assets be frozen and visa restrictions be placed upon them if they are involved in human rights violations and that's going to be critical moving forward because as things get worse in venezuela, more people will take to the streets and the national guard in that country, which is nothing but armed thugs working on behalf of the moduro government will be tempted to crack down on people violently. and so our legislation would impose sanctions visa sanctions and asset sanctions on individuals responsible for these human rights violations. the good news is the president has moved forward with some of these visa restrictions, and that is a very positive step. we cannot -- america should not be and cannot be the playground for venezuela's human rights violators. but the financial sanctions part of the bill are long overdue. they're actually urgently needed because things are only going to get worse in venezuela. people are only going to get more desperate. they are only going to speak out

more. they are only going to demand freedom more. and i suspect although i hope i'm wrong, that the response from the venezuelan government will be more violence and more crackdown on the people of their own nation. and if god forbid once again they use lethal force against their own people, which is a right they have reserved for themselves a right that the government has approved and has given authority to the national guard to use we cannot simply stand by and watch as innocent people are killed or injured because the regime believes there will be no consequences. and so today i wanted to come here for a few moments and urge the president once again to do what i asked him to do in a letter last week, and that is not sit idly by on the venezuelan sanction law he signed last year but to use it, to use it immediately and to use it decisively, to make clear that the united states of america will not stand for the repression taking place in venezuela, and that we will use the tools of our economy and of the power we've given the president to punish those responsible for committing human

rights violations in venezuela against the people of that great nation. thank you mr. president. with that, i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president i rise to talk about the department of homeland security and the necessity to fund it. earlier today the president submitted to the congress a document for an authorization of military force. i take the president's request very seriously. i look forward to the analysis that will be done by the foreign relations committee and the armed services committee and debate on the floor. but why did the president send it and why did many in the congress call for it? it's that everybody says we've got to do something about isil.

and you know what? i think we do have to do something about isil. what a ghoulish, barbaric terrorist group and there is no doubt that there has to be an international effort to strike them from the planet and that the united states has to be part of it. but you know what comes out when we talk about isil is the need to have a strong robust counterterrorism effort. now, if we're going to fight counterterrorism we must fund the agency who has a principal responsibility for protecting the homeland. the department of defense protects us against foreign invaders but we have to also protect the homeland. whether it's against cybersecurity threats or other

terrorist activity or other dangers that come to our country. so why after two weeks we continue just to have sitting here the department of homeland security appropriation bills for fiscal 2015. were ready to vote on it. we have a clean bill. this is the money -- and i speak now as the ranking or vice chair of the senate appropriation appropriation bill -- probably committee, in fiscal 2014 i chaired the committee. and when we worked on the omnibus it was the will of the congress that we would fund all government agencies but homeland security but it on a continuing resolution to february 27 because there were those in both houses who were

cranky about the fact that president obama exercised executive authority in certain matters related to immigration. so here we're holding up the entire funding for the department of homeland security because some people are cranky with obama over him using an executive order on immigration. these very people who were so cranky are saying -- usually are criticizing him for being a weak leader. oh where's obama why doesn't he take strong and decisive action? but when the president takes strong and decisive action, they not only don't like it, but they're willing to hold up the entire funding for the department of homeland security over this. what is this? are we now got a new math where one and one makes 14 or five?

you know, if we really want to fight terrorism we created the department of homeland security after 2001, the horrific attack of 9/11, and they need to be funded. i'm here today to please urge that we pass a clean funding bill to protect the nation from terrorism, cybersecurity threats, which are mounting every day and also be able to help our communities respond to other threats. now, i believe that immigration does deserve a debate. i'm not arguing with that, nor would i ever want to, you know, stifle senators' ability to speak on topics that they have strong beliefs and deeply held views. but let's move immigration to a

different forum to talk about it. now, the senate in the last congress passed a comprehensive immigration bill. it went to the house and it sat there and gee it sat there and after a while it kind of sat there some more and then it died as that session did. the president frustrated that the house of representatives refused to take up a bill and debate it through its committees and on the floor acted through executive order. so my view is, let's bring up immigration, let's move our comprehensive bill again full and ample debate, full and ample amendments, let's maybe the house will actually kind of get around talking about immigration instead of talking about obama and that we can pass the homeland security bill. now, three times last week the senate rejected a procedural vote to take up homeland security. so people can say senator barb,

why did you do that? well i voted not to delay but to move on. we senate democrats tried to move a clean homeland security funding bill. what does that mean? we focused only on the money. we said that we did not want to have the five poison pill immigration riders that are in the house bill present. we wanted to be able to take that out. the president is very clear if we send him a bill that includes funding plus five poison pill riders on immigration, he will veto it. what is the consequence? we become a public spectacle in the world's eye. we play parliamentary ping pong with the president of the united states. we pass a bill because we want to have a temper tantrum he

vetoes it, it comes back, we have another debate where we huff and puff and hope problems will go away, we then try to override a veto, and all the while we're eating up time and the world is watching us. not only treasured allies, saying what is this, united states the greatest deliberative body becomes just the greatest delaying body, and our enemies say they can't even get their act together internally to pass the very money to take us on, so they're going to try to write it it -- bring it on to us. in the end when all is said and done more is getting said than done. i urge the senate that before we go out for presidents' day recess, let's pass this bill. tomorrow we are going to vote to confirm the secretary of

defense, dr. ashton carter. he's gone through the process reported out of committee i look forward to voting for it. and why are we going to move so fast to confirm dr. carter? because we need a department of defense. we got to fight for america. we got to stand up for america. we got to be muscular, ready deal with those bad guys. i agree with that and i salute our military every day in every way out there on the front lines and the lines and -- and their families who so lovingly support them. but if we're going to have a secretary of defense you also have a secretary of homeland security secretary jeh johnson, and there he is instead of america having deep pockets to find terrorism, the secretary of homeland security will have empty pockets. what is this? why are we -- you know, we're going to rush to confirm dr. carter and i think we ought to, no dispute from me on

that but shouldn't we be rushing to complete our work and fund homeland security? i think we should. we could do it tomorrow. we could do it tomorrow and pass this clean bill. the department of homeland security's mission is to protect america from terrorism. to help communities respond to all threats from terrorism to natural disasters. we're talking about t.s.a., who protects our airports, we're talking about border patrol and i.c.e. if we're talking about immigration, don't we really want to fund the 50-plus agents that are out there protecting our borders? cyber warriors securing our networks, people dealing with our biothreat and nuclear threat support, and also supporting state and local first responders firefighters and e.m.s. and all hazard people in

states so they can be ready whether they're responding to a local disaster or something that has been caused by a despicable attack. we need to be able to pass this bill. the department of homeland security funding runs out on february 27, and my view, instead of running the clock we should move this bill. i believe it could pass tomorrow and that we could get our job done. but no, we're all going to go back to our home states, we're going to tell everybody how they've got a government on their side, how they can count on us to fight for america but the way you fight for america is we stop fighting with each other. let's try to find a sensible center move this bill forward. i believe that on both sides of the aisle people are patriots. i believe on both sides of the aisle people want to defend

america. on both sides of the aisle let's come together, right down that middle, and let's find a way to move this bill forward have debate on immigration -- i don't want to stifle or stiff arm it, but let's move this forward and let's stand shoulder to shoulder really doing our job to fund the agency that has the principal responsibility for protecting the homeland. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. flake: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i stand today to also talk about the d.h.s. funding bill. i want to say from the outset that i don't think the president did the right thing by taking this unilateral action. i think he's made it more difficult to pass immigration reform in this body. having said that, to attempt to use a spending bill in order to

try to poke a finger in the president's eye is not a good move in my view. i believe that rather than poke the president in the eye we ought to put legislation on his desk and we ought to use this time we've already used up two weeks trying to attach measures to a funding bill when we could have used this time to actually move actual immigration legislation. coming from the i don't have arizona, we desperately need immigration reform. wees is desparately need to have more resources better security on our border. we have needed that for a long time we've had situations where part of the border gets better and then falls back as soon as the economy ramps up again we can expect more flow across the border. we don't have sufficient border security are border security in the stayed and arizonans pay the

price, we bear the brunt of the moving's failure to provide for a secure border. there has been a bill introduced in the house and in the senate. i happen to be a cosponsor of the bill in the senate which would help us get a more secure border. that's one piece of legislation we could be moving right now and put on the president's desk. second, we all know that we need better interior enforcement. we need to make sure that employers who employ illegal aliens aren't able to do so. we need to make sure that employers have the tools to find out if those that they're hiring are here legally or not. that's been needed for a long time. it's been provideed in other pieces of legislation, we could do a bill just on interior enforcement. we could be doing that now rather than simply trying to make a statement on a spending bill. we also need legislation to expand the guest worker plans

and programs that we have now legislation has been introduced in this body already to deal with high-tech workers. we need to make sure that those who are educated in our universities here, who receive graduate degrees in the stem fields are encouraged to stay. they ought to be encouraged to stay to help create jobs here in this country rather than returning to their home country and then competing against us. that's been needed, that's recognized on a bipartisan basis we could move legislation right now with regard to high-tech visas. we also need to expand other visa categories. we need an ag worker bill to make sure that areas where we simply don't have enough labor to deal with the needs that we have on our farms that we pass legislation to do that, legislation has been introduced it could be moved through now. we could be doing that. we also need, obviously to

move legislation to deal with those who are here illegally now, the so-called dreamers. those who are here from no fault of their own who have come to this country been brought when they were 2 years old or 10 years old or 12 years old and are now as american as you or me. they ought to be given a path where they can stay here in some kind of certainty moving ahead. that needs to be done by congress. we can't simply be done by the president and executive action. that legislation could mover here now as well. we obviously need to deal with legislation for the broader class of those who are here illegally. we dealt with it in the senate bill 744 that was introduced and passed in the senate in the last congress that provided a way for those who are here illegally to get right with the law to deport those who are in a criminal class but also allow those who are here who want to

adjust their status to find a way to do so and be able to stay here. legislation like that could move as well. instead, we're spending weeks just trying to make a statement on a spending bill. so mr. president i hope that we'll actually do what this senate is prepared to do, is ready to do again actually legislate, move legislation through the committee process to the floor and onto the president's desk. that's how we ought to respond to the action that the president has taken. i hope we'll do so. i yield back. mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. ms. warren: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, over the last two

weeks republicans in congress have insisted on playing political games with funding for the department of homeland security. the same agency that supports states like massachusetts when disasters hit the same agency that provides grants for equipment to keep firefighters safe when they rush into burning buildings, the same agency that helps train and fund local police the same agency that tracks down weapons terrorists can use to threaten our safety here at home, the same agency that keeps our borders and airports safe -- this is the agency the republicans are willing to shut down. why? why put america at such risk? because republicans want to protest the steps president obama has taken to try to address our country's immigration challenges. this is not a responsible way to govern. this is a dangerous way to govern. there are real threats out there from isis in the middle east to

cyber threats to acts of terror, like the one in paris earlier this year. d.h.s. gives funding to state and local governments to help them prevent terror attacks. massachusetts received over $30 million in these grants just last year alone. if d.h.s. shuts down, that funding dries up, leaving our firefighters our police, and our e.m.t.'s hanging putting the safety of every american at risk. think about the customs and border protection agents who screen people traveling into the united states through our airports and the men and women of the coast guard who patrol our waters. they will still have to work those tough sometimes dangerous jobs but if the republicans shut down homeland security, these people just won't get paid. tens of thousands of workers nationwide could be working to

help keep us safe and not get a paycheck to cover their groceries and rent. that is no way to treat the people who protect this country. the solution is simple: last year democrats and republicans agreed on a bipartisan bill to fund the department of homeland security. that bill was ready to go, until the republicans decided they wanted to play politics. they decided to hold the department of homeland security hostage to try to force the president to reverse an executive order on immigration. that homeland security funding bill is still ready to go. we could vote on it today and be done with all of this. and everyone who works to protect our safety would keep on working and keep on getting paid. a few days ago "the boston globe" wrote an editorial about this and they said, "the game of political chicken has to end with the republicans blinking. it's one thing to disagree with

the president's executive actions, but it's another thing altogether to hold crucial funding for a wide range of security programs hostage." i couldn't agree more. i ask unanimous consent that the full tebltion of the editorial be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: thank you mr. president. let's be clear. if republicans in the senate don't change course, they will shut down the department of homeland security and compromise the safety of the american people and they will have done it because a handful of extremists in the republican party are angry at the president because he's trying to fix what we all know is a broken immigration system. well if they're angry about the president's immigration policy, let's debate the president's immigration policy. last congress, the senate passed a bipartisan bill to address immigration. let's debate that bill again. or if they wnts want to propose a

new bill let's vote on that. but don't play games with the safety of the american people. the way forward is clear. we need to pass a bill to fund the department of homeland security. thank you mr. president. i yield and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: