quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: i ask unanimous consent to call off the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. million sullivan: i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. 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. sullivan: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i had--i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: wowcts. mr. cornyn: mr. president on tuesday next week, israeli prime

minister binyamin netanyahu will make an historic address before the congress. this is his third address as prime minister of israel. at the invitation of speaker boehner, he's coming to discuss iran's nuclear ambitions and the ongoing p-5 plus-one negotiations as well as the rise of the islamic state and other jihadist groups across the middle east. these are obviously serious issues of national security, both for israel but also for us here in the united states. and prime minister netanyahu and the citizens of israel have a unique perspective on those issues. in the interest of staying fully informed and aligned with our closest ally in the region, israel congress needs to listen to what prime minister netanyahu has to say. and i look forward to doing so. i believe the prime minister's speech will be both informative and timely, as the barack obama

is reportedly trying to -- as the obama administration is reportedly trying to lock down a very questionable nuclear deal with the iranians by the march 24 deadline. that's why i've introduced senate resolution 76 that welcomes the prime minister of israel to the united states for his address to congress. this resolution explains just a few of the reasons why the u.s.-israel alliance is so powerful and so enduring, and it states in part that we welcome the prime minister and eagerly await his address before congress. this resolution reaffirms our commitment to stand with israel in times of uncertainty and strongly supports israel's right to self-defense and finally reaffirms our support for the friendship between our two countries. these sentiments are widely shared here in congress, but in an increasingly perilous global security environment in which we find ourselves i think it's

important to remind people of how and why the united states stands with israel. a majority of senators have cosponsored this resolution, and i believe that today it's time for the senate to pass it, to reaffirm that there will be no daylight between the united states and israel when it comes to common issues of national security. mr. president, i asked unanimous consent that the committee on foreign relations be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 76. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 76, welcoming the prime minister of israel to the united states for his address to a joint session of congress. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed with the measure. mr. cornyn: mr. president i would ask unanimous consent that the cornyn amendment at the desk

be agreed to, the resolution as amended be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the cornyn amendment to the title be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president i thank the chair and i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i yield back all time on the motion to proceed. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question occurs on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to.

the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 5 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: i have an amendment that is at the desk and i ask the clerk to report. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell for mr. cochran proposes an amendment numbered 255. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell proposes amendment numbered 256 to amendment numbered 255. mr. mcconnell: i have an amendment to the text proposed to be stricken.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. . mr. mcconnell: common, approaches amendment number 257 to the language proposed to be stricken by amendment number 255. mr. mcconnell: i have for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are owed. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from exist kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes amendment numbered 258 to amendment numbered 257. mr. mcconnell: i have a motion to commit h.r. 240 with instructions which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell moves to commit the bill to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report back forthwith an amendment numbered 259. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on that motion. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have an

amendment to the instructions at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell proposes an amendment numbered 260 to the instructions of the motion to commit h.r. 240. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. mcconnell proposes an amendment number 261 to amendment number 260. mr. mcconnell: i have a cloture motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on h.r. 240 making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, signed by 16 senators as follows: mr. mcconnell: i ask consent

that further reading of the nails be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to s. 534. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell moves to proceed to s. 534, a bill to prohibit funds from being used to carry out certain executive actions related to immigration and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture petition to the deck. desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to s. 5 34-rbgs a bill to prohibit funds from being used to carry out certain executive actions related to immigration and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding

rule 22, at 10:00 a.m. on friday february 27, the senate vote 0 on a motion to invoke cloture an h.r. 240, that if cloture is invoked all postcloture time be yielded back with the exception of 10 minutes for senator lee or his designee and that following the use or yielding back of thew tiernlg the pending amendments with the exception of amendment 25 5b withdrawn, and the senate vote on amendment number 255. i further ask that the senate -- that the bill as amend if amended, then be read a third time and the senate vote on passage and that there be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 534. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in aered pooh of morning business with senators -- in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up it ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions

which are submitted earlier today: s. res. 89, oregon shakespeare festival; s. res. 90, american heart month s. 91 read across america day. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the senate will proceed with the measures en bloc. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. friday, february 27. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate will resume consideration

of h.r. 240 under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

now some floor debate. >> mr. president, three weeks ago i came to the senate floor to speak on an amendment which i had hoped would provide a framework that could accomplish three goals. first, to provide funding for the department of homeland security so that it could perform its vital mission of protecting the people of our country. second to put the senate on record as opposing the president's extraordinary broad immigration actions issued be executive order last november in 2014 and third, to ensure that individuals who were brought to this country as children, and who qualify for treatment under

the june 2012 executive order on delayed action on childhood arrivals, the so-called dreamers that senator durbin has just spoken of, could continue to benefit under that program. i'm very pleased that it looks like we are moving forward on a bill to fully fund the department of homeland security. we had very strong vote on that yesterday, and indeed mr. president, i have not heard a single senator on either side of the aisle say that we should shut down the department of homeland security. each of us recognizes its vital mission, and as someone who served on the homeland security committee as the chairman for several years, or ranking member

for several years and i was on the committee for a decade i certainly understand how vital this department is. i am keenly aware, as a member of the intelligence committee, of the threats against our country and the risks our country faces for those who would do us harm. at the time mr. president -- at the same time, mr. president, as members of the executive branch we have an obligation to speak out and to register our opposition when we believe that the president has exceeded his grant of executive authority under the constitution in a way that would undermine the

separation of powers doctrine. i want to read to you what one scholar, a constitutional scholar, has said about the president's executive order and how far the president could or could not go. this is what this constitutional scholar said. congress has said here is the law when it comes to those who are undocumented. what we can do is to carve out the dreamers saying that young people who have basically grown up here, are americans, that we should welcome. but if we start broadening that, then essentially i would be ignoring the law in a way that i think would be very difficult to

defend legally. so that is not an option. who was that constitutional scholar? it was the president of the united states. president barack obama. he said this in september of 2013. mr. president, president obama got it right back then. i believe that he was within the scope of his executive authority when he issued the 2012 executive orders that created daca that allowed for the dreamers to stay here. and let me also make clear that i am a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform. and while i was disappointed the

legislation did not become law when we passed it's few years ago, i reject the nation its failure can serve as justification for the actions taken by the president last november. he simply cannot do by executive fiat what congress has refused to pass, regardless of the wisdom of congress' decision. such unilateral action is contrary to how our constitutional system is supposed to work and it risks undermining the separation of powers doctrine, which is central to our constitutional framework. and, mr. president, that is

really what this debate is about. it is about the proper constitutional constraints on unilateral executive action. it happens to be an executive action that deals with immigration, but it could be an executive action on any other issue. that is why it's important that we draw those lines, and indeed, mr. president, i would tell you that the legislation that i propose that we will be voting on at some point, is fully consistent with the court ruling in texas which my colleaguete, the senior senator from texas, is very familiar with and knows

much more about than i do, but it's fully consistent with that ruling, which is let stand the 2012 executive order but stayed the implementation of the 2014 executive order. there is a difference. now, the senator from illinois i consider to be an excellent senator and a dear friend, and it truly pains me to disagree with his analysis of my amendment. i know that he acts in good faith, but they're either misunderstanding or misinterpretation or just plain disagreements and i'd like to go through some of the points he has made about my amendment.

one of the senator from illinois' chief objections to my bill is that it strikes provisions of the november 2014 immigration action that would expand -- that's the key word -- it would expand the 2012daca program, to add certain individuals who are not eligible under that program. he talks about expanding the age limit, for example. now, let's take a look at exactly what the criteria are for dreamers under the 2012 executive order. and these are criteria that were praised by my friend from illinois and numerous other

senators on the democratic side of the aisle when the president issued his executive order and i, too, agree with these criteria. in order to qualify an individual has to have come to the united states under age 16. has to have continually resided in the united states at least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and has to be present on the date of the 2012 -- june 15, 2012 memorandum. the individual has to currently either be in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or has to be an honorably discharged member of the coast guard or our military. in addition the individual has

to have a pretty good record. the person cannot have been convicted of a felony offense significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety. and cannot be above the age of 30. these are reasonable criteria that the president came up with. frankly, i'm not involved with the ones that allows for multiple misdemeanors which, although the executive order says that the individual cannot have multiple misdemeanors, but the form that is used by dhs says the individual can have up to three misdemeanor. i personally would require an absolutely clean record.

but these are reasonable criteria and these are not changed by the collins bill in any way. the 2012 executive order stands. so really, my friend from illinois' argument is focused on the fact he wants an expansion of these criteria and to add other categories of individuals and that is what the november november 2014 immigration action does. it has nothing to do with the status of the individuals who were allowed to stay in this country as the result of the 2012 executive order. my amendment protects the 2012 executive order and those who

benefited from it. so we have a sincere disagreement over what is appropriate to be done by executive action, and what needs to be done by legislation. even though i support many of the policies that are in the 2014 executive order. i just don't think that the president can unilaterally proclaim those changes. >> would the senator yield for a question? >> if the senator's question is a brief one would be happy to yield. >> i'll make it very brief. if the senator acknowledges -- and i believe she has -- that the president had the authority in 2012 to issue an executive order under daca and to spell out the criteria, which includes at the very bottom of your chart, that the person is not above the age of 30, why does

the senator disagree with this situation? someone who is 29 years old, june of 2012, eligible for daca, the executive order? now we are two and a half years later, and the president tried to amend in november 2014 that last line to expand so that those who have aged out would still have a chance because congress has not acted otherwise. why would the senator from maine draw that distinction? say the president has the authority to write this order but not the authority to amend this record. >> mr. president i'm happy to respond to the senator from illinois' point. the point is the president's 2014 executive order goes far beyond those who would age out in his words. it adds entirely new categories

of people. in fact, the estimates are that some five million undocumented individuals would be covered by the 2014 executive order. should the president ewan unlaterally be able to make that executive order, that kind of change in our immigration law? the court has said no. and i believe the court is right about that. and in fact when these criteria were issued in 2012, the senator from illinois said in a press release, as we believe june of last year before the november executive order, that this was a

smart and lawful approach. so the answer is, how do you draw the line and that is the role of the executive branch vis-a-vis the legislative branch? i say that as someone who believes and hopes that later this year we'll take up a comprehensive immigration bill and i hope to be able to support it again. but this is an issue of what is the proper role of congress vis-a-vis the president under our constitutional system, and i was not surprised when the texas court kept the 2012 executive

order but blocked the 2014 executive order. now, there's another issue that the senator from illinois has phrased, that i think is really important point to make. he has said that my bill could bar some of those who received the ability to stay in this country through the 2012 executive order, from renewing their status. mr. president, that is simply not how i read the executive order, and i think it is really clear. let look at the 2012 executive order. this is what it says. this is what janet napolitano talked about in exercising

prosecutorial discretion. the june 15, 2012, daca executive order grants defers action for a period of two years. here are the key words -- subject to renewal. so there's nothing in my amendment that prevents children and young adults, people up to age 30 from getting a renewal of the deferred status they have been grant through the executive order. it says it right there. subject to renewal. but let's look further at the data. this is on dhs's residence, according to the data from the u.s. citizenship and immigration services the government has

renewed more than 148,0002012 applications as of the first quarter of this year. and many of which were -- of this fiscal year -- and many of them were completed before the november 2014 executive orders were even issued. so there's nothing in my bill that prevents renewal of those individuals who received this status. and it's very clear 148,000 of them have had their applications renewed. the senator from illinois has said that i would prevent dhs from issuing a memorandum that allowed for the renewal. there's no need for such a

memoranda. otherwise, 148,000 of these young people would not have been able already to have gotten a renewal, and before the 2014 executive order was even issued. the senator has also said that my bill calls into question the very legality of the 2012daca order because it is a quote very similar program to the 2014 executive action. to restate my basic point my bill does not affect the 2012daca program. it is substantially different from the 2014 executive order. in fact if you read the language of the 2014 executive

order, ill embraces that distinction and specifically states it does not rescind or supersede the 2012daca order. let me say that again. the 2014 executive order specifically states that it does not rescind or supersede the executive order issued in 2012. instead, it says it seeks to supplement or amend it. >> would the senator yield for a question -- >> senator from texas. >> i would be happy to yield to the senator from texas. >> i appreciate the senator from maine's leadership on this issue and is in her typical diligence and attention to detail has shown that the objections to a vote on the collins amendment

scheduled for sunday -- or saturday unless moved up, are not well-taken. but i would just ask the senator from maine is your interpretation of the president's executive action in november of 2014 any different from what the president himself said 22 different times when he said he did not have the authority to issue such an executive action? >> mr. president, if i could respond to the senior senator from texas. he raises an excellent point, and i would bring up the quote that is just one of those 22 quotes, in which the president has said over and over again that he would like to do more on immigration, he was very disappointed the house didn't take up the comprehensive

immigration bill, but that his hands were tied, that i believe at one point he even said i'm not a king. >> mr. president, would the senator yield for -- >> senator from texas. >> mr. president, i would ask the senator from maine you were not alone and the president is not alone in stating your objections to the 2014 order which you -- your amendment would seek to get a vote and to put senators on record for. is the senator aware that there are a number perhaps seven or eight, senators on the other side of the aisle who at different times around the november 2014 order said they were uncomfortable with the president taking this authority to himself? in other words i think the senator -- the junior senator from maine is one of those who said why while you may agree

with the outcome this is not the right way to do it. so, are you familiar with the fact that there are many of our democratic friends who have expressed similar concerns about the illegality of the president's executive action? >> mr. president, it doesn't surprise me that there are both democratic senators as well as republican senators who are extremely uncomfortable with what the president did last november because it is so outside of the scope of his authority as president, that i think that most of my colleagues, in their hearts, on the other side of the aisle, must have qualms and misgivings about what the president did. in fact, i would almost guarantee you that if a

republican president had exceeded his authority to that degree there would have been an uproar. i think this is really important in terms of our protecting the checks and balances that our founding fathers so wisely incorporated into the constitution. and i do believe that there are even more senators on the other side who may not have said what they were thinking but really do have qualms about it even if they agree with the policy. and we need to distinguish between the policy, whether or not some members agree with the policy some members doesn't, but the question is, does the

president's frustration with congress' failure to pass immigration reform, allow him to unilaterally right the law? the senator from texas is a former supreme court justice in texas. and through the chair i pose that question to him. >> the senator from texas? >> i would say to my friend from maine, the senator from maine that the constitution is written in a way that divides government's authority between executive, legislative, and the judicial branches, and i of course agree with you that there can be no justification on the part of the president that somehow congress hadn't acted enough or quickly enough or expansively enough to justify the extension of his authority under the constitution. but if i can ask my friend from

maine another question to drill down on her earlier point it seems to me the senator from illinois, the distinguished minority whip, is making some suggestions that really what we're mad at is the people who benefit from this executive action which to my mind could not be further from the truth. we all understand the aspirations of people who want a better way of life, an opportunity, but isn't it true that as you have said -- and i'll just ask you to repeat it or expand upon it -- isn't it true when we all take an oath to uphold the constitutional laws of the united states, whether you're the president or the senator, we have a sacred obligation to make sure that no branch including the president usurps the authority of another branch or violates those stational limitations. >> mr. president the senator from texas, who has a find legal man, served on the supreme court

in texas, is exactly right. and moreover, i'd like to read to you what president obama himself said about the very point that the senator from texas said about the oath that we held up our hands and took when we were sworn into this body. some that the president took when he became president. here's what the president said in july 2011. i swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. now i know some people want me to bypass congress and to change the laws on my own but that is not how our system works. that is not how our democracy functions.

that is not how our constitution is written. mr. president, president obama had it exactly right when he stated that reality. >> mr. president -- >> senator from texas. >> senator has been very patient with me. if i could just two final questions. given the 22 different public statements that the president of the united states has himself said about his lack of authority to do what he did in november of 2014, given the reservations publicly expressed and reported by a number of members on that side of the aisle about what the president has done, and given the fact that there are 11 democratic senators who come from states that filed a lawsuit to block the president's executive action can you understand why that the

democratic minority would try to block your amendment which would put all senators on record as to whether they agree with the president when he said that 22 times, whether they agree with the court that issued the preliminary injunction, and whether they agree with their own states that participated in this litigation to block the implement addition of this lawful order. can you think of any reason why they would try to block or defeat your amendment and put all members of the senate on record? >> mr. president, to respond to the senator from texas, i really hope that won't happen. i have put forth a way forward for this body. i want to ensure that the department of homeland security is fully funded through the fiscal year. i want to ensure that we do not

overturn the 2012 executive order daca, that does not raise the issue that the senator from texas outlined but i do believe it's important for us to each take a stand against the president's overreach here. this is important. this matters. it is our job to protect the constitution. and to uphold our role and that's what i'm trying to do here. accomplish those three goals and that's what the senator from texas is discussing. >> mr. president, if i can ask the senator from maine one final

question. again, she has -- >> senator from texas. >> -- enormously patient with me. we're trying to drill down here. so all of the members of the senate understand exactly what the collins amendment does and does not do. we have talk about the fact that not only are their people on record saying that what the president did was an overreach, members of the senate, 11 democratic senators from states that filed suit, claiming irreparable damage to their states, who will have an opportunity to vote for the collins amendment, hopefully here soon. but i just want to ask the senator, there's one part of what the president's executive order does that has -- to me stand out glove and beyond the constitutional issues and that is the ability of people who have committed domestic violence, child exploitation,

sexual abuse, and child molestation, to get somehow -- somehow get kicked back to the line when it comes to being repatriated to their state. for example, we all understand as i said earlier that immigrants come here for a better life. we all understand that. we hope they'd come playing by the rules as opposed to not playing by the rules, but why in the world would the president want to reward in effect people who have committed domestic violence, child exploitation sexual abuse and child molestation by moving them down to a second tier status of priority when it comes to repatriation? as a senator familiar with what i'm referring to? and perhaps you can enlighten us further on that. >> mr. president, i am familiar with the provision that the

senator from texas refers to, and i kept it included in the bill that we will be voting on at some point, and that is it seems to me that if you have been convicted -- if you're convicted sex offender why do we want you in this country? and the irony is, mr. president, that just this week the senate judiciary committee held a hearing on sex trafficking and we have heard heartbreaking stories of vary young -- very young girls who had been abused by men who had been prostituted, taken from state to state, coerced into prostitution and i don't want those individuals, if they come from another country to be

allowed to stay here. and all 20 of the women of the senate requested this hearing from the judiciary committee, and the senator from texas and the senator from minnesota have bills that deal with this kind of human trafficking. so, we are trying to send a message that these individuals should be a high priority for deportation, but i want to make clear that contrary to allegations that have been made about my bill and frankly the completely specious amendment -- there is nothing in my bill that deprives the department of homeland security from having the authority it needs to pursue those who would seek to harm our country, those, for example, who are terrorists or belong to

gangs, or pose some sort of public safety or national security threat. indeed, the public safety threat is big enough to cover the people we're talking about but we think that they merit special mention in our bill. why would we want to keep in our country someone who is deportable, who is a sex offender who has been convicted of child molestation, or domestic violence? it makes no sense. >> mr. president, if i can just close -- >> senator from texas. >> i want to thank the senator from maine for your leadership on this important amendment. to me it's just unthinkable that senators would block a vote on

the collins amendment ats' point in this process this week because what it does, as you point out, is basically reinforce what the president said himself 22 different times when he said he didn't have the authority. it re-affirms what the federal district court held in brownsville, recently, that 26 states filed suit on, and i share the senator's bewilderment really, how on one hand we could be condoning people coming into the country showing disrespect not only for our immigration laws but compounding that disrespect with these heinous offenses like domestic violence, child exploitation sexual abuse, particularly at a time when today i will report to the senator that we actually voted unanimously out of the senate judiciary committee on a bipartisan basis these

antitrafficking bills that the senator testified about last tuesday. and i just want to close by thanking her and the women of the senate for leading us toward passage of this antitrafficking legislation, but to point out again, the complete unacceptability of this idea that somehow we're going to play games by blocking the collins amendment vote and somehow condoning the same conduct on one hand that we condemn through the passage of this antitrafficking legislation on the other. so i thank the senator and thank you mr. president. >> mr. president. >> senator from maine. >> i want to thank the senator from texas for his contributions to this very important debate. i believe that he helped to clarify a lot of the important issues that i hope members on both sides of the aisle will consider as they cast their votes.

i am for comprehensive immigration reform. i have voted that way. that is not what this is about. my bill simply plea vents the executive branch from usurping the legislative power by creating categorical exemptions from the law for whole classes of people. that power belongs to congress. whether congress was wrong or whether congress was right, it does not give the president the authority to write the law on his own, and that is what he has done with his november 2014 executive order. and again mr. president let me make two other points before i will close. ...

nothing in my legislation that in any way in any way undoes the more limited 2014 executive order that applies to the dreamers, nothing. it doesn't prevent them from being renewed. it doesn't take away their status. there is nothing that changes that executive order. now, the first version of the house bill did and i opposed that provision and it is not in my bill. and the second point that i will make mr.resi and the second that i will make mr. president is this debate is not about immigration. it really is about the power of

the president versus the powers delineated in our constitution for congress and the judicial branch. so let me close once again with president obama's own words because he got it right back in september of 2013. he said, congress has said here is the law when it comes to those who are undocumented. what we can do is to carve out the d.r.e.a.m. act and that is what he did with his 2012th executive order. saying young people are