congress would seek to govern responsibly. instead we've even heard irresponsible threats to shut down the department of homeland security for no reason other than partisan disagreement over my actions. you can read more at thehill.com. as we take you live now to the floor of the u.s. senate. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the reverend randy cash, the american legion national chaplain from lincolnton, north carolina, will lead the senate in prayer. the guest chaplain:let us pray. almighty and everlasting god, in whose name we trust and pray, it is fitting to pause, if but momentarily, to recognize you, the one in whom does finally

reside all authority and power; and by whose grace we are allowed to exercise that which you have committed to us. accept our homage, o lord, and hear us when we pray for wisdom to lead with integrity compassion, and conviction. we are mindful that around the world today, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen are standing watch to safeguard peace and liberty. grant to all who serve, and their families your blessings. accept o lord these prayers and may we perceive and know what things to do - and receive grace and power to fulfill what is expected of us. we commit our best efforts and our nation to your keeping. amen. the president pro tempore: thank you reverend cash. we're grateful to have you here and for your service.

please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr.burr:mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president i'm going to take 60 seconds before the senators take the mic to welcome randy cash who was appointed the national chaplain of the american legion on august

28 2014, at their annual convention in charlotte which i attended as well as the president. randy is a native of north carolina. he spent part of his life in myrtle beach, south carolina, but he attended a number of schools throughout the region. he was commissioned as a navy chaplain in 1980 and he entered active duty service in 1983. he was assigned to a destroyer squadron 6 out of charleston, south carolina. his next tour was staff chaplain and aviation training center in newport, rhode island, and his life continued from spot to spot. he served as chaplain in desert shield desert storm while he was stationed out of oceana naval air station in virginia beach. he had a turn at guantanamo bay in cuba, which we all talk about today, and was crferred to the second -- was transferred to the

second marine division in north carolina where he served as regimental chaplain. let me just say that this is a decorated chaplain. randy cash retired from active duty in 2009. his military awards and decorations include the legion of merit 2 awards and the bronze star. he is a man of conviction. he is a tremendous north carolina lynnan and over the -- north carolinian and over the next year he will serve as chaplain over the legion in a most effective way. reverend cash, we're delighted to have you here. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i understand there are two bills at the desk due a second reading. the presiding officer: the senator is correct.

the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the second time. the clerk: s. 534, a bill related to immigration and for other purposes. s. 535 a bill to promote energy efficiency. mr. mcconnell: in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14 i will object to proceeding en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to h.r. 240. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to proceed. the clerk: motion to proceed to the consideration of h.r. 240, an act making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: mr. president the congress is sending the president of the united states another piece of bipartisan legislation today. americans of both parties are calling on him to sign it. there's no good reason not to.

the keystone jobs bill is just common sense. the construction of this important infrastructure project would support thousands of american jobs. it would pump billions into our economy and the president's own state department told us this could be achieved with minimal minimal environmental impact. that's why this jobs and infrastructure bill passed both houses of congress with bipartisan support. i know powerful special interests and political extremists are pressuring the president to veto american jobs. i hope president obama will join with us in standing for the middle class instead. it's hard to even imagine what a serious justification for veto might be. excuses related to the review process obviously won't work since this bipartisan bill is a solution for fixing a review the

obama administration broke as it ignored deadlines. plus the president called on congress to send him infrastructure projects, and keystone is an important infrastructure project that is shovel ready. so americans are urging president obama to finally heed scientific conclusions his own state department already reached. there's no reason for the president to ignore that science any longer. republicans and democrats labor unions and businesses were all calling on him to finally allow american workers to build an infrastructure project that just makes good sense. now, mr. president last night i took an action to allow the senate to consider commonsense legislation every democrat should want to support. this targeted measure would address the president's most recent overreach from november. the bill isn't tied to d.h.s. funding. there's no excuse for our

friends on the other side to oppose it. that's especially true of the democrats who led their constituents to believe they would stand up for democratic principles in this debate. these colleagues have hidden behind all manner of excuses to avoid upsetting the far left. well this bill removes the excuses. it sets up a simple political equation. either stand in defense of extreme overreach or stand with constituents in support of shared democratic values. as i've said already my preference remains with the legislation that's already passed the house. it's still the simplest way forward, but as long as democrats continue to prevent us from even debating that bill, i'm ready to try another way. i hope our friends across the aisle will demonstrate similar flexibility. i'm calling on senators of good faith to work with us to move the bill forward as quickly as possible so let's get to work.

the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: i do appreciate -- and that's an understatement -- what the majority leader has to go through to try to please the extreme voices on his side. the fact remains we're four very short days away from the homeland security shutdown. a shutdown, mr. president. we have a couple of bills on the floor that unless there's unanimous consent we can't get to them in four days. funding expires on friday, yet last night the majority leader moved to bring a bill to the floor that does absolutely nothing to fund homeland security. nothing. if the majority leader wanted a vote on this bill, he should not have wasted a month repeating the same failed procedure vote four times. and the same result.

albert einstein said that's the definition of insanity, when you keep doing the same thing over and over again and get the same result. we've said all along mr. president, that we're more than happy to have a immigration debate once homeland security is funded. nevada so badly needs full funding of homeland security. state and local governments demand full funding of homeland security. it's not only for nevada. it's all across the country. because the homeland cannot be protected under the way the law is not set up unless the secretary of homeland security has the ability to grant if there's full funding available $2 billion worth of programs to allow the homeland to be protected by state and local governments. so we're happy to have a debate

on immigration and we have to fully fund immigration. we've said that all along. we've said it not once, not twice. we've said it many different times. in fact, there was a proposal brought to the senate floor weeks ago sponsored by senator mikulski and shaheen only to have the republicans object to that. we want a debate on immigration. we're happy to have a debate on immigration. we're eager to debate immigration now or any other time. but, mr. president we can't do that until we fully fund the department of homeland security. we've been saying that for four weeks, and nothing's changed in the last 24 hours. the majority leader shall allow a vote on the mikulski-shaheen funding. that is the only way to resolve this mess which the republicans created. the only thing that can pass the senate is a clean bill to fund homeland security, and then once that's done there is a consent that's pending here on the senate floor that says once

that's done and the president signs that we'll be happy to debate immigration for whatever time the republicans deem necessary. would the chair announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each and the first hour equally divided with the democrats controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: thank you mr. president. my calculation we have today and three more days before the department of homeland security is shut down. think about what happened this last weekend all across america. it was disclosed publicly that an extremist group a terrorist group, al-shabaab, had some communication among their membership targeting malls in america for extremism and

terrorism. god forbid that ever happens. i know that those who are managing these malls look at the terrible situation that occurred in africa and want to make certain it's never repeated anywhere let alone in the united states. they're making extraordinary efforts to protect people across america not only as they're shopping in malls but in other places as they should. and what is the lead agency to protect america against terrorism? what is the lead agency to make sure that we never ever again in our history experience 9/11? the department of homeland security. that department was created after 9/11 because we felt that the way we were protecting america wasn't good enough. we took 22 different federal agencies and put them under the roof of the department of homeland security and said to that department, now focus focus all your time and effort to keep us safe. they have done a good job. i'm sure they made some mistakes along the way but they have

really dedicated themselves and all the men and women who work there to keeping america safe. now what has congress done for the department of homeland security? last december when we considered the appropriation the budget for the department of homeland security the republicans insisted that we take that department out of the regular budget process and to give it only temporary funding. continuing resolution. temporary funding. which limits the authority of the secretary of homeland security to really do his best job to keep america safe. why would the republicans pick this appropriation the single appropriation to keep america safe from terrorism and decide that they don't want to properly fund it? they're only giving it temporary funding and continuing resolution. because they disagree with president obama's position on immigration. that's it. they want this issue of immigration separate and apart from the budget of the

department of homeland security to be debated and they insist they will not fund the department of homeland security until it is debated. and so come february 27, in just a few days, this department of homeland security is going to shut down. it's going to shut down. now, many of the employees are essential. they will be asked to come to work even though there is only the promise of a paycheck. and they'll show up because they're loyal to this country and they want to do their job and keep us safe. why won't the united states senate and the house do its job? why can't we pass a clean appropriation bill for the department of homeland security before we took a break last week for president's week i made a unanimous consent request on the floor to do just that -- pass a clean appropriation bill for the department of homeland security. the majority leader, senator mcconnell of kentucky, objected.

he objected to funding the department of homeland security. i don't understand it. it doesn't make sense for us to put in jeopardy the security of america over a political debate on immigration. and what's ironic, mr. president, is that now that the republicans have majority control of the house and the senate they can call any bill they wish. after funding the department of homeland security, they could turn immediately to a debate on immigration. it's their right. they pick the topics. they dictate the calendar. and those of us in the minority have to accede to their wishes. they're in the majority. they control it. but still speaker boehner and senator mcconnell the democratic -- i'm sorry the republican majority leader, refuse to pass a clean appropriation bill for the department of homeland security. well luckily some republicans are stepping up and saying this is wrong. i want to commend the following

senators on the republican side who have publicly stated that congress should pass a clean homeland security bill and stop this tactic that came from the house of representatives. those senators include senator dean heller of nevada, senator mark kirk of illinois, senator jeff flake of arizona senator john mccain of arizona senator lindsey graham of south carolina and senator ron johnson of wisconsin. mr. president, we need eight more republican senators, eight more who will come forward and say we need a clean appropriation bill and we need to pass it now. if eight republican senators today will say that, then we can move forward and pass this bill, we can fund this department and stop this gamesmanship. and if the leaders then want to move to a debate on immigration so be it. but let's have eight more republicans join those who have stepped forward so far to make this a reality.

i don't understand, frankly the thinking of many of the republicans who oppose the president's approach to immigration. here's what it comes down to. if the president used every penny given to him by congress to deport those who were undocumented in the united states he could reach we think, about 4% of those who are eligible for deportation 4%. what the president has said is let me focus then on deporting those who are most dangerous to the united states. president obama has said there are people who have been here for years, they are part of our communities, they have good jobs, they have raised families, they go to our churches, we see them every day. they're no threat to us. let's focus on deporting those who are dangerous the felons, the criminals. the president has basically said we shouldn't set out to deport families. we ought to deport felons. we shouldn't set out to deport children. we ought to deport criminals. so his priority is deportation

of those most dangerous to the united states and the republicans have opposed that. why? primarily because the president supports it. it's reached that point in the debate. it's so divisive. the president doesn't want to waste any resources in deporting those who are not dangerous. he wants to get those who are dangerous out of the united states first. and the republicans object to that. there is something else they want to do, too. the house of representatives wants to challenge the president's right his right under executive orders when it comes to prioritizing those who can stay in the united states. several years ago at the request of 20 or more senators that the president initiated an executive action known as daca. this executive action said that if you qualified as a dreamer you would be allowed to stay without threat of deportation. we estimate two million young

people in america would qualify as dreamers. 600,000 have this protection now. what the republicans want to do in the house of representatives is to eliminate this. who are these young people? they are young folks in america brought to this country as toddlers and infants young boys and girls who grew newspaper this country went to school in this country have no problems in their criminal record and want to be part of america. that's it. and what the republicans have said in the house is we want to deport these people, deport them because they are here undocumented. despite the fact that we have educated them and many of them are successes in life and want to be part of our future, the republicans have said deport them. the senator from maine the senior senator from maine has offered a bill to address this subject, but as much as i respect her and count her as a friend, it falls short of protecting the dreamers who are here in this country under daca.

and i have to just say that as you learn the stories of those who are protected by the president's executive order you wonder what are the republicans thinking? i've tried to tell these stories in light of individuals not statistics and here's one i want to tell you today about a man -- young man who came to america when he was 9 years old from thailand. his name is jimaroot nu. he was brought here at the age of 9 from thailand by his parents. he grew up in san francisco. he said i -- quote -- forced myself to read mystery novels, dictionary in hand, in order to expand my vocabulary one word at a time to learn english. i mispronounced words and even in the face of ridicule, until i mastered the english language. that's amazing. those stories happened many

times in the past, but it's incredible to think of a 9-year-old facing that ridicule, but learning the english language in san francisco senator boxer. now, this young man became an excellent student and his dream was to be a doctor. throughout high school, nu worked 30 hours a week at his family's thai restaurant. he said i spent most of my time at the restaurant working as a waiter cashier and chef, scrubbing toilets washing dishes and mopping floors. it taught me to have faith work hard and persevere. his work paid off. listen to this. he graduated as salute torrian of his high school class with a 4.3 grade point average. he was admitted to the university of california at berkeley one of the top schools in california and the nation. he won a scholarship that would have covered most of his tuition, but he couldn't accept it because he was undocumented. despite -- the presiding officer: the senator has used ten minutes. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent for two additional minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: despite the setback

nu persevered. in may 2012, he graduated with honors from berkeley. he had a major in molecular cellular biology. a month after he graduated president obama issued his executive order daca, and now nu was protected from deportation. as a result, he was able to pursue his dream to become a doctor. last fall, nu entered into medical school at the university of california-san francisco. what does he do in his spare time? he volunteers at a homeless clinic run by the students at the university of california san francisco. he has cofounded a national network of more man 400 dreamers who are pursuing careers in health care. nu and other dreamers like him have so much to contribute to america, but if the republicans have their way this man is going to be deported. instead of being able to stay in the united states as a doctor, to realize his life's dream and make this a better and stronger nation, he will be deported. will america be better or worse

if this young man leaves? i think the answer's obvious. so why do the republicans persist? why are they determined to take this amazing young man and deport him? well they have forgotten our legacy as america. we are a nation of immigrants, and our immigrants that come to this country from all over the world because they appreciate the values and opportunity of america. i'm lucky. my mother was an immigrant to this country and i stand on the senate floor representing the great state of illinois. it's my story it's my family's story, it's america's story. well the time is clearly upon us. define the appropriation for the department of homeland security but not at the expense of this amazing young man. let us fund this department to keep america safe but let us also dedicate ourselves to passing legislation which fixes our broken immigration system and helps this young man and others just like him to be part of america's future.

mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: may i speak for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president before the senator from illinois leaves the floor i just want to thank him for his amazing leadership on this whole issue of immigration. he and i share a similar background because my mother also was an immigrant and the thought of our moms being ripped out of our lives is just untenable, and we're not going to let it happen, and i want to thank him so much because you know he has just been the -- i would say the grandfather of the whole dreamer movement. so thank you senator. mr. president, we all know republicans won in huge numbers in the 2014 election, and they took over the united states senate and they run it. they run it. or at least they are trying to

run it. and let's be clear. less than eight weeks after they took over the senate, we're facing a shutdown, a shutdown of the very agency that protects the health, the safety, the lives of the american people. the department of homeland security, we are four days away. and even if they come up with a continuing resolution small little patch here, they're shutting down the program that funds our police officers back home our firefighters, our first responders. so any way you look at it, this is a national disgrace. and think about what our friends abroad and those who are not our friends are thinking about this. republicans say we're in danger, we have to go to war put combat troops on the ground, but they're willing to shut down the department that protects americans here in the homeland

from a terrorist attack. this is a self-inflicted crisis made up by the republicans. it is dangerous. it is the height of irresponsibility and it is unnecessary, and let me tell you how does it make sense in the very same week that terrorists are threatening our shopping malls that we would shut down the very agency charged with protecting those malls. how does it make sense, at a time when we are facing serious threats to our national security to furlough 30,000, 30,000 department of homeland security workers and to force more than 100,000 front-line homeland security personnel to work without pay. why don't these senators go without their pay? give up your pay.

you want to come to work every day and stand there and look for threats to our homeland and worry about how you're going to pay the bill for your kid? go without pay before you do this. you tell me how that makes sense, not to pay people who are in charge of our security. it's a disgrace. give up your pay. give up your pay. give up your health care. give up your benefits if this is so important to you. oh no, they'll collect their pay. tell me, how does it make sense to shut off the grants that protect our cities, our ports from terrorist attacks? and how does it make sense to stop local communities from being able to hire police officers and firefighters? you know, the department of homeland security is very, very large. when it was created, i was

troubled by that because it includes so many important things in one department, including fema, so that when we have a natural disaster such as an earthquake, fire and a flood that's the department that deals with it. so how does it make sense to destruct disaster recovery operations like the efforts in california to recover from our devastateing napa quake and the rim fire near yosemite? so not only are they disrupting homeland security and the protection of our perhaps targeted places in america but they are disrupting recovery from -- from natural disasters and god forbid if we had another one. and here's the reason they're doing it. they're throwing a hissy fit because the president stepped in and has a policy to take care of

immigration. and why did the president step in? because republicans refused to take up a bipartisan bill and pass it and take care of the immigration problem the way they're supposed to. they're paralyzed on that point. they can't do it. we had a bill that garnered 6 votes in the last congress. all they have to do is bring it up pass it here, pass it in the house. it will pass by overwhelming majorities. the president will sign it and that would make his executive orders unnecessary. the only reason he issued executive orders is we're facing a crisis here with 11 million undocumented folks, some of whom are these dreamers which is the most important category to me of young people who were brought here when they were children. they know no other home. all they want to do is stay here and give back to america.

they want to deport them and they want to deport their parents and they want to deport the parents of american citizens citizens. i thank god these people weren't in charge of the congress when i was growing up because they might have deported my mother. it took her awhile to get through her naturalization. what if they had passed something like that? i thought they were the party of family values. show me where that's true. ripping families apart. i thought they're the party of economic prosperity. show me how that's true when we know from study after study that one of the greatest things we can do for our economy and job creation is get people out of the shadows so they can go and buy a home and hold a good job. they can't or won't pass an immigration bill.

they will not do their job. so when the president steps in and does his job they say "oh this is terrible. let's shut down a totally unrelated department, the department of homeland security." now, again i say let's look at fiscal responsibility. according to the center for american progress, it would cost more than $50 billion to deport the entire population -- to deport the entire population that the president is protecting protecting. and here's the deal. i never heard a republican -- and i will stand corrected if any republican corrects me -- i never heard of a republican complaining when president eisenhower used his executive order power to help immigrants,

when president nixon did the same thing to protect immigrants when president ronald reagan their hero, protected immigrants when george bush sr. protected immigrants which george w. bush protected immigrants. they all used their authority. show me one republican that stood up and said, "oh, this is outrageous. let's impeach the president." but it's president obama and they're annoyed because he won twice. sorry. sorry. wake up and smell the roses. he is the president. and he is doing the right thing for america because he loves america. and he understands that these are a people who are going to help america move on to an era of greatness and keep going. now, here are the people republicans want to support.

there are young people like alex bux a 21-year-old student from central california. he's the oldest of three siblings. the younger two were born in the u.s. but he wasn't. okay? so these great family value republicans want to rip away the oldest child from the family. his parents were farm workers in the fields of san joaquin valley. alexis received immigration relief under daca. in 2012. and he'll transfer to u.c.-san diego this fall where he will pursue his dream of a career in biomedical engineering. so tell me, republicans how is our country better when you deport a young man like this? he hopes to use his education to develop sophisticated medical applications and tools to help cure deadly diseases.

all he wants to do is contribute to this nation that he loves. if the republicans had their way way, they'd deport people like anan albaran who left new mexico at aim age eight -- age eight they came here -- to join her brothers and sisters and her parents. her parents worked 11 hours a day for a landscaping company in downtown los angeles. after ana received immigration relief she felt confident to begin applying for jobs and now she's finishing her final year at u.c.-merced so she can begin her career as a by bilingual first grade teacher. so tell me republicans be, how does it make sense to deport people like ana and split her up from her parents when all they want to do is contribute to the country that they love? how does it make sense? how does it make sense? because you're too incompetent to hold a vote on your immigration plan?

you want to kick people out of the country? put it to a vote, let's go. you want to deport 11 million people? put it to a vote. don't hide behind the homeland security bill and holding the president's work hostage. you never did it to the other presidents. don't do it to this president. how does it make sense to deport these moms, these dads, these young kids? i mentioned before that i am the daughter of an immigrant mother. you know, i try to think of what my life would be without my mother. she gave me my conscience. she gave me my values. she gave me all the love and support i needed to pursue my dreams. a daughter of an immigrant mother who never graduated from high school in the united states senate. but they would have deported my mother. i wouldn't be here today if it

wasn't for my mom. so you tell me how it makes sense to deport moms and dads and rip apart the lives of children. our national security is at stake. our national security is at stake. our family values are at stake. and the our economy is at stake here. so get over the fact that you don't like the president. we get it. you couldn't beat him. too bad for you. but you're in charge here in the senate. do your job. bring an immigration bill to the floor. let's let this homeland security bill go. it's a bipartisan bill. it's funding for the most important thing we're doing today. let it go. don't hold it hostage to your

hatred of this president. and i use that word because that's what i think. that's what i think. in california alone the president's executive actions could boost california's economy by as much as $27.5 billion. the president's action will aid our economy it will raise the nation's gross domestic product by up to $90 billion over the next 10 years by expanding the labor force and allowing immigration workers the flexibility to seek new jobs. why is that the case? why does every independent study show us this is the case? the reason is simple -- when workers come out of the shadows their wages rise they open bank accounts they buy homes they start businesses and they spend money in their communities. so i say to my republican friends there's a presidential

race coming. forget this last one. get over it, okay? let's work together. listen, i served with five presidents. i'm a strong democrat. everyone will tell you that. but i had respect for the office of the presidency. if i didn't agree with ronald reagan, i came down here and said it. but we had -- we had the respect back and forth. if we lost we lost, we moved on. and that went both ways. i know what it is not to like the policies of a president. i get it. but don't overdo it and make it so personal. get on with it. grow up. do your job. you know? do your job. have respect for the office of the presidency. don't suddenly say executive orders are bad when the president you don't like does it but you don't say one word when a republican president does the

same thing. it doesn't pass the smell test. so three things couldn't be more important in this battle. we need to fund our department of homeland security especially at this time whether we face serious threats -- when we face serious threats to our security. we need to uphold our family values and not split up loving families. and we need to protect and grow our economy. we can do this in the simplest way. first, bring up -- i say to the house leader boehner, speaker boehner, because under the constitution all funding bills start in the house. send us a clean bill the bill that everybody supported before you made it hostage to this immigration issue. send it over clean. let's fund everything in that bill to protect our shopping

malls, to give grants to first responders to give grants to our local police and fire. send it over, we'll pass it. and immediately following bring up an immigration bill. we've got it all ready for you. it passed with68 votes. not much work to do. and then the president's executive orders will not be necessary because we'll have taken the steps ourselves to fix our broken immigration system. let's stop the lawsuits. we've got one judge who said there was overreach. a next judge may say there's no no overreach. let's keep this out of the court. let's do our jobs. let's stop this self-inflicted crisis. let's stop this shadow that's hanging over the nation. let's do the right thing here. we can protect the american people from threats to our national security. we can protect and grow our economy.

and we can treat hardworking immigrants and their families with the dignity and respect that they deserve. it all lies in the hands of speaker boehner and leader mcconnell. when you took over the senate you said, no more threats of shutdowns. eight weeks later not even we're facing, you know, a shutdown of one of the most important departments. this is a disgrace. it's self-inflicted. all you have to do is talk to speaker boehner send over a clean bill. we'll vote it and then we'll take up immigration and you can show us all your great ideas on immigration. let's hear them. you want to deport the dreamers? come on with it. we'll have a vote. you want to deport the parents? come on with it. we'll have a vote. you want to kick 11 million people out? come on with it. we'll have a vote on it, we'll

have a debate. but don't hold the department of homeland security hostage to this issue. if there's one thing the american people hate more than anything else is attaching unrelated matters to spending bills. i don't care if they're conservative republicans or liberal democrats or independent voters. they think it is the dumbest idea, they really do. they don't understand it. pass your funding bills. then battle your ideological issues separately and apart from that. don't hold these departments hostage to your decision that president obama did the wrong thing. if you don't like what he did put forward your own bill. you haven't even done that. i've been here a long time. i'll tell you something i've never seen anything like this. a self-inflicted wound.

and who gets hurt? not the republicans. they'll keep getting their pay. they're fine. but the people that we trust and we count on and the families that thought they could stay together, they were on the verge of that. this is what this party the grand old party the g.o.p. this is what they have brought. but they can get out of it in five minutes. speaker boehner can pass a funding bill. it will pass in a heartbeat. send it over here. we'll pass it. we'll turn to immigration and have it out on that subject. i think it's worthy of a debate. but you don't hold an important funding bill hostage to that debate. it is ridiculous unnecessary destructive and cruel. and with that, i would yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cardin: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: i rise today to celebrate the life of hair yet tubman and the establishment of the harriet tubman underground

railroad national historical park. harriet tubman was an american hero who championed freedom most famously known as the leader of the underground railroad whose roots were on the eastern shore of maryland. harriet tubman was an iconic figure in our nation's history for whom liberty and freedom were not just ideas but were god-given rights that she fought tirelessly and at great personal peril to spread to others in bondage. the woman known -- who is known to us as harriet tubman was born in approximately 1822 in dorchester county, maryland, and given the name arninda minty ross. she spent nearly 30 years of her life toiling for various families on maryland's eastern shore. even as a young enslaved girl, she demonstrated great personal strength and menial strength. one of her jobs was to set

muschat traps. even though she was slight in physical stature she often worked with the men cutting timber and carrying logs. it was in this work setting where both free and slaved people worked together in harvesting timber that she first heard stories about what life was like for free blacks in northern states. as a teenage slive one of her -- slave one of her first acts of defiance was sticking up for an enslaved boy who was being harassed by a shop keeper. she took a serious blow to the head when the shop keeper threw a lead weight that struck her in the head. tubman recalled later that the mark. weight on her skull never fully healed and after this incident she was she visioned that later inspired her to escape slavery. as an adult she took the first

name harriet and when she was 24 years old she married john tubman. in her late 20's, harriet escaped from slavery in 1849. she fled in the dead of night navigating the maze of tidal streams and wetlandslands that to this day surprise the eastern shore landscape. she did so alone demonstrating courage, strength, and fortitude that became her hallmark. 23409 satisfied with attaining her own freedom hey returned repeatedly for more than ten years to places of her enslavement in ambassador chefort and carolina counties where she led away many family members and other slaves to freedom in the northeastern united states and canada. she helped develop a complex network of safe houses and recited abolitionist sympathizers residing along secret routes connecting the southern slave states and northern free states. no one knows exactly how many

people she led to freedom or the number of trips between the north and south she led but the legend of her work was an inspiration to the multitude of slaves seeking freedom and to abolitionists fighting to end slavery. tubman became known as the moses of her people, by african-americans and white abolitionists alike. tubman once proudly told frederick douglas that she never lost a single passenger. she was so effective that in 1856 there was a $40,000 reward ofdz for her capture in the south. she is the most famous and the most important conductor of the network of resistance known as the underground railroad. but to tubman, she was more an a kirkt of the underground railroad. she was a scout and a spy for the union army, she was active in the women's women's suffrage movement after the civil war and served aging african-americans by running a emto for the analled

in auburn, new york. in 1903 she bequeathed the tubman home to the african episcopal zion church where this stands to this day. just this month i was i able to attend a meeting of the a.n.e. zion church where we honored frederick douglas and harriet tubman. the church was an important part of harriet tubman's life and was involved in the forefront of both the abolition and the civil rights movement. she was a dedicated member of the church and actively supported the construction of the thompson a.m.e. church in new york where she was laid in state after her death p. harriet tubman died in auburn in 1913 and she is buried in the fort hill cemetery. many of the structures remain intact and in relatively good condition. for the past seven years i have

championed legislation to establish the creation of the harriet tubman historical parks in maryland and new york. the creation of these parks has been years in the making and long overdue. and i am very grateful for the support of my colleagues given to this bill in the last congress. recently i was able to celebrate this park's formal designation during a ceremonial event at the harriet tubman museum and educational center in cambridge new york, just a few miles from where she grew up. i was able to meet some of her decendants. i was so pleased to say that harriet tubman's legacy will live on in these parks. my cosponsors and i all share a deep appreciation for how establishing this park is preserving the legacy of this remarkable historic figure in american history. but also to show how important this park will be to communities where they are located. every february our nation's children learn lessons about the many contributions that

african-americans have made to our democracy and to the growth and prosperity of our nation. preserving places significant to harriet tubman's life story for future generations to come and see and experience creates a learning opportunity that our kids and grandkids just can't get in the classroom or learn from a textbook. the park will educate the public about the historical significance of the underground railroad and harriet tub man's early life and is expected to increase tourism create jobs and strengthen local economies. the final passage of this bill to create the park was the result of unyielding, bipartisan efforts, including from representative andy harris, senator mikulski, and me, along with our partners from new york, senator schumer gillibrand, and former secretary clinton when she represented new york in this body. along with other congressmen this effort involved members from both new york and maryland.

thest on this legislation was started by senator sarbanes when he passed legislation commissioning the national service to conduct a special resource study on harriet tubman. the establishment of the national historic park commemorating the life of harriet tubman and president bushing the serene and nearly unchanged landscape is an ideal way to celebrate and honor the outstanding life and incredible work of harriet tubman while establishing an important destine indestination for tourists to come. it is to spreeive the places significant to the life of hair yet tubman and tell her story through interpretative activities while continuing to discover being aspects of her life and the experiences of pass -- pessages of the underground railroad. the buildings and structures of maryland are mostly disappeared. slaves were forced to live in primitive buildings even though

many were skilled tradesmen who constructed the substantial homes of their owners. not surprisingly, few of these structures associated with early years of tubman's life remain standing today. the landscape in eastern maryland is still as it was when harriet tubman lived. farm fields and pine forests dotted the lowland landscape which is also notable for its extensive network of title river and wetlands, the people who she got to freedom under the cover of night. in particular, a number of places signatory life, including a homestead of ben ross, her father stuart's canal where he worked and where she worked as a slave i and others within the master plan of the blackwater national wildlife refuge. the plantation from which she came from is still largely intact in caroline county. the properties in talbott county are currently protected by various conservation easements.

were she alive today are tubman would recognize much of the landscape that she knew intimately as she secretly led freedom seekers toation places in the north. this park helps connect people today to america's history. only recently has the park service begun establishing units dedicated to the lives of african-americans. places like booker t. washington national monument on the campus of the tuskegee university in alabama. the george washington carver national monument in missouri. the national historic trail commemorating the march for voting rights from selma to montgomery, alabama. and most recently, the martin luther king jr. memorial on the mall are important monuments and places of historical significance that help tell the story of the african-american experience. as the national park system continues its important work to commemorate and preserve african-american history by providing greater public access and information about the places and people that have shaped the african-american experience there are very few units

dedicated to the lives of african-american women. this historic park is the first national park in honor of a woman. now, obviously the first historical park for an african-american woman. as we celebrate black history month and women's history month next month i cannot think of a more fitting hero than harriet tubman to be the first african-american woman to be memorialized with a national historic park. these parks tell both her purge story and -- her personal story and her lifelong state to for justice and freedom. fighting with her fight against slavery and the establishment of the underground railroad that she led to her work in the woman's suffrage movement. i would encourage my colleagues to seek inspiration from the heroes of your own state and work to preserve the physical remnants of their legacy so that future generations of americans might know better who helped form this great nation. mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk

will call the roll. quorum call:

perfect thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i have 12 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. and i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent when the senate resumes the motion to proceed at 2:15 today that senators are permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president at a press conference the day after the elections in november, president obama said -- and i quote -- "i'm eager to work with the new congress to make the next two years as productive as possible" -- end quote. republicans couldn't have been happier to hear that.

after years of dysfunction in the democrat-led senate, republicans were eager to get washington working again for americans and to work with the president to get things done for the american people. we're still eager to work with the president. but, mr. president unfortunately, despite his words the president hasn't shown much of an inclination to work with congress. between january 7 and february 10 of this year, president obama issued a total of 13 veto threats. that's more than two veto threats per week during that period. he's announced his intention of vetoing everything from a bipartisan jobs bill to national security legislation to bills to protect the borne. and of course he's threatened to veto the keystone x.l. bill, a threat he's likely to make good on this week. mr. president, you would think that if president obama were at all serious about wanting to work with congress, keystone would be the first bill he'd

sign. the american people support keystone by a wide margin. unions support keystone because they're eager for the jobs that it would create. substantial numbers of democrats support keystone. here's what one democrat had to say about the pipeline and i vote -- we have everything to gain by building this pipeline, especially since it would help create thousands of jobs at home and limit our dependence on foreign oil end quote. that's a democrat in the united states senate. approving keystone is a no-brainer. it would support 42,000 jobs during trucks crux, contribute billions to our economy and bring revenue to state and local governments which would mean more money for schools and teachers and roads and bridges. and it would do all this, all this without spending a dime, a single dime of taxpayer money. the president's refusal to approve this legislation is a

signal of just how unserious he is about want work with congress -- wanting to work with congress to get things done. unfortunately, after a promising start democrats in the senate are starting to imitate president obama's obstruction. yesterday democrats again voted to filibuster the department of homeland security appropriations bills for the fourth time this month. their reason -- they're desperate to protect the president's executive action on immigration. mr. president, before president obama decided to implement his executive amnesty he said 22 times that he did not have the authority to take this action. in fact, on march in 2011, he told an audience -- and i quote -- "with respect to the notion that i can just suspend deportation flew executive order, that's just not the case because there are laws on the books that congress has passed. we've got three branches of

government. congress passes the law the executive branch's job is to enforce and to implement those laws" -- end quote. that's from the president of the united states in march of 2011. at least eight democrats have expressed similar concerns. this from a democrat here in the senate i have to be honest how this is coming about makes me uncomfortable. independent senator from maine stated i also, frankly am concerned about the constitutional separation of powers. an example mr. president, of the reservations that have been expressed by democrats right here in the united states senate about the president's executive amnesty. last week a federal judge agreed with the legal concerns the president raised and ordered the administration to halt amnesty proceedings. despite this, democrats continue to try to protect funding for the president's unconstitutional action by

preventing consideration of the homeland security appropriation bill. mr. president, if democrats object to parts of the bill they need to vote to get on the bill so they can offer proposals to amend it. that's the way this place works. republicans have made it very clear, that we are ready and willing to vote on democrat amendments. the leader on our side has said if we get on the bill we'll alternate amendments, a free-flowing process like we promised that we committed to when we took the majority here in the senate. democrats object to the bill's lack of funding for the president's amnesty they should offer an amendment to restore the funding. that's how it works had here in the senate. all we have to do is get on the bill and that just takes six democrats to get us on to that legislation and give us an opportunity to actually debate this. mr. president, when republicans took over the senate, in january, we made it our goal to get washington working again. that's exactly what we've done.

under democrat control the senate was rain on a partisan line basis. the minority part was shut out of debate and the senate spent time focused on narrow, partisan legislation. under republican control the senate has become an open forum for debate and amendment by members of both parties. republicans allowed almost three times as many amendments in january lien as democrats allowed in all of 2014. just for -- let me restate that. republicans allowed almost three times as many amendments in january alone as democrats allowed in all of calendar number year 2014. the keystone x.l. bill was passed with bipartisan support and with amendments from members of both parties. republicans are eager to continue this kind of bipartisan process going forward. that's why the president and the democrats obstruction in this particular circumstance is so disappointing. nobody around here expects democrats and republicans to always agree and we certainly

don't expect the president never to issue a veto threat but the president's apparent determination to obstruct everything is pretty discouraging. if the president continued to make veto vote athletes, we'd be looking at almost 90 veto threats by tend of 2014. the american people deserve and they expect better. americans sent a clear message in the last election they were tired as business as usual in washington. they wanted members of congress and the president to work together to address the challenges facing our nation. clearly the president still hasn't managed to process that message. mr. president, before i close i'd like to take just a minute to talk about the president's foreign policy. congress has received the president's request for the authorization for the use of military force against the islamic state in iraq and syria and we'll take a shard look at this request but we still

haven't seen a medicare strategy from president for confronting and defeating isis. isis represents a barely comprehensible level of evil. wherever its members quo go, they leave a trail of blood. their rein of terror in the middle east has included the murder of religious minorities, rape torture burnings, beheadings, as well as reports of the crucifixion and burying alive of children. just two weeks ago isis did he headed 21 coptic christians in libya. the men's only crime was professing their faith. this morning's news included reports of another 90 syrian christians be a structured in northern syria. mr. president, my heart sinks each time i hear any report of abductions of this nature because we know the fate that is

likely in store for these people. evil like this cannot be ignored it must be confronted. and the united states should be a leader in the effort to defeat this hellish organization and end its rein of brutality. the president should have articulated a plan for responding to isis months ago but, unfortunately his lack of decision is par for the course when it comes to this administration's foreign policy. time and time again the president has been confronted with a foreign policy crisis hast and has simply failed to respond. that needs to end now. with crises multiplying around the world it's time for the president to step up and to start leading. we cannot afford for him to sit on the sidelines any longer. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum.

i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: with that i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that sentence recess until 2:15 p.m. with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.

>> the majority leader mitch mcconnell announced he would be introducing a standalone bill in order to block president obama's immigration executive action from the dhs funding bill. that would allow republicans to register their opposition with a standalone by. we will take a look here. we had response from senate democrats earlier today. a healthy press conference. here's what they had to say.

>> -- they held a press conference. here's what they had to say. >> [inaudible conversations] >> i'm going to say a few words and we will hear from our ranking member on the progressions committee and the ranking member of the

subcommittee that deals with homeland security on appropriations. we will then hear from amy klobuchar who is an interesting twist on what's happened over the weekend. we will hear them from chief michael kelly who is he representing the fire department from sandy spring, maryland, his fire department. also with us is richard powers, fairfax county. fire and rescue. neither mr. kelley or powers will be speaking but you here to support what we are doing. >> with america facing threats from terrorists determined to attack us at home, it's hard to believe that we are four days away from apartment homeland security shutting down. not being funded. what does that mean? as senator mikulski is spoken so well the last couple of weeks about how important the coast guard is we have the secret

service, we have customs, we have the people who take care of us in our airports, 220,000 of them. that's what we're talking about. it's not funding something so essential to protecting the homeland. we need a real resolution of this problem not a stopgap measure. last night the majority leader -- brought a bill to the for that has nothing to fund homeland secure. of the. we need a real resolution to this problem not more showboats and windowdressing. we've always said that we're more than happy to have an immigration debate here in the senate floor as long as we first fully fund homeland security. this is the bottom line. terrorist threats to attack america we must fund homeland security and fund it now. senator mikulski. >> hi, everybody. i'm so pleased to be your not

only my colleagues in the senate but chief kelly, one of our really wonderful, brave volunteer firefighters and chiefs from the state of maryland. and he has been in sandy springs where they've had to respond everything from 9/11 to the incidents in our own community. and that's what we're talking about here today. we need to pass the homeland security fiscal appropriations for 2015. we have the right money in the place to be able to do it with the right policies to be able to do this. and when we talk about defending america defending our homeland it comes back to local communities, to our local enforcement and to our local fire departments who are on the first income anytime, 24/7.

whether there is attempted attacks on a mall or whether there is a nine year old trapped in a burning building. our first responders, our fire department is there. they need the money to have the resources to buy the right equipment to get the right training to save us. they need us to do our job so they can do their job. they need the resources of the federal government to be able to be there on their site so they can be at your side in your own community when trouble hits you. so funding for the department of homeland security and also very big agencies like secret service dealing with big issues like cybersecurity, but ultimately all protection is local. local law enforcement local response to crises. and this is why we are advocating this.

in the homeland security bill that would be painting. there is $2.5 billion in grants in fema alone, federal emergency management. they range from like $100 million to protect ports, but they also have $680 million for assistance for fire grants. fire grants in local communities that are one competitively. i am really partial to this program because i created it. when i -- not only do i like it because the fire departments like it and need it. when president bush came in, i worked with president -- when president bush came in in 2010 i worked with senator kit bond. we've been traveling to our mutual states, missouri and

maryland, and then we had a meeting with the national fire chiefs association. they were saying to us there is so much need for equipment for a fire truck or a water truck, for breathing apparatus. we can't do this on fish fries pancake supper's. these equipments cost a lot of money, can you help us? so we teamed up with all your and welded in the house to pass this bill. i announced the first five grand in maryland on september 10 2001. we all know where we were the very next day. great men climbing in the world trade center. others will speak for it. and no those brave -- break it were still out there, still trying to do their job. i want them to have $680 million in the federal checkbook that

they can compete for but homeland security and put out the grant money and lastly pass full funding. they can't do it on the seat are. we are five years in the fiscal year and these fire departments the states that run force and others can't apply for the money until we put the money in the federal checkbook. we need to put our money where our mouth is. we are always saying we stand on the side of our first responders. we go to all the meetings. l., now it's time to meet our responsibility and fund this bill. i'm really proud of what has happened in this program and i'm really proud of what we've done in maryland. but you need to get a picture of this. india firetruck cost $1 million. now, i don't care how many crabcakes and oysters you sell in maryland. a local volunteer fire departed can't come up with it.

how many games of bingo can you play to come up with $1 million for a firetruck? and then there's the breathing apparatus. when they go when they need to where it. reading apparatus costs $7000 each, the protective gear $2000. now, this is where the people want us to spend their money. and i believe we can do it. in maryland alone we've had over 653 awards in 10 years. we've been able to find 1500 sets of reading apparatus. i think we need to take a breath and really do our job. but we need to make sure these men and women have what they need to do their job. we need to do our job. pass the homeland security fiscal 2015 appropriations and let's get on with it. i'd like to now turn to my very able subcommittee ranking

member, senator jeanne shaheen from new hampshire who can't even tell you more. >> thank you, senator mikulski. i am proud to stand with my colleagues, with chief kelly and chief powers who have worked so hard on the front lines, to once again call for fully funding a clean bill for our department of homeland security. it's time for congress to take responsible action before it's too late. as we've all said we're just days away from shutting down the department of homeland security coming those who are blocking action have a clear choice. are they going to prioritize politics or the going to prioritize national security. in the last week as i was home in after i the chance to travel

the state to meet with first responders. and as senator mikulski said so well, it is those firefighters, those emts those local law enforcement officials who are on the front lines when there's an emergency. they understand what it would mean if we don't fund the department of homeland security come or if we pass a continuing resolution. yesterday i hosted a roundtable in hampton, new hampshire, at her for a number of our local police chiefs about their concerns if we don't get this funding done. they said a couple things to be that if that were really important. they said you know we share these resources. in new hampshire we have a lot of very small communities. we don't have a lot of cities big cities. and so having the ability to have support from the department of homeland security to share resources is absolutely critical. we now have and are operable communications between our fire our safety, our emergency

management, and our police official. because of the department of homeland security. the other thing they said to me is that we can be proactive with these resources. we don't have to wait for an attack of some kind. we can get out in front of it. and when i was in nashua, our second largest city they talk to me about an effort where they're doing exactly that. they call it top think. they are using homeland security funds to develop software that can go in police officers cars so that anytime there is a potential attack on a school the police officer whether it's from the city of nashua where the attack is happening or from someplace else in the state and the author just happens to be going through. the closest officers get notified and they can respond immediately. they have the floor plans of the school. they know exactly where things are happening.

this is the kind of emergency planning that we can do because of the department of homeland security. and what we are hearing now from folks is they are willing to shut down that kind of emergency response, that kind of planning. because they want to have an ideological fight about the president's executive action on immigration. well, we can't afford to do that. we have a bill that we should act on that would avoid a shutdown. it fully funds the agency without any extraneous plus writers. it reflects the bipartisan framework that was agreed to last december by the house and senate, republicans and democrats. let's bring it to the floor. let's pass it. let's fully fund our security keep the department of homeland security open and then let's debate immigration reform. the american people are counting on us to put safety ahead of partisan politics. [applause]

>> i want to thank senator reid senator mikulski, senator shaheen for their leadership. i'm here to say that you don't have it go further than your own state to see why this is important you certainly don't have to go further than the state of minnesota. the people of my state on sunday morning woke up to a video and it was a video of a terrorist a member of al-shabaab a group that is very slow to our state because we've had 20 indictments of people from our own state who were involved in going to help us terrorist group in somalia, thank you our somalian community. we have have the somalians in minnesota. we have been able to get nine indictments but they woke up to the video of this terrorist telling the world that they should go in and attack the mall of america in minnesota a mall in canada and the mall in london. that's what they woke to. what happened? our security got beefed up at the mall. we have been ready for these kinds of things. we have local, state federal security. be beefed up security. homeland secure the secretary

said people should feel free to go to the ball, that they should feel safe going to the mall and the fbi issued a statement saying that people should go on with their lives. that happen. but think about the people that work there every day. they stood tall. they went to work. when i spoke to 500 of them on sunday night and they're asking what and what is going on in washington, i told them we would stand tall for them. these people are people that work of the front desk of the hotels that are attached to the mall. asia pivot work at the restaurants every single day and they were gathered together to get hospitality awards for the work. they had to wake up to the video. so now is the time to pass this bill, to fully fund our homeland security. when we look at what happened in pairs the subsidy attacking north korea, we know that this is a time when we should be stepping up our security can not stepping down our security. i thank my colleagues for the work that i'd should -- i call

on a republican friends to get this bill done to get these firefighters funded, to fund our security and not to send a message to al-shabaab that we're just going to shut down homeland security. that cannot be what is coming from the people of america. [applause] >> i'll take a few questions. >> does this mean that democrats are going to be rejecting republicans -- even if it means -- >> rejecting what? >> rejecting the republicans -- semi-even if you have a clean c.r.? >> i don't know what you mean. we will see what they're going to do. right now here's what we are. we have said for going on five weeks that is extreme important asset that outlined here so well that we have a fully funded department of homeland security to fund all these necessary things that senator mikulski an extended shooting, senator klobuchar has talked about.

we have to fire chiefs here. they know more than we know about the importance of funding homeland security. and we are saying that we're willing to debate anything they want on immigration as long as we have a bill that the president signed funding homeland security. that's where we are. >> are you ruling out a c.r. of? >> i think would be a a shame to juicier but i'm not here for hypotheticals. i think what we need to do is make sure that it is excellent important to america today to protect our homeland is to make sure that homeland security is funded. isis is funded. we see the everyday on tv. american people care about a lot of things that at the top of their list they know that our homeland needs to be secure. they can't take out of their minds any better than i can watching the video of 22 minutes while someone in a cage is burned to death. 21 christians in egypt are beheaded a few days ago.

this is something that i can't imagine why we have fiddled around here for four weeks and not the same has happened on homeland security. and what senator mcconnell did last that has nothing to do with homeland security. >> a lot of republicans -- [inaudible] what this is a cute about the political strategy if they decide to -- son the. >> it appears to be the ideologues are still running the republican party. they won't take, and it was not taking advice i have given the. they're not taking advice the president has given the. they're not taking the vice the fraternal order of police have given them. they're not taking advice the national council mayors have given the. they're not taking advice of "the wall street journal" to who says what they're doing is it's leading to a disaster for them. i agree with george will. i agree with senator graham that

this is, the burden is on republicans. what they're doing is wrong for the country and they not only will be blamed it should be blamed for what is going on. okay, last question. [inaudible] >> we have said that the department of homeland should be funded. we are willing to debate, we said, time and time and time again. i said is here today. we are happy to debate immigration your a lot of issues we would like to debate. it's something that is full of great intimates that we want to offer but we will not do that until the department of homeland security is funded. the republicans shut down the government wants and it appears they're willing to shut it down again, which is too bad. [applause]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> republicans will be holding a press conference of their own scheduled for 2:00 eastern time. we will bring that to you on the c-span networks and right now we will take your calls on the current impasse in the senate on the department of homeland security spending bill for republicans. the phone number is 202-74-8891. democrats can call (202)748-8920, independence and others (202)748-8922. be taking your calls in just a moment. you can when it's the majority leader mitch mcconnell's latest efforts, proposing a stand-alone bill. that the dh best spending bill failed to move forward with last night because those provisions were attached to the spending bill and get right to your phone calls we've got gerald in crown point indiana on the line. jerrold, what are your thoughts?

>> caller: my thoughts that the democrats think it's so important to fund the homeland secure, they should've voted for ago. seems to me like they're more worried about people who are not from this country that people who are in this country. we want jobs. we need jobs. we don't need people. so i would like to thank you. mr. dotcom you've heard from a before and you'll hear from me again. these people are to get out in the public and see what's really people. blame the democrats as much as republicans for not passing the bill. thank you. >> thank you. alexandria, virginia, from outside washington, d.c. jack you're on the independent's line and what are your thoughts in terms of what's going on in the senate and in the house? >> caller: i'd like to make suggestions that instead of homeland security, let the bankers and the wall street crowd handle homeland security because back in 2008 the republicans had no trouble appropriating over a trillion

dollars at the spur of the moment to bail out the crooked bankers and the scoundrels on wall street. they can get all the money in the world that when it comes to something series as homeland security, the republicans are making a political ploy out of the whole thing. >> all right, jack thanks for the coal. moving onto florida. stephen is on the line in sebring. republican's line. go ahead. >> caller: i used to register as a democrat but i vote republican now that i think the republicans are doing okay but my thing is this. everybody is sitting down watching them debate something foolish when homeland security is a definite answer. we're getting infiltrated from our southern and northern borders, people are being smuggled in. the coast guard, department of homeland security, customs and border patrol, dea everybody,

they've got to start going to get into something because they look like a bunch of kids out there who don't know what they are doing. they out to pull that section of the homeland security funding and just vote on that and then dismantle the other stuff. >> taking your calls now on homeland security spending and the attached immigration policy to block president obama's emigration policy executive action. we're going to be getting back to phone calls in just a moment. >> niels lesniewski will join us, report with cq brokaw. has more on the spindle for the department homeland security. the biggest question first, will congress meet the current funding deadline by friday at midnight? >> caller: that is sort of the biggest question right now i would say that it is anybody's guess as to whether or not there's going to be a lapse in funding or a shutdown a partial shutdown at the department of homeland security. as of this moment we have a new

proposal that's been put on the table that has been mentioned by senate majority leader mitch mcconnell to essentially break out the debate over funding for the 2014 immigration executive action by president obama, a democrats apparently just said and i was just informed that senator charles schumer, the number three democratic leader senator from new york basically said that there was going to have to be a vote on a clean bill, funding homeland security know to have a debate for democrats to go along with having a debate on mcconnell's immigration bill. i think that's the topic of discussion that will be the key to the caucus lunches are going on right now and we will probably know more as the day proceeds, if there is any appetite among republicans for having that claim spending bill vote or not. >> you've written about this in

rollcall.com. people can read the article. you breakdown the let's be clear though. it still leaves the house passed many governments agree with all the provisions still attached. so what exactly is mitch mcconnell's plan on getting a clean c.r., or if there is? >> caller: that would be, the question would be if you're dividing out the homeland security spending portion from the immigration provision because the new mcconnell bill only addresses the immigration executive action. it does not even touch spending for the department of homeland security if, in fact, this were to be sort of split into you would then have this whole question of whether or not the house, when house republicans would invariably have to meet as a conference in the capitol building in the coming days if the senate were to move next on a clean funding bill, who knows what would come out of one of those meetings?

and so that's really the next the next question is, in fact there were to be a clean spending bill that actually moved through the senate although it's not been something that's necessarily been telegraphed yet about republican leadership here but that's actually where they're headed. >> who is taking the lead on all of this the new bill that them at majority leader is proposing? >> caller: the new bill is basically pieces of legislation that had already passed the house and has had some support from the likes of senators like susan collins of maine, for instance actually suggested a strategy something like this to us on monday evening where you would essentially use the court order out of a federal court in texas as one way that you would sort of address this issue, separate from the process of funding the department of homeland security.

so that's another avenue that would probably come into play here if, in fact you had the bill move forward divided. you would probably see some sort of other effort by republicans in the senate and maybe in the house, too, to further involve themselves in the case that is now going to probably be going under federal appeals court in new orleans and ultimately to the supreme court. because it looks like this issue of the legality of the 2014 executive actions expanded executive action is really going to be a matter for the court. and so republicans who want to avoid the funding lapse at the homeland department are really saying that the court is a place they should be decided not as part of an appropriations rider. >> let's come back to the bill to fund the ditches the department of homeland security. what is the view of the senate democrats? are they going to be tough on getting a clean c.r.? could we see a short or longer-term bill?

what's happening? >> caller: as i understand it democrats in the senate are not ruling out going along with a shorter-term bill. it is their hope, aspiration what they would like to see is a bill passed like one that was sponsored by senators jeanne shaheen, democrat from new hampshire, and the top democrat on the appropriations committee barbara mikulski of maryland. that bill is essentially a previously negotiated deal that could not advance last year for funding the department of homeland security through the balance of the fiscal year, which is september 30. now, this is partly because the problem with continuing resolutions is that they prevent funding from changing and they really hamstrung the operations of the department, and that's something that secretary jeh johnson has been pushing against seen.

but cdrs as bad as they are -- cdrs, are always a better option than actually having a shutdown. >> niels thanks all the detail and we will continue falling you at rollcall.com rollcall.com and also the ones to follow you on twitter it is at niels lesniewski. thanks a lot. >> caller: thank you. >> back to your phone calls. thanks for waiting. blue springs missouri. what are your thoughts? >> caller: a couple thoughts. the current majority leader mcconnell, forewarned the leader of the time, harry reid the majority last session that using the procedural senate nuclear rule which harry the cat would come back to bite him. i believe that's a simple majority -- harry reid -- once more yes roads mcconnell should pull that nuclear rule

just as harry reid had. and all these democrats that are lining up at the podium talking about not funding for this and not funding for that the maryland senator was talking to the million dollar fire truck that wouldn't be funded, all those funds are there passed as is. the bill should be passed but it's just the immigration issue that would not be passed. >> talking about the nuclear issue. on out to brooklyn, new york independent's line. theodore, you're on the air. >> caller: yes. i feel like the republican have the right to stick together. but i do know why they're not sticking together. they have a right to stick together. harry reid changed the rules. mc connell have right to change the rule. republican must stick together. >> all right, back to missouri. scott is on the line from st. louis. scott, you're a democrat. what are your thoughts translate

my thoughts are i'm a democrat and voted for barack obama and they voted for my democratic senator industry, claire mccaskill. and claire mccaskill session doesn't agree with obama's illegal immigration action, but then she goes against the homeland the department of homeland security spending which would defund the action she says obama come she doesn't like that obama took. she voted against the homeless be funny so i called her office and asked them and they don't answer as to why she would say she disagreed with obama's illegal immigration action, but she wouldn't go with the homeland security bill to defend. i voted for both of them and i disagree with a lot of things they are doing, and it's really getting kind of ridiculous to i don't know where all of this is going to go, but i don't think you should reward 11 million illegal immigrants who are breaking the law. i know exactly what to do about it. i don't have all the answer but i don't think you reward them. what does this teach everybody

in this country? .. i think he's a good man, i just don't agree with his policies. and i feel that the action he took to say to a group of individuals who came here illegally that now you're legal i just think it was the wrong thing to do. >> host: could you -- >> guest: and he had said excuse me, he had said 20 or 22

times i do not have the authority to take this action and then he took action. i think it sends a mixed and bad message to the american people. >> host: if there's a separate vote, could you then accept what is being called a clean dhs funding bill, or would you want them tied together? >> guest: i'm going to have to read -- if they came as two separate bills, i think there's got to be a statement made by the house and the senate too by the way. again, this is where i get upset about my own side about war and these other things. it's almost like the constitution doesn't matter anymore. i mean really. the aumfs somebody said, they called in a while ago, it's just bypassing the constitution. and i think that the action that the president took was wrong and i think there needs to be some type of statement made by the congress. and i don't know what options we're going to have. >> and taking your calls, a couple more here before we return to the senate leader

today, they'll be coming back from their party lunches 2:15 eastern time. don's been waiting on the line for democrats in webster, new york, and what do you think about the homeland security spending bill and the president's provisions on immigration? >> caller: well, as far as the president on immigration, the united states senate has already passed a bill, and it was sent to the united states congress and they didn't even take it up on the floor. i think that's a disgrace. and ever since '08 when the president has been elected, they've done everything they could to discredit the president of the united states. i think that's an embarrassment. and they don't call hum president. when i grew up -- and i'm 71 years old -- no matter who the president was, he was my president, and he should be addressed as president. and i never -- i'm embarrassed to think that people would say he's not a citizen he doesn't like america, he hates --

>> host: sorry, donald looks like we lost your call there. lisa's on the line for independents stigler, oklahoma. lisa, go ahead. >> caller: hi. it's funny how people like homeland security and immigration, they should be put together because obama did break the law. he brought in a whole bunch of illegals. he says immigration is open. he brought in a whole lot of people. he brought 'em to all different -- he brought 'em in arizona and texas and california. he had 'em all here. and he let oklahoma, he had our governor they went down there, they said oh, you have to wait three weeks. our senator went down there and they said, oh, you have to wait

three weeks. and then another senator went down there, and they said, oh you have to wait three weeks to go check on the people. and then afterward they said oh then he sent them to all these different state as without the governor knowing about it. >> host: all right lisa. one more call here, mary in texas on the democrats' line. mary you're on the air. >> caller: yes, i'm listening to all the angry calls calling in today, the representatives and senators are not incompetent people. each house could pass a bill for immigration that would totally undo whatever the president has done. if we don't fund homeland security and some disaster happened to us, what would we say? it simply does not make sense to stand here and risk some total disaster some finish -- some terrible thing happening to the united states for us to get our

act right. so i suggest they send the homeland security bill up, get it signed by the president fund that then go back and undo whatever thing they don't like the president did. >> host: all right. thanks for your call mary. thanks for weighing in, everybody. we'll have our phone lines open again tomorrow morning on "washington journal," you can join us then. and a reminder we'll be hearing from republicans this afternoon on the homeland security bill and the immigration provisions their press conference scheduled for two p.m. eastern time just under an hour, and we'll have that for you on the c-span networks. next a discussion about the recent u.s. policy changes toward cuba that president obama made when he reestablished diplomatic ties. [applause] >> thanks, calvin. i'm happy to be here, and i'm happy -- i'm proud of the panel that you're about to hear from especially starting with our moderator. tim padgett perhaps you know his voice you might know his

name. he works for wlrn radio in miami and is the america's editor. he has covered latin america for 25 years both with "newsweek" and with "time" magazine. he has been to cuba at least 20 times over the course of his career. he is the kind of person you want asking questions. i've encouraged him to contribute his observations as we have today's conversation, ask with that -- and with that let me welcome tim padgett. [applause] >> thank you very much rosemary, and thank you calvin and to the tower forum for this very kind invitation and this opportunity for this discussion, this very important discussion. as calvin said, a very timely one. and i would emphasize this is a constructive discussion. this is south florida this particular issue can arouse

passions here. i would just remind everyone panel and audience alike, that everyone agrees that our aim is to change the status quo in communist cuba. the debate we're having is just over the best way to bring that about as we now near the end of the castro era. and so i would just remind everyone of the sign i saw across the street on the methodist church as we were coming in that said "let us slander no one." [laughter] it's there, you can check it out. and with that then i would like to ask our panel then to, please, come up and let me introduce them. our distinguished panel, i should say. at the end of the table there is coral gables' mayor james quezon. he was our de facto ambassador

in cuba as head of the u.s. intersection in havana from 2002-2005. mayor cason was best known for widely traveling the island to help dissidents set up independent libraries. and for his work the cuban government rewarded him with barring him from leaving havana. [laughter] he is, he was a 40-year career diplomat for the state department as well as an ambassador in countries like paraguay and then was elected mayor of coral gables in 2011 so let's, please, welcome mayor cason. [applause] >> to his left is frank calzon he is executive director of the center for a free cuba in washington washington d.c. the group promotes human rights and a transition to democracy on the island. mr. calzon was born in cuba and is a strong defender of the u.s. trade embargo against the castro regime. he has been repeatedly featured in national newspapers such as "the wall street journal" and the new york times, and he's

appeared on television programs ranging from the pbs "newshour" to fox news. mr. calzon has also testified before congressional committees and often speaks at universities here and abroad. thank you very much for coming, mr. call. . -- mr. calzon. [applause] to his left is alfredo duran, founding director of the cuban committee for democracy. mr. duran was also born in cuba and is a veteran of the bay of pigs invasion. he was, in fact -- [applause] he was, in fact, a president of the bay of pig, veterans -- pigs veterans' association but his eventual call for peaceful dialogue with cuba led to his break with that group. mr. duran is a former miami-dade school board member and a former chair of the florida democratic party. welcome, mr. duran. [applause] and to his left finally,

mr. ricardo herrero, executive director of cuba now which advocates engagement with cuba. mr. herrero is an attorney and the son of cuban exiles previously director of the cuba study group in washington. he is a former executive director of the miami-dade democratic party and served on the 2012 presidential campaign of venezuelan opposition leader enrique -- [inaudible] his articles have appeared in "usa today" and the miami herald among others, and he has appeared frequently on cnn in espanol. welcome, ruc. ms. . [applause] >> okay, so i want to start with you, mayor cason where you and i left off a few weeks ago on an on-air conversation we were having on wlrn and it has to do with the central premise that

president obama laid out for why he undertook this very dramatic very historic change in the u.s.' policy towards cuba. and that premise was as he said in his state of the union address as well if something isn't working after 50 years you can't expect, you know, a different result. you have to move on to a different approach. you pointed out, however, that that central premise you thought was wrong, that while the policy of isolation, of isolating cuba and the embargo had not brought about regime change in cuba the policy had still been a success. i was wondering if you could tell us why you think the policy of the past half century has actually worked and, therefore why the central premise of mr. obama's policy is flawed. >> well, first of all, i want to thank the tower forum for inviting me to participate in this. it's always great to talk about

cuba. my views stem from my experience through years in cuba. my personal view is that nobody's policy has worked in cuba. if you look at what's happened over the last 55 years, you find that all of the countries in the world except the united states have engaged with cuba. they have traded, they have sent tourists, they've invested probably i would guess over $100 billion has probably come into cuba over that time, and the belief that engaging will change the political system if that's what you mean by "works," if that's what you belief it's failed -- believe, it's failed. i think it's a policy unless there's something unless we're exceptional, american exceptionalism, i always say unless we have democratic pixie dust, the fact that americans are going to go there -- most of whom will be going in the future probably don't speak spanish -- and somehow the money will

trickle down to the cuban people or that the cuban government will change its determination to maintain the communist system and perfect it, i just don't see it. i mean i hope it works but hope's not a policy. >> mr. duran, i just wanted to ask you off the bat what led you a quarter century ago, more than a quarter century ago to to come to the conclusion that engaging communist cuba was the best way to go? >> when the soviet union disappeared and the cold war was over, i came to the conclusion that if we continue on the same path that had not worked in so many years and that every president from kennedy to the present president have tried to negotiate with cuba the end of the embargo and every time cuba does something so that the embargo will not end, because the embargo is the one thing that protects cuba and gives it an excuse for everything that is wrong within the island and keeps it from doing what is

right. deny civil rights, deny political rights, deny everything because they allege that they're at war with the united states. because no friendly country embargoes another friendly country. therefore, they are at war, and they have to take extraordinary actions to protect themselves from the united states. when the soviet union disappeared, i thought that it was about time that we cubans started talking to each other. the cold war was over, the difference between the united states and the soviet union was over. i thought that the future of cuba would continue to be going on as it has been going on, and i thought that it was time that cubans started talking to each other in a civic dialogue that would someday bring about normalization, civil rights, political rights to the cuban people. unfortunately, that has not happened, and the reason it has not happened is for the same reason that the 'em par go is still -- embargo is still in place; because the cuban

government does not want the embargo lifted nor any opening to the political situation in cuba. so what is for a simple cuban to do? continue arguing the point, continue telling that we must have a dialogue with the cuban people, continue saying that after the two or three historical figures in cuba are dead -- and there's only two or three that are still walking around -- changes will come about. and they're going to be generational changes. and the united states government and the cuban people in exile must begin a dialogue with those that are going to be the next generation of government in cuba. that's the only thing that is going to bring about a better cuba normalization civil rights and political rights to all cubans. >> mr.-- [applause] if i could ask you to refrain from applause, please. when president obama announced in december that he wanted to reestablish diplomatic ties with cuba, you have made the point since then that he was

actually -- he actually made this decision at a worse time because cuba seems to be at at one of its weakest points in terms of patrons. its latest patron, venezuela, was on the ropes and, therefore, this was the moment to tighten the screws rather than engage cuba. i was wondering if you could elaborate on why historically this was such a mistake. >> yeah. well, first of all let me thank the forum for inviting me. i, like most cubans, i would like to see day in which in cuba there would be a group of folks like this -- lawyers businessmen, independent people -- that could get together to talk about an issue without being afraid of being taken away by the police. i think that's manager that we have to keep in mind -- something that we have to keep in mind. what i said when the president made announcement was a little bit more than that. i said, for example, that the president had early on talked about transparency and he had

conducted 18 months a secret negotiation that even key people in the state department didn't learn about until about three or four months ago. i also, i also said frankly being a cuban that i don't know why the president thinks that by talking to raul castro that both of them could determine the future of cuba. the future of i cuba belongs to the cuban people. they have to be at the negotiating table. i also said that the president announced a policy that is full of misunderstanding and misconceptions. he read some things i guess from the teleprompter that are really nonsense i'm sorry to say. when people say that the president wants to reestablish relations with cuba, the united states has had diplomatic relations with cuba since 1977. the american mission in cuba where ambassador cason served, is the largest diplomatic mission in cuba and has been for

years. there are more american diplomats in cuba than the french or the russians so it's not for a lack of diplomatic presence in cuba that we are where we are. then i also said, and i'll stop here, that the notion of saying well if something hasn't worked, we've got to do something else well the something else has to work. just because something doesn't work you just pick up another option. and as ambassador here on my right has said the french the yainds japanese -- canadians, japanese, the spaniards, all of them have sent millions of tourists to cuba. all of them have traded with cuba. all of them have given loans to cuba. that hasn't changed the repressive regime in cuba. so what the president is doing is changing from a policy that many people think it hasn't worked to a policy that we know it hasn't worked. and that's my answer.

>> mr. herrero why do most cuban-americans of your younger generation believe that it's time to engage the island? >> simple, we've lived under this policy our entire lives and we've yet to see it yield any sort of result whatsoever. >> [inaudible] >> sorry. you know, we've seen that for basically as long as i've been around, almost as long as i've been around our policy towards cuba has been dictated primarily by south florida politic, not by a sober assessment of what's the correct approach towards that country or what's in the best interests of the united states. and i've seen that process. i myself was when -- i grew up in a household where my parents were, you know staunchly in favor of the embargo, believed that trying to choke that economy was going to be the best way to bring about change on the island. and i came up believing the

same. it wasn't until i had an opportunity to visit the island in 2000 that i realized that our policy had -- was grossly overreaching and was really actually aggravating the issue. i got to meet, i got to go on a family trip where i got to meet a couple of young, very entrepreneurialing cubans -- entrepreneurial cubans in havana who were basically street hustling. they were making ends meet by working with tourists, driving them around doing anything they had to do to raise some money so that they could take it home and feed their families. and their dream was to start their own businesses in miami. leave the island and start their own hiss in miami. and i would ask them why because there's absolutely no opportunity here. and i thought well, if everybody who is young and with any sort of drive and initiative if their dream is to get out of this country, this is never going to change. and i thought well, what are we doing to help remedy this? and that's when i realized that

it was, the answer was absolutely nothing. our policy is only aggravating the situation. instead of being able to bring the international community together to help exert pressure towards the castro regime, we've isolated ourselves from the international community. they've run the other way because they don't want to be seen as aligned with this overreaching policy that's, as codified in the holmes-burton act and cuba democracy act. it's also done nothing to help civil society on the island to empower them in any way. it's given us no leverage with the cubans to help to push for changes. they don't respond to, basically, anything that we say on this side. and it hasn't achieved -- overall, it hasn't achieved its objectives. it hasn't ushered in a democratic transition. so when you grow up your entire life seeing that this is the approach and it's not doing anything, yet you see also that when we engage with cubans on

the island you're sharing ideas, you open up the flow of resources to them they take every opportunity to try to get ahead on their own right, then you see there's an opportunity there to build something new that can recommender the old to systemmer rell haven't -- that can render the old system irrelevant. and i think that's why folks my age seem to be open to a different policy. >> mayor cason, let's go back to the rationale then for president obama's policy change. he believes that while this new policy won't make -- or democratize cuba overnight, i think his feeling is that it will at least position the united states more effectively to take advantage of change should it come when the castros disappear from the scene. so if that's the rationale for the policy change mayor cason you, however made the point to me a few weeks ago and just a couple days ago, i think that you don't even think that

normalization is really going to have a chance to occur under this, under this process. >> yes, i don't think it will. because -- and i think the cubans have said very clearly read my lips recently, that we are not going to allow anything that you do to change our view of the political -- what we want to do with the political system. i mean, they've been very clear. we want to take the money that you're going to give to the military which runs all the economy there, and we're going to use it to continue to perfect communism and the system that we have. there's a big difference between diplomatic relations which if you look up the definition it means you have diplomats in each other's country. as mr. calzon had, we've had that since 1977. we have the largest embassy except we don't have the name on the door, and we can't use the american flag. i don't think that gains us much. what we really need is normalization, and there's at least 15 things that have to be done that i've come up with, and i've been in conversations, migration accord talks with the

cubans over the three years that i was there. they need to allow our diplomats to normally pursue what diplomats do. and part of what we do is always defending our values. the cubans just a couple days ago made it clear we don't want your diplomats to do what diplomats do. they restricted us to the number of 51 employees and the number of tdy that we can have to make it so we can't be effective, they interfere with our diplomatic pouch they refuse to allow postal service, they don't allow the internet to reach the average cuban person, they harass our diplomats they won't let -- if you're a canadian and you invite an american diplomat to your diplomatic residence, the cubans refuse to go. nor will the cubans allow us to speak with anybody other than the head of the north american affairs who is a minister of interior official disguised as a

diplomat. the point is they -- unless we think they're dumb, they are not going to -- they listen to what the president says. he says we're going to do this because we're going to empower the cuban people. the i cubans have said we're not going to allow them to be empowered. we're going to maintain our system. so the view that somehow they are so dumb as to not be -- they know they can control it. they've controlled everybody else's efforts to do this, to change their system and they're not going to do it. and they're not going to allow normalization because that would mean that our diplomats can travel around, we can bring in the materials we want as they do in washington. so normalization, i predict, will not happen. i hope it will. maybe someday when the castros are gone i think there's a chance. but until they begin, the cuban government, creating institutions that allow the cuban people to participate, only they can empower the cuban people not our foreign policy. >> mr. calzon, i i know you --

i'm sorry did you have -- >> no, that's okay. >> i know you wanted to make a rebuttal to what mr. he rare row just said but to follow up on the point the mayor just made with another point that you have made that this can't work because we simply gave too much away to the cubans from the outset. we made too many concessions without asking enough from them in return. i was wondering if you could address that point. >> well, if you look at what the president has done and what the president is talking about doing, it is basically what the cuban government has been asking for a long time. when you hear some folks talking about cuba policy, you have to put that on a backboard and say this is -- blackboard and say this is what the cuban government wants. the cuban government wants the embargo lifts, the government wants to be removed from the list of countries that support international terrorism despite the tact that in cuba -- the fact that in cuba there are

american -- terrorists who killed american police officers and if you go to the fbi web page you'll see that one of those terrorists who murdered an american is one of the ten most wanted in the fbi list. cuba is the only country in the list of countries that support terrorism who has publicly acknowledged that there is a murderer of an american police officer who's welcome there. i think that has to be taken into account. the other thing that i just wanted to say something which it's again when you hear the cuban government talk, for example, that cuban policy is based from that of south florida as if they didn't earn the right to have a point of view. in case you don't know,

cuban-americans have been here for 50 some years. cuban-americans pay taxes, they serve in the armed forces, they become presidents of university. they have a point of view. and if you want to go to the vietnam war, i could show you where you could put your hand on the names of cuban-americans who have died serving the american flag. i think the cuban-americans have the same right as the jewish community, black community and the gay community, anybody else, to have a point of view. what controls american policy toward cuba is not the cuban-american community. what controls cuban policy about cuba are the actions of the castro dictatorship. it is not the cuban-americans who send a large police con contingent to venezuela to beat up kiss departments and to train the -- dissidents and to train the venezuelan police forces. it is not the cuban exiles who would like to go back to the cold war. the president wants to forget about the cold war.

raul castro wants to go back to the cold war. he wants to open up a spy station that have been closed back in cuba. while the american diplomats were in cuba, the soviet spy ship showed up in havana. raul castro has in cuba's national bank -- look it up in your newspaper. there has been a lot of fraud with medicaid and medicare. and at least in one case and there are many others, $300 million were stolen from medicaid and medicare. the money is now in cuba's national bank. is that a, is that a savings account? shouldn't the administration say to mr. castro, "give us the money right now before we talk about anything else?" this is your money. this is taxpayers' money. and, apparently, the administration is not interested

in getting your money back. >> and mr. calzon if i could then just ask mr. duran to follow up on that point -- >> [inaudible] >> if i could just ask mr. duran really quickly though, to follow up on that point which is a central one, i think, that cuba policy for too long in the united states has been based in the eyes of many on cuban exile anger which, albeit is very justified obviously, but is not basis for sound foreign policy perhaps. i was wondering if you could address -- >> that's been precisely the point, and that is why it is so important, what president obama has done. up until now u.s. foreign policy towards cuba did not exist. it was u.s. policy for the leaderboards to get electoral -- elections to get electoral votes in new jersey and in florida and to get political contributions from wealthy cubans in new jersey and in florida. that is what has determined u.s. foreign policy towards cuba

until now. for the first time, there is a foreign policy towards cuba and that is what obama is doing. he's taking the best interests of the united states into account and not electoral policy nor political contributions. the fact of the matter is that we're going to have to deal with cuba because changes are coming. like i said before, there's only two or three that still walk around, and they all have more than 85 87 89 years old. they cannot last much longer. and you have a new generation that is taking over, and if you take a look at the central committee of the communist party in cuba, almost 90% are under 55 years of age. those people were not in the sierra maestra with fidel castro. those people don't have the same ideological need to be historical figures like fidel castro.

those people want changes and they're going to do their own form of government, and the united states should be already trying to make contact talk to them and make changes because you know what's going to happen when the castros disappear? miami, florida and that havana and cuba are going to be china and hong kong. i don't know yet who's going to be china and who's going to be hong kong concern. [laughter] but that's what's going to happen. you're going to have a tremendous flow of people business going back and forth, and you better start looking forward to that event which is coming sooner rather than later. >> mr. duran is a better way to put this though this policy is essentially a new bet replacing an old bet in the sense that we are betting with this new policy that when the castros are gone we will see a sort of gorbachev-like presence emerge in cuba that we will be better situated than to take -- then to take advantage of? is that, essentially -- >> i just don't understand how anybody can think that something that hasn't worked in 55 years

is going to work in the next 55 years. it just doesn't work. the policy has not worked because it has nothing to do with u.s. foreign policy. it has to do with political policy and political contributions. >> and mr.-- >> you can govern, you can govern u.s. policy towards cuba by just contributing money to two or three chairmens of subcommittees that have to do with latin america, the caribbean and cuba. and most of those chairmens are from states that don't even know where cuba is. so it's very easy to form cuba policy. >> mr. herrero, if you could follow up on that point and then there's another i'd like to ask as well. >> sure. just to respond to mr. calzon, the year that castro shot down the brothers to the rescue planes 1996 was a presidential election year. clinton was up for re-election. there was a bill making the rounds in congress that really was not seen as having any shot of getting passed because it was

so overreaching. it had this very troublesome constitutionally-suspicious -- suspect extraterritorial provisions. and it just didn't seem like it had much traction. the bill was helms-burton, the law that codifies all sanctions and puts them in the hands of congress and conditions the lifting of all of them -- not even a tit for tat, quid pro quo, but all sanctions on a series of limitations the sue ban government -- cuban government must meet. the bill wasn't expect to go anywhere, but the cubans shot down the plane, it was an election year, clinton signed the bill. he recognized in his own biography that signing that bill was good election year politics in florida but that it tied his hands to be to able to lift the embargo in the future in exchange through negotiations for positive changes in the island. so it is very much about south

florida politics. now, as far as what the bet is, look, the bet is -- you can't micromanage a transition in cuba from coral gables right? or from washington. a change in cuba has to come from within. it's got to come from the people. it's got to be home grown democracy. they have to want it, and the best way that we can help facilitate that is by opening up the flow of contacts, resources, capital, information to the cuban people so that they can be in a better position to make greater demands from that government. so that's the bed of this policy, that we're empowering civil society we're empowering all sectors of the cuban people so that they can make -- they're in a better position. they can, you know, put food on the table better provide for, you know their basic needs, and we'll be in a better position to make greater demands from that government. >> what about this argument that mr. calzon brings up, that in so

doing we are simply giving too much away to get to that? >> we're not giving anything away because we're not making any concessions. part of the problem with helms-burton is it created this idea that somehow are removing, removing sanctions that haven't brought any sort of solution whatsoever haven't produced their intended outcomes for steps that we want the cubans to take but they're not inclined to take are somehow tradeable commodities. they're not. we're replacing a bad policy with a more promising policy. we're doing what's in the best interests of the united states and what we believe will be in the best interests of the cuban people. so we're not giving anything away. you're -- the value of a failed policy is zero for everybody except for those who have benefited from the status quo that that policy creates. so it's not a concession. again, it's just a reform of a policy trying to do something that finally achieves its objectives. >> mayor cason, my -- when i

first visited cuba in 990 -- 1990 the soviet union had just collapsed, and the special period as they called it which was one of the worst economic periods in cuban history, the economy was in freefall, the suffering was terrible, and every day i would wake up and walk around and see empty shelves and empty tables and houses etc., and i kept saying to myself there's no way they can survive this. but yet somehow they did. and we've come now to a point where venezuela is about to collapse, their newest, their newest sponsor. and, again, people are saying there's no way they can survive this. but journalistically, i have to -- and empirically i have to look back over the past quarter century, and i have to e are mind myself -- to remind myself they always seem to find a way to survive it. and i think one of the reasons is because unilateral embargoes don't seem to work. i think one of the reasons we

were successfully able to confront apartheid in south africa, for example, was because that was a multilateral international effort, and those do work whereas unilateral efforts historically don't. but back to this moment in history then because venezuela is so weak right now i'd like to go back to that point about your argument that -- and mr. calzon's argument -- that this was not the right time to do this because this was exactly the time when we could have put the squeeze on cue pennsylvania pennsylvania -- on cuba. >> well, look cuba survived in part because one, it's an island; two, it's got very good security forces. they have been getting life preservers after the end of the soviet union from venezuela oil. they always seem to find a sugar daddy when things are tough. when things are tough, what they do is they liberalize in terms of micro-enterprises.

they did it when i was there. and as soon as money flows in from whatever it is, then they cut back the number of licenses. i mean, they only license like 157 little occupations like filling cigarette lighters and they have restaurants, but a lot of those are -- i mean some of are actually individuals doing it, but a lot of them are just relative of 069 military that now have a way to invest the money they've gotten from corruption in the island and enterprises. but what they tend to do is in bad times they open up a little bit, and when the money comes in, they tighten up again. i think that, yeah, this was, this was a very difficult time for 'em. it's very unlikely that venezuela, russia iran, anybody else is going to be in a position with oil prices plunging to continue to provide all that i money. so one of the reasons that they were able to survive is that the europeans have invested billions and billions of dollars in the island. they owe -- they don't ever pay

'em back. what they really want from the embargo not so much american tourists, they want loans, guaranteed by ex-im bank and others because they have never paid back the loans given by other countries, and they're not about to pay this one back to us. they want the taxpayers to be on the hook to to pay for all these food stuffs which when they do come in -- and by the way, they can buy all the food from the united states. they've been able to do it from the united states. they've bought billions of dollars of food from us, telephone poles, medicine, anything they want to buy, they can. bathing suit tourists can can't go -- can't go, and we don't allow loans to a government that won't pay them back. so i think what's, what happens is yeah, we've thrown them a lifeline now at a time that will give them another renewed life for the regime because all that money that comes from american tourists the few that are going

to be able to find rooms in havana because most of them are full the money's going to go straight to the military which runs the cigars, the tobacco, the rum and all the a hotels and all the tourist industry. so i think why do we keep throwing lifelines? again, my view is that when people say it hasn't worked, back to what i said originally: nobody's policy's worked. unfortunately. you name a policy that works, and i'll support it. engagement is the most failed policy because the rest of the world has been doing for 50 years. >> but mr. duran, what about that argument that raul castro never would have agreed to normalization in the first place if he hadn't been so desperate and that questions prayings is the best -- desperation is the best argument for why we shouldn't have pursued engagement right now, we should have continued what we're doing. >> raul castro has not agreed to normal. he just said that the only way he would normalize is if united

states paid a compensation for all the damages and it goes into the billions -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> he used a trillion dollar figure at one point. >> right. so they don't want normalization. that's the -- what people don't get in their mind. the cuban government does not want normal relations with the united states. it goes against their best interests. they want the things as they are, and the most terrible thing that is happening in cuba right now is that everybody wants to leave cuba. i have not heard in the past ten years any cuban that feels love for cuba. they all want to leave, and they want to leave to the united states. and that's the most unfortunate thing. you don't see one single person that gets off an airplane, gets off a boat that says i want to go back to cuba because i want to liberate cuba. no, they say i want to come to the united states because i want to send money back to my family in cuba. they're acting not as political

refugees, they're acting as immigrant. and that is the most terrible thing that is happening in cuba because the cuban people have lost love for the island. they just want to leave especially the young people. >> mr. calzon and mr. herrero, if you could just briefly address that point why at this point should you have let the embargo work? >> that has never been my point. my point is the embargo should be used to condition real change in cuba. no one is really defending -- first of all the embargo, we keep saying embargo. embargo today is not the same thing that it was in 1960. the idea that nothing has been done in cuba during all this time is simply not true. when ambassador cason was in cuba he distributed 30,000 short wave radios. that's the strategy of radio-free europe and radio liberty. those things are important. but neither the cuban

government nor the advocates for the cuban government want to concede that. something was -- just came out here, and you probably don't know. on the one hand, mr. herrero says that it's just the south florida votes or whatever. by way what mr. duran says about contributions that's not only cuba. any political scientist knows how the congress works. so if you're concerned about cuba, you should be concerned with middle easts policy -- >> your ex-friend -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> my point is that this is not a cuba-specific issue. >> we all know that. we all know that. >> not everybody -- well, not -- >> we all know that. >> well let me go back to what i want to say -- >> yeah. >> because the cuba -- >> quickly. >> -- is not simply the votes and the democracy or contribution, but lies. mr. he rare pro sees -- herrero

says that the brothers to the rescue. i don't know if you know what happened here but there were four young men, one who was born in new jersey another one who served in vietnam, and they were looking for ref i few gees on the florida -- refugees on the florida straits. and cuban migs came out and destroyed those planes in international air space. one spy had something to do with that. that man was sentenced to two life sentences. and that man, who had something to do with the death of americans, was exchanged by the president. and the mother of at least one of those who died told me it was just like seeing my son die one more time. how could it be? now, i guess anybody who wants to kill americans can then get some government to blackmail the president and get to free them for the murderer? i think we have to take that

into account. and american lives are at risk, not simply a game. now, when you say that people benefited -- >> [inaudible] >> just let me say this mr. herrero talks about people who benefited from the old policy. what about the people who want to benefit for the new policy? what about the businessmen some of them that you work for who want to go to cuba and pay $20 a month in an environment where you don't have a labor union, you don't have a right to strike and the thought that cubans don't know about freedom? i don't know if you haven't heard, but there have been thousands of political prisoners in cuba. there are many leaders in cuba who want to stay in cuba and fight for cuba and love cuba. so whenever somebody says to you all cubans that's not true. >> can you finish -- >> all kinds of cubans. >> can you finish up on that point, mr. herrero? >> yeah, just a couple points. um, it was mostly driven by south florida politics, what we've seen in recent elections

is cuba's no longer the third rail of south florida politics the way it used to be. we saw that with the 2012 campaign where obama won close to 50% of the cuban-american vote. we see this in the most recent campaign where charlie crist, each though he lost, also won close to 51% of the cuban vote and about 30,000 more votes than alex sink had in 2010 in miami-dade. what i want to go back to is a couple of the other points that have been mentioned -- >> just briefly please. >> i'll try to be very brief. we constantly call the castro government liars crooks that can't be trusted yet -- >> they are. >> fine. [laughter] whenever they make a full-throated demand for lifting of the embargo do we believe it's what they really want? let's think about that for a second. second during the special period gdp in cuba dropped 35% over the course of four years. 35%. and they were able to survive

that. it is estimated that if they lose vens wail wan subsidies the gdp drop would be 10%. let's say it gets to 20%. still nowhere near 5%. and this is -- 35%. so to think this is a time when they were going to just sort of bow down to the americans and give in to our demands is not really based on reality. if anything, all they would have to do is just open up their economy each more. and why should we be taking these steps now? look fidel, we know, if he's not dead already he's probably going to pass away soon. after ten years of retirement this is how effective our policy has been. his brother has announced that he is stepping down in 2018 and has institute term limits. we'll see if they honor that. but we know that there's already -- they're at twilight of this era. we know that there is a transition in place. should we be standing on the sidelines and waiting and hoping for the best without trying to

play a constructive role or should we be engaging directly and trying to influence that process as much as possible? i think we could be much more influential in the future of cuba by playing a constructive role in the present than by sitting on the sidelines. >> and that role, and this is last question i want to address to the panel before we open it up to questions then, because this is such a business-oriented group, i think it's appropriate that we \ the point -- we make the point, and roberta jacobson has made this point the top u.s. negotiator for the normalization process with cuba for the state department she has repeatedly made the point that the focus of this new policy is empowering as you had pointed out, these fledgling entrepreneurs in cuba. that by giving them more economic power and therefore, more civil independence in cuba, you undermine perhaps not, you know, in the way that sol dare

the city did in poland but you nonetheless undermine communist authority in cuba. and that really is the end game of this new policy. empowering these new capitalists in cuba so that we can undermine the castro regime in that way. mayor ca soften you believe that -- cason, you believe that's a flawed approach? >> definitely. >> and if i could just ask all of you to keep your answers very brief so we can -- >> i do because at least $100 billion has come in over 50 years, the cuban government knows how to quarantine that money. it goes to the military which runs the repressive forces. the idea that micro-enterprises will by supporting them that they're going to be able to change the government the government has said we are not changing. and they know how, they know how to control that. so i just think the idea of trickle down is going to empower the cuban people no. they're going to be empowered when the cuban government invites them to participate in

the dialogue on the future. >> mr. duran? >> some of the most successful cuban businessmen in florida have been traveling to cuba to look at the possibilities of doing business in cuba. they've all come back with very interesting opinions. but the one in particular, carlos rodriguez, went together with the catholic church and started doing seminars all over cuba about teaching the cubans how to run small enterprises. they were so successful that the cuban government took carlos out, put him on a plane and sent him back to miami. [laughter] that's how fearful they are of private business. >> good point, thank you. >> mr. calzon? >> yeah. well if you believe that cuban government does not want to receive millions of dollars to support their government which is what's happening under this policy then i guess i could sell you the seven-mile bridge or something. but the idea of trading with

cuba trading and getting paid are not the same thing. and there are lots of people who trade with cuba and don't get paid. finally, yes, i i know about the cuban-american businessmen who want to go to cuba, and i know some of those cuban-american businessmen who go and put -- [speaking spanish] across the border in mexico. but cubans don't want the cuban workers to get paid $20 or $30 a month which is the great attraction for these businessmen. because they don't have to deal with labor unions, and if a worker says something about the environment, they're sent to prison. those are the cuban businessmen they want. we want cuba not to be like china or vietnam we want i cuba to be like the united states or costa rica. why not? why couldn't the cubans be like anybody else? and the idea that you're missing an opportunity, cuba has something that will never -- the u.s. will never miss any opportunity. it's called nine miles. the island is not going to move

anywhere. the cuban people have known for many years the cuban people have known for many years that the american people have been on their side. >> frank the only -- >> and now somebody's telling the cuban people that the american government is on the side of raul castro. that's a disaster. >> mr. herrero? >> frank there's -- >> if i could just ask mr. herrero to weigh in on that. >> the two large protests that we've seen in the last two years in cuba were actually protests by entrepreneurs -- [laughter] who were protesting -- that's the truth. >> come on. >> there was one with 500 people in the street. i know you don't want to recognize entrepreneurs. >> look at amnesty international. >> if i may, it's my turn. amnesty, by the way has called for a lifting of the embargo. and so has human rights watch. our policy, again, it goes back to whether we're trying to

micromanage, not visit cuba and just hope that by us demanding they'll do everything we want or try to engage in constructive ways and empower civil society. now, civil society is not just a handful of dissidents that agree with a particular policy here, it's everybody that is a opposed to the government, all dissidents, but not only that entrepreneurs, academics, artists, anybody who is seeking to increase their autonomy from the state. they're the folks that we should be helping and that's what this policy policy is guarded -- >> and i would point out in the end what i think the obama administration is hoping is business people like you will be able to directly invest with or help entrepreneurs in that way as well. some might call that a pipe dream, but i think that's the end game of the policy. we really should now open it up to questions from you. sure. [inaudible conversations]

>> okay. >> [inaudible] question is, oil prices are -- [inaudible] oil prices are at historic lows right now. venezuela seems to be in real financial difficulty. drilling off the cuban coast could cause -- [inaudible] do you think oil has a big part of this new openness? >> i don't think so because when i was there, you had a number of foreign companies that came in with the hope that they were going to find oil. they drilled, and they didn't find any oil offshore that was commercial. they might continue in some other areas, but that was -- those are the sorts of things that we were able to discuss when i was there. it's not like we've never been talking with the cubans. we've talked about migration, hurricanes, ill gruel immigrants -- illegal immigrants, drug traffickers those sorts of things. we can talk about it and we have talked about it, but i don't think that's had much to do with

it. >> next question. >> excuse me. current policy has allowed people who come from cuba once they get here to stay. in more recent years, the sentinel recently reported that because people can come here and after a year and a day be allowed to go back, we've got a criminal pipeline of people who are coming from cuba ripping off medicare ripping off medicaid, doing insurance fraud which leads to the premiums in south florida being through the roof. i know you all don't think the embargo should be lifted or the relations changed, but should the i cuban adjustment -- the cuban adjustment act be changed? >> well, more than, more than the cuban adjustment act i i believe that people who break the law should go to jail. and i think that when the cuban government provides refuge for those people and refuses to return the money, it gives you a pretty good idea who you're dealing with. >> but is the cuban adjustment

act, though, responsible in some way for the phenomenon that she's describing? >> to that i would say, you know, there's nomex can adjustment act -- no mexican adjustment act. the cubans will continue to come unless the united states has a serious policy that if you break the law, we will go after you. and also unless the cuban -- the american government takes a look at the operations of the cuban security services here. because sending $30 million to the -- $300 million to the cuban bank is not a person here. it's cuban government. it's the cuban intelligence service who's doing that. and we should not ignore that. >> mr. duran, do you want to -- >> yeah. i think that we're very close to see the end of the cuban adjustment act. i think there's a strong feeling not only in congress, but even in politicians here in south florida, even in these conoco mission in miami-dade county there were some expressions to that effect.

as far as medicare fraud there's medicare fraud all over the united states. it's just not cubans who are committing medicare fraud. it's a crime, and it should be punished. but the cuban adjustment act is something that its time has passed, and i think that there's very strong sentiment among u.s. and congress and among florida politicians that it's about time to end. and for the first time i think in the past couple of months we are hearing a debate about that even in the miami-dade county commission. >> next question. oh, i'm sorry. go ahead. >> hi. with all the, with all the demands that raul castro has made on the united states recently, i'm just wondering has anything been said or done to try to replace the access that our original cubans gave up when they came to the united states? we had many, many people who --

[inaudible] >> do you want to -- >> yeah. one of the, one of the things that's going to have to be discussed in the whole long, frustrating process of normalization if we ever get there is going to be the foreign claims settlement commission. there are about 6700 claims that total $7 or $8 billion now for american citizens at the time whose properties were taken. then there's the question of all of the people that left their goods on the island because they were not allowed to leave even with rings on. so yeah, that's going to be a big discussion, and it's been a discussion with a lot of countries. it's a long process, and usually you get ten cents on the dollar in a bond or a tax credit. obviously, that's one of major issues that we discussed. and the cubans what the cubans will say because they said it when i was there, once the embargo's gone, you owe us because you have decided not to trade with us. so you get rid of the embargo, they have another excuse. that's this one. of course they're never going to

do that. and they want guantanamo back? >> let me just add to this because this is an interesting aspect, and it's going to affect all cubans that are here. as far as the cubans' properties, there were very few cuban properties that were actually confiscated by law degree. i mean, most of cubans left their property, and they abandoned their property. and it's just like in florida. be you don't pay your taxes -- if you don't pay your taxes for seven years, you lose your property. and that is what's happening in cuba. and that is one of the biggest debates which has never been settled in eastern europe yet. what happens when you leave your property and you don't pay taxes on it for seven years? now, that's one thing. the other thing is that cuba has settled all of its foreign asset loans with everybody except the united states. and the reason, even though they made an offer to settle the question of u.s. property interest is because they wanted

to settle the property interests that they confiscated of american properties at the value that the american companies reported in cuba for tax purposes. and they had already got tax deductions here for ten times what they reported the value of the taxes in cuba. p and that is why cuba came to an agreement with every cub in the world -- every country in the world except the united states. for instance, a u.s. company that lost a farm a sugar farm in cuba got a tax deduction here of $1,000 let's say. while they reported the value of that property in cuba for $100. and that is the difference which has never been settled between the united states because the companies don't want them to be paid because they already tax deducted those properties by much more value than they had reported to the cuban -- >> okay. mr. calzon has a very quick rebuttal, and then mr. herrero would like to weigh in very quickly about the cuban adjustment act.

>> yeah. i'm sorry to have to say but that's the position that the cuban government promotes. and the idea that cubans left their property i guess we could say to the jews that left germany, you left your property. we know how we came. we came with nothing. we came with $5 in the pocket. the view that the cubans left their country, the cubans were forced out. people were imprisonedded. other people were executed. and now you're repeating the cuban government -- >> but the difference is that you're going the take property from those people who have been living it for 55 years? that is the same argument that is going on in eastern europe. >> you're changing the argument. >> gentlemen we do need to get to other questions. so if mr. herrero could weigh in on the cuban adjustment -- >> going back to the less touchy subject of the cuban adjustment act, i agree with frank that criminals should be prosecuted and thrown in jail. but not having normalized

diplomatic relations, not having banking relations, not having travel d i mean having travel restrictions makes it harder to go after these people than otherwise having these relations, right? because if we're not if it's just cash only, if we're not talking to the cubans if we make it harder for law enforcement and is others to be able to go after these people on the island how are we ever going to get them? so the cuban adjustment act enables this but so does the embargo. and i think as far as the cuban adjustment act is concerned it seems very immoral to me at this juncture to say we're going to close the door to everyone else who's trying to come here seeking a better life even though the same regime is still in power, yet weaver going to keep this -- we're going to keep this moil in place that's -- this policy in place that's trying to destroy your economy. i think what we should do is revisit our entire legislative framework towards cuba so we can finally have a coherent policy towards island. if there's been enough changes

to revisit the adjustment act, then i think we can agree there have been enough changes to revisit the embargo. >> can we go to a question from this side of the room, i think we had -- yes. the young lady back there. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you gentlemen. my name is beverly benjamin. i understand that raul castro has a son who serves as a captain in the cuban army and trained in russia. is this, in fact, someone who's being groomed from the next generation? >> you know, nobody really knows. i personally believe that the cuban government wants a succession, not a transition. in fact, when i was there they had a series of nine cartoons called -- [speaking spanish] about me in which the whole political purpose of these nine cartoons was to show that the cubans were going to be better off with a succession, not a transition to democracy because then you would have to pay for medical, you know, all of these

sorts of arguments they use. it's possible that he's being groomed, but also it's possible one or many -- one of the five heroes one of the spies that's come back could be groomed because they're bringing them out now. they've been, they've gone through prison, they remain firm with the regime, they've become heroes. i wouldn't overlook the possibility of one of the released murderers being groomed. we just have to wait and see but i think it's going to be a succession. they certainly don't want a transition to democracy. >> anyone else have any thoughts on that? >> i think that the changes in cuba are going to be generational. i sincerely believe that the government will love castro's sons or nephews to take over, but i don't think that's going to happen. i think that the central committee, like i said before, you have more than 90% is under 55 years old, and they have their own program. >> just quickly mr. calzon.

>> yeah. when you look at cuba, you've got to remember north korea. cuba is -- the reason raul castro is there is because he's the brother of the dictator. and they want to stay in power indefinitely. their relationship with north korea is very obvious. just a couple of years ago cuba sent war planes on a north korean ship that was caught in the panama canal. it is not simply a all castro's -- raul castro's demands, it is raul castro's actions that we have to take into account. >> yes sir. you had a question? right there. >> thank you for being here. i'm cuban-american. i came when i was 7 years old and i agree that the embargo has not worked. but are we naive enough to think that the cuban government is going to allow -- [inaudible] to empower themselves? that's ridiculous. and, sir, you said people's

regular property i came when i was 7. my tower was a doctor -- my father was a doctor. they left everything not by choice. so it's kind of sad to see that someone who fought in the bay of pigs invasion made comments that people just left their property there. [applause] >> let me, let me -- if i can address the part about, again, about the entrepreneurs. the i cuban -- >> quickly. >> the cubans when i was there, fidel traveled to china, vietnam, malaysia and japan and came back and told the central committee of the communist party he'd seen tremendous economic development there, but they were making a mistake. they were going to eventually, if they kept allowing economic inequalities that come from economic growth, that they were going to lose political power. they were going to have commands for elections -- demands for elections and internal elections in china and he came back and said we are not going the allow that, and he passed a law that had at the end that they were going to penalize other illicit activities, and that's when they

cracked down on the entrepreneurs. they know that if you keep the income as they've been successful at $20 a month, people scrounge for food every day, they're not going to be thinking about higher level things. and that's their goal. motto allow what we want -- not to allow what we want to do because they don't want to give up political power, and they've said it. they've said read our lips, we're not doing it. >> mr. herrero? >> yeah. whenever we ask the question are we so naive that the cubans are going to all of a sudden do the right thing? no one that's ooh naive. no one's making that argument. but it's how do you change the game so that you're forcing them to actually open up or to take steps in the right direction right? so we know that the name of the game for the cubans is control. they're more concerned about staying in power than anything else. but to be able the to do that in the 21st century they need to open up their economy to some degree because they can no

longer depend on one sugar daddy -- >> we are going to leave this taped program take you to a senate republican news conference over at the senate. >> hi, dave. well, good afternoon everyone. as all of you know, i put on the calendar last night what we called the collins bill which would, if enacted prevent the president's executive actions from last november from going woo effect. going into effect. procedurally, that vote on that will occur friday. it would be cloture on motion to proceed to that bill. in the meantime i've indicated to the democratic leader that i'd be happy to have his cooperation to advance the consideration of a clean dhs bill which would carry us

through til september 30th. with democratic cooperation on a position they have been advocating for the last two months, we could have that vote very quickly. but in any event, we will have the vote on thing collins bill -- on the collins bill on friday. with that, let me turn to senator cornyn. >> so over the, other the last week -- over the last week recess a very important decision was handed down by the federal court in brownsville, texas ruling in a case brought by 26 states including texas claiming that the president's executive action was illegal. the court wrote a lengthy opinion in excess of 100 pages long and issued a temporary injunction barring implementation of the executive action. as you know, the administration now is seeking a stay of that at

the federal district court and they don't get it there -- which they won't -- they will then go to the fifth circuit court of appeals in new orleans. but the most important point i think we need to acknowledge is that with this federal court injunction in place any money that the united states congress appropriates for the department of homeland security will not go to fund the president's illegal executive action. because it's barred by a federal court injunction. and it's subject to a contempt of court finding if that was attempted. that's why the administration has stood down and seeking the stay. but what we need to do this week, as the majority leader has said, we need to make sure that the department of homeland security is funded. we will do that. we're going to have some very important votes. we would have already done it if it hadn't been for the filibusters on four occasions by

our democratic colleagues. but at the end of the day once we fund the department of homeland security under the current temporary injunction that's in place, no money can be used to implement the president's illegal executive action. >> i know there's a lot going on this week, but i wanted to just draw your attention to something that maybe is a little bit below the radar. on thursday morning the federal communications commission on a partisan-line vote will vote out something that's called an order support of net neutrality. and the thing that concerns me about that is that this'll be the first time that the fcc in 332 pages -- and, of course, this wasn't a transparent process -- where the internet is going to be subject to the heavy hand of regulation as opposed to the light touch that's been utilized for so long up until this point. and i hope that february 26th doesn't go down in history as the time when the internet moved

from something that was driven by free market innovation to something that's driven by bureaucratic decision makes. but that's essentially what we're hooking at. it is going to be -- looking at. it is going to be a very partisan, nontransparent way in which the fcc has carried out their his, and there's a much better alternative. i've been working with my colleagues on the house side on a piece of legislation that's only six pages long that prevents many of the thicks that the -- many of the things that the fcc says they want to prevent, very explicitly prevents those sorts of things but doesn't hand the fcc carte blanche authority to do whatever they want when it comes to regulation of the internet. even if this survives in the courts, it could be changed by a future fcc commission. and so this is a very bad precedent and one that doesn't doesn't have to happen. we told the president and the white house, we've told the fcc,

we've told democrats here on capitol hill that we want to work with them on a solution to this that addresses the concerns that people have the problems that perhaps could be out there but that doesn't cede to the fcc unlimited authority for them to do whatever they want and to put at great risk and in jeopardy something that has been an incredible success story for this country and for the world, and that's the internet. >> well today with the strong support of the american people a bipartisan bill has been delivered to the president, the keystone xl pipeline. after six years of delay and obstruction, the president is finally going to have to decide where he stands; does he stand with the american people the great majority of people who support this bipartisan bill and the energy and jobs that come with it, or is he going to stand with special interests and washington lobbyists? the president likes to talk but it's really time for him to listen. he should listen to his state department who has said this is safe it provides jobs as well

as energy to the american people. he should listen to american voters and people all across the country who want the jobs and the energy. but the president does have his pen, and by choosing to veto this piece of legislation, he is choosing washington lobbyists and special interests over the needs and desires of the american people. i will tell you the republican party will continue in the house and the senate to put bipartisan bills on the president's desk that focus on energy, focus on jobs and will help america move forward. [inaudible conversations] >> the bill this way anything about how the house feels about that? >> well our friends in the house have been saying it was up to the senate, and they're right. i mean, because senate democrats have been preventing us from going forward on the dhs bill. my hope is that the senate will

act. i don't know what the house will do but i do think we have a responsibility to act here -- >> and senate majority leader there membership mcconnell announcing this senate will consider a clean dhs funding bill one without any provisions affecting immigration that would fund department through september 30th. congress facing a deadline friday at midnight before thel th department of homeland security expires. yesterday failing to move forward for the fourth time. >> and since the senate is in a quorum call, we will go ahead and take you back to that senate republicans' briefing. >> and in opposition to what the president did last november. >> [inaudible]

>> i would be happy to do that. that will depend on some level of cooperation from the democrats and going forward to pass what they have said for two months they wanted to pass. so you might ask them whether they intend to prevent us from achieving passage. very quickly. and before friday. of a bill they've been saying that they wanted for the last two months. [inaudible conversations] >> a tough fight, billionaires who are making life more difficult for working class people and you wont that fight in the -- you won that fight in the senate -- [inaudible] >> yeah. i'm not sure what your question is. but i think the issue before us is this: do you want to fund the department of homeland security through the end of the fiscal

year so we're fully up and running and capable of dealing with all the threats that we have around the world including those against us here at home, and would you also like to express your disagreement with the president's overreach last november? this gives us an opportunity to do both. it gives senators an opportunity who have said they're in favor of funding the homeland security bill to fund it, and it gives senators who have said they object to what the president did last november the opportunity to express their objection. and as i said earlier i know there are at least a number of democrats who have said publicly since i put the bill on calendar last night that they agree with me, they appreciate the opportunity to go on record, and we'll have that opportunity on friday. thanks a lot. [inaudible conversations]

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you. thank you mr. president. i appreciate the senator from ohio the presiding officer this noon. i ask unanimous consent to call off the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. this week marks the final week of black history month an annual tradition that celebrates black history and culture but also is a call to action to continue our nation's march toward equality. this week we take an important step toward award ago congressional gold medal to the foot soldiers who participated in bloody sunday and turnaround tuesday the selma-to-montgomery

voting rights march. we moved forward on that earlier today in the banking committee. i'm proud to be one of the 65 cosponsors. i will also introducing a resolution instructing postal service to issue a stafn commemorating selma. it is time to demand full participation in our democracy. we do this on the senate floor. we can do it by traveling to selma. next week senator scott and i will lead a delegation to selma for the anniversary of the march. i understand my colleague from ohio may be joining us. i took my daughters there a number of years ago emily and elizabeth. i look forward to journeying with my wife to selma in a couple of weeks mark being the 50th anniversary. 50 years ago dr. king led thousands in that 54-mile march the second selma bridge crossing full. they arefused in montgomery four days later to a crowd of 25,000

black and white supporters. in his speech that day dr. king told a story of one of the marchers sister pollard a 24-year-old african-american woman who lived in montgomery during the bus boycott a little less than a decked earlier. we was asked if she want add ride instead of walking. she said novment the person said aren't you tired? me said, my fight are tired but my soul is rest. progress is never easy, as we celebrate black history month we're reminded of the long journey we've traveled and how far we still have to go. we celebrate the contributions african-americans have made to the fabric of our nation. when carter woodson starr started what became black history month in 1926 my state had already produced 19th century poet paul dunbar. granville woods had already made the telegraph device.

a clevelander had been in the traffic light. a bill was introduced to establish labor day in ohio, later becoming labor day which we all celebrate. colonel charles young found freedom in ripley, ohio, became the highest-ranking african-american commanding officer in the u.s. army. 120 years ago and the first african-american superintendent of a national park. this month we celebrate other pioneering ohioans two pulitzer prizewinners also nobel prize winning writer tonimorrison, pulitzer prizewinner rita dunn. jesse owens grew up in cleveland. he spoke at my brother's high school graduation. tibbs served with the tuskegee

airmen. this body awarded him the congressional gold medal in 2007. congressman louis stokes, who rows from one of the first -- who rose from one of the first federal housing projects to prominence are as a lawyer and legislator who mr. stokes yesterday celebrated his 90th birthday. he argued before the supreme court in his legal practice and during his two decades in congress he was a forceful advocate for the city he loves. this month we honor them and many others. these achievements have come in the face of centuries of impression owe making these achievements all the more remarkable. they have not come to be recognized simply through chance. it took a century of concerted effort longer than that really, mr. president, led by black americans like dr. king to give voice to the struggles and to the stories. and to the triumphs and the traditions. these stories are the ones we celebrate this month and the ones we must do more to honor until. this month i am introducing legislation to begin the process of designating the parker house

in ripley, ohio, as a national monument. john packer was a slave who purchased his freedom became a successful businessman helped many others to freedom on the underground railroad, through crossing the ohio river and heading north ultimately many to canada. stories like this are too often untold and overlooked. they show us how african-americans have shaped their own destine any in this country. i hope that my colleagues will join me in honoring the african-americans who have made us who we are as a nation. i would add that i hope that this 50th anniversary this trip that a number of colleagues and i will take to selma will mark progress in voting rights. we made -- we took huge strides in voting rights in the last 50 years. in fact, in 1964, it was a conservative republican congressman from north of dayton by the name of william mccull mccullough, he who was the senior republican on the committee.

jacqueline kennedy and others credited him perhaps more than any other single member, for voting rights passing the civil rights and voting rights passing the united states house of representatives, senate, and signed by the president. unfortunately, in the last few years, we've seen state legislators and far too many members of this body try to scale back and roll back some of those gains in voting rights, all in the name of stopping fraud, when in fact voting fraud is much exaggerated by them. it simply -- it barely exists. but the efforts to roll back voting rights has resulted from that. it's wrong. it's shameful, especially as we celebrate the 50th anniversary. i'm hopeful we can move forward in spite of what this very conservative supreme court has done and move forward on voting rights as we honor black history month as we honor 50 years of sell marks as we honor

the work that african-americans and whites have done to make this country a better place to live. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president as my colleagues know, for weeks now senate democrats have repeatedly blocked the united states senate from even considering a $40 billion funding bill for the department of homeland security that would extend through the end of this fiscal year, the end of september. they've done it not once, not twice, not three times but four times -- four times they've filibustered this department of homeland security funding bill that would pay the salaries of the men and women who protect our ports our airports, and our border.

meanwhile, our friends across the aisle are telling the american people, no, it's not us that's blocking this funding; i.t. the republicans. don't the democrats don't seem satisfied with the ability to offer amendments to change it or modify it in any way that they can command 60 votes to do. their attitude is, we're not even going to consider it, unless we get everything we want right up front. well i guess i can kind of understand why they are of this frame of mind. because over the last few years the united states senate has become completely dysfunctional where under the previous

majority leader, there wasn't any opportunity to offer amendments and get votes on those amendments on llings sms it was either -- on legislation. it was a my way or the highway proposition. but what i'm saying is, in other words, the senate was broken and a after years of running the senate as an incumbent protection program voting only on poll-tested messages, the american people said last november that enough is enough. no more dysfunction let's have a senate and a congress that represents our interest, not the interests of protecting incumbents against taking tough votes. so i think our colleagues who have blocked consideration of this funding amendment should be frankly ashamed of themselves. it doesn't seem like they've gotten the message.

the senior senator from new york my friend, senator summer, a member of leadership told "the huffington post" recently that -- quote -- "it's really fun to be in the minority. i guess he means by that it's fun to block homeland security appropriations bills not once, not twice not three times but four separate times. but filibustering this critical funding for the men and women who protect us every day is not my idea of fun. nor is it, i suspect for the thousands of men and women who work in the department of homeland security from the coast guard to the border patrol to all of the people that work day in and day out to try to help keep us safe in the homeland. when given the opportunity four times over the last few weeks to fully fund the department of homeland security, while rolling back the president's

unconstitutional executive action four times senate democrats have taken the low road and continued to obstruct. now, we pointed out over the last several weeks the tough talk that came from some senate democrats last fall when the president issued his executive action on immigration. back when the president made clear his intent to follow through with a series of unilateral actions that he had previously said on 22 different occasions he didn't have the authority to do. 22 times the president said publicly he didn't have the authority to do it, and last november after being encouraged to wait until after the election so it didn't have negative blow-back on people running for the senate, he went ahead and did it anyway. as i've noted before, some of our colleagues on the other side

expressed their concerns at the time. some said it made them feel uncomfortable, and some said i wish he wouldn't do it. well no kidding. when the president usurps the authority given under the constitution to the legislative branch of government and seeks to arrogate to himself the power to unilaterally change the law they should feel uncomfortable. one by one these same folks who were so concerned and so uncomfortable with what the president did last november have come down to the floor and voted in lock step. they voted in effect to reaffirm the president's actions. now, in justifying these votes we heard the common refrain we don't necessarily agree with the president's executive actions but an appropriation bill is not the proper vehicle to address

them. that's what they said time and time again. so now we have a pretty simple and straightforward message to our democratic friends who were so concerned and so uncomfortable and who wish the president hadn't gone around congress on immigration. we're here to say here's your chance. this week the senate will take up a bill that would address the president's executive actions last -- that were announced last november. senator mcconnell, the majority leader made clear last night this targeted bill is not tied to department of homeland security funding. and under the regular rules of the senate, the process that he set in order last night will come to fruition on friday and that will be the time for all of our colleagues on this side of the aisle and the ones on this side who expressed disapproval of the president executive action to vote for a bill that

expresses that disapproval the so-called collins bill. now, my strong preference would be to pass the house bill that's been filibustered four separate times by our democratic friends because it fully funds the department while reining in the president's overreach. but since the democrats have refused on four different occasions to even allow the bill to come to the floor with the excuse that it's tied to department of homeland security funding, we're going to give them an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is. in other words we're going to see if they can take yes for an answer. and if all the occasions where my colleagues said they were uncomfortable with the president's actions aren't enough if the 22 times the president himself said he didn't have the authority to issue this executive action, well, we now

know during the recess from last week that a federal judge in texas has given us one more reason. a week ago u.s. district judge andrew hanen in brownsville, texas ruled in a lawsuit brought by 26 different states including texas that what the president the was illegal and he issued a temporary injunction blocking implementation of the president's executive action. now, if that were the end of it any amount of money that was appropriated by the congress to fund the department of homeland security could not legally be used to fund the president's executive action because there is an injunction in place issued by a federal court that says you can't do it. and indeed, the administration has acknowledged that, they've stood down, but now they've come back to the judge and asked for a stay of the judge's

temporary injunction. they say if they don't get they'll go to if you the fifth circuit court of appeals in new orleans and ask the appellate court to stay the judge's temporary injunction. judge hanane's ruling reinforced what i and others have been saying saying for a long time now, that the president acted outside of the law when he went around congress to unilaterally change our nation's immigration laws. but the judge's ruling gets to a broader issue and there's one part of it that i've found particularly important. in writing his opinion explaining his ruling, judge hainen looked at the obama administration's case and imagined how you could take their argument and apply it across the board. now, it's easy to overlook an

overreach by the president if you perhaps agree with what he actually accomplished. which is in effect to give legal status to roughly five million people. if you think that's a good idea you're likely to turn a blind eye to the way that the president did it. but if the courts establish the precedent that this president or any future president republican or democrat, can just figure pub and choose which laws to enforce what could end up happening? well it doesn't take a lot of imagination. judge hainen writes -- quote -- "then a lack of resources which is the argument made by the administration then a lack of resources would be an acceptable reason to cease enforcing environmental laws, or the voting rights act or even various laws that protect civil rights and equal opportunity."

that's what judge hainen said in his opinion in repudiating the argument made by the administration that the president had this authority. and talking about what kind of dangerous present it -- precedent it would set if it was accepted by the court as legal. now, i'm sure i'm not the only one who would mate eight to see our country head down that lawless path where the laws don't mean -- make any difference it's just what the preference of whoever's president that determines the direction the country should take. that's a dangerous path, completely inconsistent with who we are and a country that believes in the rule of law. so now that the president's actions have been settled in the court of public opinion where they're deeply unpopular and ruled upon by a court of law my friends from the other side of the aisle need to take note because they have a very clear

choice. they can continues to give excuses for why they are filibustering this $40 billion homeland security appropriation bill or as i said, they can put their money where their mouth is and vote to stop the president's 2014 executive action separate and apart from any issue of funding of the department of homeland security. at the end of the day the senate will make sure that the people who protect our borders and our ports and our skies get paid because that's the responsible thing to do. but senate democrats who were so concerned and so uncomfortable with what the president did last fall are out of excuses and they're going to have a chance to vote on the collins amendment on friday or at some other time mutually agreed upon by the majority and the minority. mr. president, i yield the

floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader is recognized. mr. durbin: mr. president i listened carefully to the remarks of my friend and my colleague from texas and i would like if we have a moment if he would join me and walk out this door take a sharp left and stop at the staircase and look up and you'll see this amazing portrait that has been copied and referred to over and over again. it is an incredible painting that shows president abraham lincoln signing the amen's paying proclamation in the midst of the civil war surrounded by his cabinet. this proclamation freed three million slaves in america from involuntary servitude three million. was the president signing a bill that had been passed by congress? no. he was signing an executive order. the same type of executive order used by president obama to

address the issue of immigration. all right senator durbin, you've found one moment in history, there couldn't be very many more according to the arguments you've heard on the floor. let's fast forward to the late 1940's with president harry truman. harry truman after world war ii decided to finally end racial discrimination in the ranks of our military. how did he do it? by signing a law passed by congress? no. he signed an executive order ending the discrimination and segregation taking place in our military. i don't argue that presidents can exceed their constitutional powers. it's happened. but to argue that executive orders that have been used by president after president are inherently unconstitutional just defies any accurate, honest reading of history. here's some realities -- the immigration system in the united states of america today is

broken broken terribly to the point where we may have 12 million, 13 million undocumented people in this country, where our borders are stronger now than they've ever been but still have to be fortified to make sure that we don't have the unnecessary migration of people into the united states and illegal status. there's so many things we need to do to fix this broken immigration system and we addressed them. 0 two years ago eight senators came together, four democrats four republicans i was honored to be part of it and we sat down for months and wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill. we brought it to the floor of the senate, after considering 100 amendments in the judiciary committee and it passed on the floor with 68 positive votes 14 republicans joining the democrats for a bipartisan bill supported by the chamber of commerce, the afl-cio conservatives and liberals across america. pretty good work for a congress that's blamed many times for

being obstructionist. passed it with 68 votes sent it to the u.s. house of representatives where it languished for almost two years, never being called for a vote. neñ -- never. and at that point the president stepped forward and said, i have to do something to deal with the problems of illegal immigration in america. here's what he proposed: two things, basically. he said, if you are here in america, the parent of a child who is a u.s. citizen or the parent of of a child who is a legal resident alien, you can come forward pay about $500 as a fee subject yourself to a criminal background check and if you clear it where you've committed no serious crimes and are no threat to america then we will give you a temporary work permit to be in the united states and work. we want to know who you are where you live. the members of your family, and where you work.

that's what the president proposed and that's what they want to stop. and so we would continue the current situation with millions of undocumented people working without background checks, working without any registration to this government, so we know their whereabouts and what they do. that's what they want to end. they think the president went way too far in setting up this process. i think they're wrong. the republicans had a chance to pass comprehensive immigration bill and they refused. and in refusing, they left the president no alternative. he's trying to make some sense out of a broken immigration system. it would be better in the republicans joined us in the house and the senate in a bipartisan effort to achieve that but the last point i want to make is this: i think one of the heartless things i have seen is the effort by the republicans to end daca. diddaca was the protection the president gave to dreamers, children brought to america -- children infants toddlers, young kids -- brought to america

by their kids, grew up in america, went to school, have no serious criminal issues in their background who simply want the chance to be part of america's future. that's all they're asking for. the president's executive order gives them that chance to approve themselves, and the republicans want to eliminate that order. i don't understand it. if they would take the time to meet some of these young people, they'd realize what a waste it would be of of such great skill and talent and love of america. i'll close i see my friend and colleague, senator murray here. i say this: we are a i guess in a of immigrants. our -- we are a nation of immigrants. our diversity is our strength. the people who are willing to risk everything in their lives to come to this country and be part of this great american experiment, they have a chance for a better life. that is what defines us. that is who we are. i stand here and i've said it so many times and proudly so, the

son of an immigrant mother who was brought here at the age of two. she was the first dreamer in my house. and she raised this son to serve in the united states senate. that's my story. that's my family's story. that's america's story. it is time for us to fund the department of homeland security. and then have an honest debate about an immigration policy consistent with american values. i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i want to thank the senator from illinois for his passionate remarks that are -- ring so true to all of us and to thank him for all of his work on the dream act and making sure that young people who are raised huer in this country have the opportunity -- raised here in this country have the opportunity that all of us do. thank you. mr. president, as we count down the final days before funding for the department of homeland security runs out i want to take a few minutes to talk about how we got to this point because as this deadline gets closer and closer, i've been

continually reminded that we have been down this road many times before, and really this is a manufactured crisis, and it is no different than so many others we have faced in congress over the last few years. because, mr. president what is happening in congress right now is not a debate over government spending policies or priorities. the that much is certain. this is not a debate over how the department of homeland security should function, and it's certainly not a debate about our national security. this is, pure and simple, a political fight republicans are having with themselves across the two chambers of the capitol and across the different factions of the republican party. now, that's not the case for every republican here in the senate. several members have said, clearly, we should fund the department of homeland security without any strings attached. but, mr. president the fact remains that some republicans are making it clear they are willing to hold hostage the

basic operation of our government over right-wing politics and nothing else. and while this process might seem complicated it's actually very simple. democrats, along with national security experts, law enforcement experts state and local officials and three former secretaries of homeland security including two republicans, want to do nothing more than fund the department of homeland security cleanly; no strings or unrelated political amendments attached. but, mr. president because they are so angry about the president's actions months ago to improve our country's immigration laws, some republicans are demanding to pass a bill that will tear apart families who are working hard to make it in america put our security at risk, and seriously threaten all of the work we've done recently, including the budget agreement i reached with congressman paul ryan to keep

our government functioning. that's not only bad policy, it doesn't make any sense. the bill passed by speaker boehner and house republicans would be devastating to families across the country and it would make day-to-day operations for the department of homeland security needlessly difficult. for example t.s.a. agents who work to keep our airports safe and secure would be forced to work without pay. now, mr. president these men and women should not be worrying about doing their jobs, not -- doing their jobs, not whether they're going to be able to pay their bills and put food on the table much that's not what we want them worrying b but because of political pressure from the extreme anti-immigration right wing of the party that's what republican leaders in the house are demanding. this looming shutdown of the department of homeland security has become, to them, nothing more than collateral damage. mr. president, the national

impacts of national funding the department of homeland security have been discussed for weeks now, but you know what? this would also cause problems all the way down it individual fire departments in our local communities. right now the watt kin watkin county fire district an hour north of seattle, they are applying for assistance to firefighters grant, which is funded through the department of homeland security. this is a very rural fire district. they have only one paid employee happens to be the fire cheervetion alongchief, along with a volunteer fire fighting force and a volunteer e.m.t. force of six. they have applied for a very small, $24,000 federal grant to realreplace their heavery used and outdated equipment everything from boots and helmets that are now over 11 years old. i have been working with them to

get that equipment which protects those volunteers who put their lives on the line to save others. but if congress doesn't fund this department, those grants are at risk and that is unacceptable. and it's proof that this political mess that republicans have made isn't a hypothetical problem. it is something that will have real impacts in every one of our communities across the country. so mr. president my colleagues are not going to give in and let republicans play politics with the department of homeland security. for years now, by the way we've seen that that strategy doesn't work. it only holds us back. i am encouraged that the majority leader has said that they are willing to bring up a clean department of homeland security appropriations bill to the floor. we need the same commitment from the speaker of the house of representatives. time is running out. the country is waiting. we need to fund homeland security. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a

quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings on the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will receive a

message from the president of the united states. the messenger: a message from the president of the united states. the presiding officer: mr. secretary. thening messenger: i am directed to deliver a message to the united states senate a message in writing. the presiding officer: the message will be received. the chair lays before the senate the president's veto message on s. 1 which the clerk will read and which will be spread in full upon the journal. the clerk: veto message to accompany s. 1 a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline approval act.

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the veto message on s. 1 be considered as having been read, that it be printed in the record and spread in full upon the journal and held at the desk and that the senate proceed to its consideration at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader but no later than march 3. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: madam president a number of things that have been happening today with regard to the funding of the department of homeland security. there's been a lot of spin about that and that somehow the republicans are blocking the funding of the department of homeland security. this gives new meaning to the word "obfuscation," i suppose or "disingenuousness."

the truth is the house of representatives has fully funded the department of homeland security. it's provided the level of funding the president asked for. it's kept all the accounts at homeland security as approved through the congressional process. it simply says, but mr. president, we considered your bill this amnesty bill that will provide work permits photo i.d.'s, social security numbers medicare benefits, social security benefits. you can't do that. we considered that and rejected it. so we're not going to fund that. now, the president has already told us and his staff that they have across the river in crystal city, they're leasing a new building and this building is going to hire a thousand workers paid for by the taxpayers of the united states part of homeland

security. are those thousand workers going to be utilized to enforce the laws of the united states? are they going to prosecute -- process applications for citizenship or visas? no. those 1,000 people, costing several hundred million dollars in truth those people are going to be processing and providing these benefits to people unlawfully in america. so congress says wait a minute, we didn't authorize money for that. you can't spend money to fund exactly the opposite of what we've enacted. so we're just going to put some language in the bill, the normal bill that funds homeland security, and say you can't spend the money to violate the law. you can only spend the money to enforce the law like you were supposed to be created to do.

and the bill comes to the senate and what spectacle do we have. we have the democratic members in lock step unity blocking even proceeding to this bill. and they contend that we're not funding homeland security. can you imagine that? now, my colleague the senior senator from illinois, senator durbin the democratic whip came down last week and he said i'm trying to figure out what's blocking this bill. so i -- i asked -- i took the floor and i said, senator durbin durbin you and your filibusterers are filibustering the bill. that's why it's not being passed passed. now, does anybody want to dispute that? the republican senate has repeatedly brought up this bill and filed cloture to move to the bill so we can fund homeland

security and the democrats are relentlessly and unanimously filibustering it, blocking even moving to the bill. although senator mcconnell said that if we did he'd allow them to have amendments. so this is the situation we're in. and, colleagues, it goes to the core of our constitutional principles about who controls the money in america. congress is a coequal branch. it's not subbored present this to the president -- subordinate to the president. if anything, the legislative braition in the constitution provides -- legislative branch of the constitution provides even more power to the legislative, almost even more than it does to the courts. the most power in congress is the power of the purse. congress is not obligated to pay for anything it believes is unwise and did it has an absolute

duty not to fund anything that's unconstitutional or illegal. which is what we're dealing with here. so congress is -- the house of representatives acted wisely, properly funding homeland security and not allowing activities to be carried out that are unlawful and that congress has rejected. so fundamental so basic. and how my colleagues have the gall to come to the floor and have a press conference this afternoon and blame republicans for shutting down homeland security is beyond me. and i don't believe the american people are buying it. now, there are some even on the republican side that say "oh gosh," you know, the "the president will blame us even if it's not our fault and we might as well cave in and give him what he wants." but what he wants is something

he can't be given. what he wants is congress to capitulate and erode its powers and responsibility. he wants congress to violate its duty to fund something that is illegal and contrary to congress's wishes. he can't demand that. he has no right to demand that. well so congress cannot fund -- cannot, must not fund -- an illegal action in hopes that another branch of government will intervene. now, i say that because some have said, well, a court has ruled that -- in texas that a part of this action by the president is unlawful. the court was narrow in its decision.

it fundamentally said something like it looks like a regulation to me. and if you're going to pass a regulation you need to go through a process. and the president didn't go through a process. and it's not lawful, it's not legal. we're not -- you can't enforce it. and they issued -- the court -- the judge issued an injunction barring the president from carrying out these plans he announced. which is plain law it seems to me. didn't even go into some of the other ideas of constitutionality and separation of powers. it just blocked it on that basis. so we're being -- hearing it said that, well, we can fund this -- fully fund homeland security without any restrictions allowing the president to do this because the court's stopped it. i think that's unwise for a

number of reasons. the first one is that we don't know what the courts are going to do, and this congress has its duty and this congress has a duty to fund only things that it believes are appropriate and lawful. and so congress shouldn't fund it on that basis period. and we should stand up for congress' in -- congresses in years to come, our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren and defend the power of the purse and defend the integrity of this congress. if you know how this country was founded, it was founded on an understanding of the british parliament and the british parliament wrested from the king the power of taxes and money. that was a huge historical development. and it's been part of our

transition since that congress has the power of the purse. the executive can't do it. so we replaced the king with a president and we adhered in our constitution that great transition of restraint on the executive by the legislative branch. by the congress. by the senate. by the parliament. now, the texas court's injunction let me go further and note these reasons why i think it's unwise for congress to say we have no duty to speak on this issue or at least the senate is wrestling with that. the house has already spoken, said we're not going to fund this. but the senate needs to ask what its position needs to be. and i would point out that the texas court's injunction addresses only a part of obama's

lawless actions and could be lifted at any time. so the injunction could be lifted at any time and it only covers a part of his actions. if congress has relinquished the power of the purse then nothing will be able to stop the lawlessness or prevent amnesty from going forward. as the texas court noted in issuing its injunction -- quote -- "this genie would be impossible to put back in the bottle" -- close quote. that's absolutely true. he's evaluating whether or not to issue an injunction, sometimes you don't have to issue an injunction because it's not anything much happening right then. but he says correctly that if this goes forward and millions of people are given amnesty you can't put that genie back in the bottle in any practical sense it would be a nightmare to try to do that. so let me point 0 this out. one, the texas court's injunction only addresses a small part of the president's

recent executive actions in december. one, the texas lawsuit challenges only the president's november 20 unconstitutional executive action announced in november and of that, the injunction prevents the administration from implementing only deferred action for parents of americans and lawful permanent residents. the texas court injunction does not address the problematic enforcement priorities encompassed in the president's executive actions. he said all -- set all kinds of priorities that congress disapproves of and that are bad, unless you don't want the laws enforced in which case, it's good public works and we have some who believe in open borders in this country. they deny it when challenged but they vote that way every time.

on november 20, 2014, the memo revised the administration's enforcement priorities which do not encompass certain criminal aliens nor do they encompass all aliens deemed to be subject to mandatory custody under the immigration and nationality action. in fact, these new priorities effectively gut the enforcement of our immigration laws but all -- for all but a few select criminal aliens. congress passed a law that requires the deportation of a person involved in criminal activities and convicted of those activities. the president just eviscerated large portions of that in this order. and he should not be allowed to do so. the judge did not address it. and indeed in response to the ruling secretary johnson stated that the texas court's order does not -- quote --

"affect this department's ability to set and implement enforcement priorities" -- close quote. well that is a big deal. they set priorities that violate statutory law and they should not be allowed to do that. you can't effectively eviscerate law by prosecutorial guidelines. according to a february 18, 2015 email from the commissioner gill karakowski regarding the injunction he said -- this is customs and border patrol officers -- -- quote -- "officers and agents should continue to process individuals consistent with the enforcement priorities announced by the secretary in his memorandum of november 20, 2014 entitled" policies for the an repeahens detention and

removal of undocumented immigrants." it deals in large part with criminal activities, people convicted of crimes that are supposed to be deported. but the house-passed d.h.s. funding bile bill that the house passed would do much more to stop president obama's unlawful executive actions on immigration. so the administration does not intend to change its course as it is still actively preparing for its rollout of executive amnesty. on february 17, just a few days ago, the president noted told reporters that the administration is still -- quote -- "doing the preparatory work because this is a big piece of business the department of homeland security will continue in the planning because we want to make sure as soon as these legal issues get resolved,

which i anticipate they will in our favor that we are ready to go" -- close quote. so he's telling the department of homeland security to spend money now to move forward, to be ready to immediately process his executive amnesty providing social security numbers, photo i.d.'s medicare and social security benefits for people here unlawfully. and he says go ahead and do it. well the house bill prohibits that but the judge's order doesn't. it just doesn't address that point. another point on the issue of whether or not congress has no duty to deal with this issue because the court has dealt with it. the texas court injunction is only temporary and could be set aside at any time. the administration has already

filed for a stay of the injunction in the district court and has announced its intention to appeal. indeed as i just read, the president says aspects to win -- expects to win. i don't think he will, but it's a technical part of the ruling. the judge has got many more issues he could deal with that would recovery overrule the president's action, he just chose one of them and that one is rather technical. so who knows for sure what a court might rule on appeal. in addition, the ruling does not address the substance of the case. it will take many months to resolve this litigation and during that time there is a reasonable chance that some court will lift the stay and allow the president to begin implementing the amnesty pending a final ruling on the merits of the case. but congress can stop it and has a duty to stop it in its appropriations bill.

and in addition democrats refuse to fund the lawful functions of the department of homeland security. this is important. the house-passed department of homeland security funding bill funds all of the lawful statutorily authorized functions of the department, including the immigration law enforcement component of the agencies that under the obama administration have been prevented from enforcing the laws. colleagues immigration and customs enforcement officers -- now i guess two years ago filed a lawsuit against their own supervisors declaring that they were being forced to violate their oath to enforce the laws of the united states. i've never seen that. it's so bad that the only -- the i.c.e. officers have filed a

lawsuit to stop the administration from ordering them to violate plain law. and let me note that the president has already shut down the department by ordering immigration officers and agents to violate the laws and sabotaging enforcement in a number of ways. this is a direct orders of this administration dismantling systematic enforcement of our laws. so i think the senate democrats and the president must answer why they believe funding executive amnesty and lawful immigration policies would make this country safer. they say well, you won't pass a homeland security bill like we want it, you're not making america safe. i say that their policies eviscerating law enforcement is making america less safe. as the immigrations and customs agents do, the ones who process

the applicants mr. ken palinkas the head of the association of officers, has written that this legislation this amnesty executed by the president, will make us less safe. his amnesty makes us less safe. passing a bill that stops his amnesty will make us more safe. as a matter of fact, he said that more than one time. a number of times. he's very concerned as his officers are that they -- that if they carry out these policies, the american people are going to be less safe. and, in fact, they've said explicitly there's no way they can carry out in any effective manner the unlawful orders of the president of the united states. has anybody -- is anybody listening to the people who do the work every day?

does anybody care what they think? apparently not. so they're going to come to the floor and accuse republicans in the house and on this side of the aisle from not making america safe when their own officers say the president's policies are making america less safe. they say there's no way they can effectively process the individuals they're asked to process. they can't prosecute -- process the numbers today, much less what will happen under this bill when they've got to process another five million. just a very unwise thing. so what did the courts say? i think this is an important quote in the texas court. a federal court found that the president had overstepped his bounds. that's what they fundamentally -- what a court

fundamentally declared, stating -- quote -- "it is congress and congress alone who has the power under the constitution to legislate in the field of immigration" -- close quote. that is absolutely true. it's in the constitution. as he said, it's congress and congress alone who has the power under the constitution to legislate in the field of immigration. and so after the president issued his order and his department issued orders of amnesty on november 20 of 2014, the president said this -- this is amazing -- -- quote -- "i just took an action to change the law" -- close quote. don't we know that from elementary school, that congress passes the law? the president doesn't pass law. he said so 22 times he didn't

have the power to do this. but now he's moved forward and admitted he's changing the law. well some of our colleagues think that, oh, if we resist this, the president is going to accuse us of not funding homeland security ans not protecting the -- and not protecting the republic, when he's the one that's opposing us bringing -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. sessions: i thank the chair and would ask consent to have one additional minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: so i'll wrap up, mr. president. but i don't think that's so. they say well, the press is unfair. well not always. i think sometimes we republicans are right to complain, but not always. this is what the headlines are today. headlines aren't saying that republicans are blocking the bill. "politico" -- democrats

filibuster the department of homeland security bill. "the hill" -- shutdown looms as democrats block d.h.s. bill. "clatchy -- filibuster looms as democrats block d.h.s. funding bill. senate deems block homeland security funding bill again. "the washington post" -- senate democrats block d.h.s. funding bill targeting obama's immigration actions. "associated press" -- dems block action on d.h.s. immigration bill yiewrk times -- senate democrats block action on homeland security bill. "politico" -- dems filibuster d. d.h.s. bill.

that is absolutely true. we're bringing the bill to the floor. we're not blocking it. we want to fund fully homeland security. we want the laws enforced. the we don't want to spend money from homeland security to eviscerate the law of the united states and undermine immigration law in america and we don't want to fund an unlawful action by the president. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. ms. cantwell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i rise to applaud the president's vow president's veto of legislation that would have rubber stamps the construction of the keystone pipeline. this involved a circumvention of federal review processes and would allow corporations not to have adhered to various safety and environmental standards that are important for the american people. so i'm glad the president is vetoing this legislation. the rules for citing cross-border pipeline are well-established, and time and time again trans-canada has

shown that it doesn't want to play by the rules. so with this veto by the president of the united states, he is clearly saying, trans-canada must play by the rules. the president veto recognizes three important implications for congress: in the intervening and trying on -- to pass this existing pipeline process. first, this bill was premature because it authorized construction of the pipeline while legal and administrative processes were still ongoing in nebraska and south dakota and where landowners and tribes are seeking to review in the courts before regulatory bodies. this legislation -- the legislation also eliminated the need for a national interest determination, which is associated with the process for this pipeline, which was a key authority for the united states government to insist on safety and environmental regulations. it is a process that should have allowed the state department and the president to insist on

pipeline safety conditions. and finally this legislation did not address the loophole for tar sands oil companies to avoid paying for oil spill cleanup. by vetoing this bill, the president refused to throw hundreds of conditions out the window. these are things from 59 different pipeline safety conditions that wroof been legally -- that would have been legally binding but not if the legislation would have passes passed. we now have concern on the existing pipeline so i'm glad that the president of the united states vetoed this legislation i hope that we will get on to working on other important energy opportunities. i hope my colleagues will not try to override this veto but instead focus on renewing the energy tax credits that help employ hundreds of thousands of people in various industries from anything from solar to wind to hybrid electric vehicles and

get on to the other issues that are so important for us in talking about a 121st century energy strategy. again i'm grad the president of the united states has vetoed this legislation that would have been a rubber stamp by congress for a special interest. instead, let's make sure that all environmental and safety conditions are met. i thank the president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: skilled that the quorum call be dispense dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president one of the things that was done in this executive amnesty that's been too little commented on when the president signed these orders in november, is another policy another program that has not been authorized by law that would add several hundred thousand new workers to our country. it's the department of homeland security -- this is the headline here in the article today. "d.h.s. extends eligibility for

employment authorization to certain h-4 dependent spouses of h-1b nonimmigrants seeking employment-based lawful permanent residence." now, the h-1b program was set up for certain individuals to come and work for three years and then extend maybe another three years, only to take a job in those industries and fields where there is a shortage of workers, and it does allow the spouses to come, but since its beginning, it barred spouses from working else we were doubling the number of workers. so this bill now just up and approved the work -- the ability of spouses of h-1b workers to work. the united states citizenship and immigration service the ucht s civment s estimated -- and i'm reading from this

article, "the number of individuals eligible to apply for employment authorization under this rule could be as high as 179,600 in the first year and 55,000 annually in subsequent years. this is a very large addition to the workforce. you say well, that's good. spouses can work. well what if your child wants a job in what if you want a job? what if your spouse wants a job and is looking at a job in now we've got another what, 250,000 job applicants contrary to law? it's just -- there's many other aspects of the president's executive order that have not been given attention. i think this one is worth commenting about. so there's been no sense at all

by president obama the department of homeland security jeh johnson the democratic members of this congress, no concern about the employment prospects of lawful immigrants, green cardholders and native- native-born americans. we have high unemployment, the lowest percentage of americans in the working ages actually holding jobs in america we've had since the 1970's. wages are down. professor borjas at harvard documents excessive immigration pulls down wages. since 2007, wages for median-income families is down $4,000. so i just would say colleagues, the first thing we should do is be focusing on getting jobs for americans that are unemployed. are we going to keep americans

on welfare and benefits while we bring in more and more foreigners to take jobs when we've got americans ready and willing to take those jobs? so you hear them talking about farmwork and seasonal work and that is done through immigrant labor and properly managed that's a good program. i do not oppose that. people come appeared work for a period of time, and if they return home and come back the next season and make enough money to take care of their families maybe for the whole year. that can work, if properly managed. but look at this: the h-1b's are people with high-tech degrees high-tech skills. they're competing against college graduates who have computer skills and other skills. and this is what we get. this is how it's working in this country. a bufnlg bunch of companies got together and they signed a

letter to speaker boehner and nancy pelosi, the democratic leader in the house asking for immigration reform back on september of 2013. and they said they needed more h-1b workers and they pushed for that. and i would just note this: byron york of the washington "examiner" has written about this, and this is what the facts are. they're not hiring people. they don't have a shortage of workers. they're laying off workers in very large numbers. hewlett-packard had 29,000 job cuts in 2012. 29,000. they signed the letter. cisco systems 4,000 jobs eliminated in august of 2013, in

addition to 8,000 cut in the last two years. they signed the letter. wanting more h-1b workers. the united technologies cut 3,000 jobs in 2013. american express 5,400 jobs in 2013. procter and gamble, 5,700 jobs in 2012. t-mobile 2,250 layoffs in 2012. these are people asking for more foreign workers. this is another report this the -- i believe in "the los angeles times." loophole in immigration law costing thousands of american jobs just a few days ago. "since last summer, southern california edison, the big utility company, the biggest in california, which serves nearly 14 million customers, has been firing its domestic i.t. workers

and replacing them with outsourced employees from india. the pay fordison edison's domestic pay specksists is about $08,000 to $160,000 not including benefits" -- good pay. "two indian outsourcing firms pay their recruits an average of about $65,000 to $71,000 according to their federal filings." they laid off hundreds in requiring the california edison employees to train the h-1b workers who shouldn't be dmoog america unless there is a job need that's unfilled. how can you say we don't have qualified people? they're doing the job. expected to train them. so mr. president this is the kind of thing that's out of control. somebody needs to defending the

legitimate interests of middle america. we need to ask ourselves does this make sense? and should the president be doubling up on it by his executive amnesty that would add $179,600 workers in the first year of his order and 55,000 more annually on top of the h-1b flow? and we have legislation that's moved in this senate that would more than double the number of h-1b workers coming into the country. when the evidence indicates that's not needed. it might make businesses happy. they can pay half a salary, half what they would otherwise be paying but it's not good for americans who invested in education, train themselves, worked themselves into a good job and have that pulled out from under them. i thank the chair and would

yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: thank you mr. president. i wish i could rise today to talk about the underlying legislation we're supposed to be talking about which is a bill to fund the department of homeland security and also address the president's executive order on immigration which went around the congress but also went around the american people. a judge down in texas agrees with those of us on this side of the aisle who look at this as an illegal act. instead the president ought to work with us, work with the house and work with the senate and work with the elected representatives of the american people to actually pass a law to help fix what's broken in our immigration system. but we're not able to get on that legislation not because we have differences about the bill that we could talk about, we could have votes on amendments,

we could debate this issue. but because those on the other side of the aisle decided they don't even want us to have the opportunity to hash out those differences, to take those votes. so i mean i think the constituents i represent in ohio expect us to have that debate. they want us to have that debate. i hope that those on this side of the aisle will let us have that debate and we could have a good honest discussion about this and address both of these problems the need to fund the department but also the need to address the executive order. i think it is another example that washington has let down the people i represent. in the meantime, this is no time for political games. it's a dangerous world. we've got a real problem not just here at home in protecting the homeland, but also with fires burning all around the world. it's time for some leadership both here in this chamber and down the street at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. it's time for presidential leadership. if you turn on the tv tonight

what you'll see is those fires burning. you'll see a world more dangerous than the one we had after 9/11. you'll see threats to the united states and our allies that seem to grow with every passing day. but even as these threats grow, it seems like our president is increasingly hesitant to lead. iran despite the platitudes of the obama administration, which seems really eager to find an agreement, make a deal, continues its march toward developing nuclear weapons. isis -- this is the group that the president once described as the j.v. team when they were in iraq flying the black flag of islam extremism over cities like fallujah mosul cities american marines gave their lives to liberate the president called them the j.v. russian soldiers move friewl through eastern ukraine in the separatist areas using russian

equipment, led by russian special forces and they continue to wage war on an american ally -- ukraine. while we all hope the recent cease-fire would hold, all indications are that russia and its proxies are taking advantage of that cease-fire in ukraine to continue their aggression. across europe, in france now in denmark, belgium innocent people have been murdered, some for opposing terrorist aims, some for the simple fact that they are jewish. these attacks are not random, as has been suggested by the administration. unfortunately, they are designed to incite fear, and we can resolve to oppose islamic terrorism wherever we find it. we must not allow them to succeed any more than we must stand silent in the face of iranian threats and russian aggression. what we must do is take a long, hard look at how we got here and

what we must do going forward to change the situation. in my view, a lot of chaos we're seeing across the globe stems from a lack of leadership. into that void, chaos ensues. the defining themes in the obama administration's approach to foreign policy have been a preference for disengagement and an unwillingness to shoulder the responsibility of global leadership the way previous presidents democrat and republican alike have done. as the administration itself has said, they prefer to lead from behind. the president has said the trajectory of this planet overall is one toward less violence more tolerance. i don't know about that. i don't think history moves inexorably toward more justice and more peace. these trajectories don't just happen. people make them happen. leadership is the key. when america is strong, when we

stand unequivocally for freedom and justice and the right of all people to choose their own destiny, when we do not back down in the face of threats and intimidation, that is when we see a world that's more stable, less dangerous and more free. more wars, more conflicts more threats to our security, these don't typically arise from american strength. they rise from american weakness. when we look around the world whether it's in gaza or whether it's iran europe or iraq or iran syria the increase in violence and instability has republican sided with the -- coincided with the growing perception that the united states of america is either unwilling or unable to take a stand against threats to our national security and stability. addressing these complex challenges -- and many of them are very complex -- requires a sustained and proactive american leadership role and american

engagement. it requires strategies that seek to shape outcomes, not be shaped by them. there's a lot at stake. events in ukraine the middle east and elsewhere are a direct challenge to the u.s. international order which has led to instability for the united states and the world. confidence in america's unwillingness and lack of confidence in our willingness to use our unmatched economic, political and military capabilities to uphold the system deters potential challengers and incentivizes other countries to play by the rules. that reduces the chances of war. if the credibility of this commitment is in doubt then the stability and openness upon which u.s. economic prosperity and national security depend is jeopardized and the chance for violence instability and economic collapse increases. the world is watching. they're watching to see whether this american-led order can

withstand these challenges are if we really are entering into a period of the post american world. in ukraine the administration's response has been incomplete, reactionary, ineffective. there are many political dimensions of this conflict and ukraine needs western support to implement crucial reforms in these areas but there is a military dimension to this crisis we cannot continue to ignore. sanctions have not worked. the so-called cease-fire agreements have not worked as president obama angela merkel, france would he hollande -- francois hollande debate russia is on the ground. unless we help provide ukraine the tools they need, any future agreements woinl solidify this area -- will only solidify this reality. let's allow them to defend themselves. russia believes military force is a viable option to achieve

its goals and unless the united states its europe allies and nato help the ukrainians prove otherwise this behavior is unlikely to change. it is well known by now the president has refused to adopt policies that provide ukraine with the capabilities it needs. a bipartisan coalition has emerged here in congress on the need to do more and we will continue to advocate for a change in course and the pursuit of a proactive comprehensive strategy that actually works. in the middle east proactive american leadership requires upholding our commitment to stand unequivocally with israel. no other nation in the world would be expected to put up with tunnels into their cities with rockets raining down on people's homes. the press got it wrong last year and with all due respect, i believe the president got it wrong too. there is no moral equivalence in gaza. i made a few trips to israel. i met with their people. i walked the streets. i've seen the remains of missiles targeted against innocents with hatred meant to

kill and maim. i've been to the bomb shelters, indoor playgrounds built so children can play without fear. i spent time in an iron dome battery facility with their crew outside ashkelon and i can tell you this. from what i've learned the people of israel want peace. unfortunately, we know the biggest winner from this administration's waiverring support of israel is iran. iran continues to stall on negotiations meant to end their nuclear weapons program. they continue to ask for more time and the administration continues to grant it. meanwhile prime minister binyamin netanyahu is coming to the united states next week to speak of the threat iran poses not only to israel but to the world and the president seems to be too busy to meet with him. truly the world's turned upside down. a key test of u.s. leadership is ensuring iran does not retain nuclear capability in their continued march towards weaponization. if it were within my power i'd

put the iran sanctions bill on which i'm a cosponsor on the floor of the senate floor today. i believe we passed by over 60 votes because republicans and democrats recognized iran will not negotiate in good faith nlings the united states is unequivocal in our commitment to ending the nuclear threat iran poses. recall that this legislation doesn't impose new sanctions that would be imposed now. these sanctions would be imposed if the iranians do not agree to halt their nuclear weapons program -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. portman: these are leverages and the white house should use that leverage. the american leadership is needed for a more stable and peaceful world. i believe the future does not belong to bigotry and hate but to freedom loving people of the world but the united states of america must lead the way. i yield back my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you

mr. president. i rise today to talk about funding for the department of homeland security and about the continuing need for immigration reform. we need to fund the department of homeland security, and we should pass a clean d.h.s. funding bill. that is the only bill that can pass the senate and that is the only bill that should pass the senate. once that bill has passed the senate and the house and become law, then we can and should move on to consider immigration legislation. republican leadership in the senate has wasted a lot of time over the past month politicizing immigration and mixing it up with the issue of funding this federal agency that helps protect the united states from terrorists and other threats. and those threats are real. just as this past weekend the

terrorist organization al-shabaab issued a threatening video suggesting that the mall of america in my state of minnesota could be a target for a terrorist attack. look this issue is not something that we should be politicizing. so we should enact into law a clean funding bill for d.h.s., and we should fund the department for the whole year and not make the department run for a short time on a continuing resolution and just revisit the issue in the near future. that's not what we want. and then we should and can debate immigration. i've always believed that the best way to accomplish meaningful and sustainable immigration reform is through

congressional action. last congress the senate took such action as a member of the judiciary committee, i was very proud to play an active role in the comprehensive immigration bill that the senate passed with broad bipartisan support. for me, this was a model of how the senate is supposed to work. four senators from each side of the aisle known as the gang of eight, came together to craft a bill which we then marked up -- we marked up in the judiciary committee, and i was very pleased to have a number of my amendments included in the bill which then went to the senate floor and was passed with 68 votes. that bill would have provided a real and comprehensive overhaul of our broken immigration system. it would have significantly strengthened our border security

and it would have helped a lot of people, from small businesses to families in our legal immigration system, to many undocumented immigrants who would have an opportunity through a tough but fair path to get right with the law. there are millions of people in our country who want the same things that all of us want, a steady job excellent education for our children and a brighter future for their families, but are living in limbo and often in fear. our bill would help them come out of the shadows and get right with the law. the senate passed our bill in june of 2013. i was very hopeful that the house of representatives would take up and pass the senate bill. and if the house had allowed a

vote on the senate bill, it would have passed the house and been enacted into law. that would have meant real and lasting reform to our broken immigration system. unfortunately, over the course of the next year and a half, the republican leadership in the house failed to act on the bipartisan immigration reform bill passed in the -- in the senate again with 68 votes. so the president took a step forward that will help a lot of people and help address fixing our broken immigration system. while i still believe congress needs to act, i think we need to keep the executive actions in place until we do.

and i will not support any legislative effort to undo president obama's executive actions. so we are presented with a choice. once we pass a bill into law to fund the department of homeland security, we can take a step forward and help a lot more people by passing comprehensive immigration reform or we can take a step backward and harm a lot of people without getting any closer to the comprehensive immigration reform that we need. i will vote to move forward not backward. we need a fully funded department of homeland security security and we need a comprehensively overhauled immigration system. thank you and i would suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: