Floor Statements

Mr. President, I do appreciate--and that is an understatement--what the majority leader has to go through to try to please the extreme voices on his side. The fact remains we are 4 very short days away from a Homeland Security shutdown--a shutdown, Mr. President. We have a couple of bills on the floor that, unless there is unanimous consent, we can't get to in 4 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 shouldn't have wasted a month repeating the same failed procedural vote four times with the same result. Albert Einstein said that is the definition of insanity, when you keep doing the same thing over and over again, getting the same result.

We have said all along that we are more than happy to have an 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 is not only for Nevada, it is all across the country, because the homeland cannot be protected the way the law is now set up unless the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has the ability to grant. If there is full funding, it would be almost $2 billion worth of programs to allow the homeland to be protected by State and local governments.

So we are happy to have a debate on immigration, but we have to fully fund Homeland Security. We have said that all along. We have said it not once, not twice, but we have said it many different times.

In fact, there was a proposal brought to the Senate floor 3 weeks ago, sponsored by Senators Mikulski and Shaheen, only to have the Republicans object to that.

We want a debate on immigration. We are happy to have a debate on immigration. We are eager to debate immigration now or any other time, but we can't do that until we fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. We have been saying that for 4 weeks and nothing has changed in the last 24 hours.

The majority leader should allow a vote on the Mikulski-Shaheen funding, which is sitting on the floor right now. It is on the calendar. 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 is done, there is a consent pending here on the Senate floor that says once that is done and the President signs that, we will be happy to debate immigration for whatever time the Republicans deem necessary.

Would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Reservation Of Leader Time

Madam President, in just a few days--5 to be exact--the Department of Homeland Security will run out of money. This unique entity was established right after 9/11. President Bush believed there were too many agencies trying to take care of the security of this Nation, so he got Congress to work with him, and they came up with 22 entities for the Department of Homeland Security. They have protected our homeland since 9/11, and they have done a good job.

I am very disappointed that the political ploy used by my congressional Republican leadership to force a shutdown of Homeland Security will only hurt our Nation, but it does make very clear where Republicans stand on fixing our broken immigration system.

Twenty months ago some valiant Senators, Democrats and Republicans, worked together for almost a year. Democrats were led by Senators Schumer, Durbin, Bennet, and Menendez. Republicans were led by Senators McCain, Graham, Rubio, and Flake. They worked night and day. They came up with a bill that they presented to us, Democrats and Republicans, and we worked hard. We had lots of amendments. There was a wonderful debate. It was one of the great days of this body. And we passed it with a bipartisan vote. It was such a good day for the Senate and our country. But now, after 20 months, suddenly people are not interested.

Even Senators Flake, Graham, and McCain have stated that we should fund Homeland Security--fund it. We have all kinds of Republican Senators who have said the same thing in the last few days. Senator Johnson said it should be fully funded. He said that today.

I don't understand what my Republican friends are trying to do. They want to hold up DHS funding in order to deport DREAMers and their parents. That doesn't make any sense. Their plan is destined to fail. I have said that many times. Republicans are not listening to me, and I understand why, but my Republican colleagues are not listening to a lot of people.

They are not listening to the President of the United States, who has warned them that blocking Homeland Security funding will hurt our ability to respond to these new threats.

Tom Ridge and I came to Washington at the same time in 1982, to the House of Representatives. Here is a man who was valiant in Vietnam. He was a highly decorated soldier. He has had a stunning career in government. He was the Governor of the State of Pennsylvania and the Secretary of Homeland Security. He, along with another Republican Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, who has a great record of his own as a prosecutor and Federal judge, and a Democratic Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, who was a former Governor of the State of Arizona--so three former Secretaries of Homeland Security--two Republicans and one Democrat--have said the Republicans should do this. In fact, here is what they said in a letter Senator McConnell and I received a month ago:

Funding for DHS is used to protect our ports and our

borders; to secure our air travel and cargo; to protect the

federal government and our nation's information technology

and infrastructure from cyber-security attacks; to fund

essential law enforcement activities, and to ensure the

safety of the president and national leaders . . . Funding

for the entire agency should not be put in jeopardy by the

debate about immigration.

That is what the former Secretaries of Homeland Security said. They did not mince words.

In fact, Tom Ridge said yesterday on national TV that the Republicans' plan ``irritates the hell out of me. I think it is bad policy . . . The men and women of Homeland Security deserve better.''

Jeh Johnson, who has certainly been as down the middle as anyone could be on this issue, said that to not fund Homeland Security is ``unacceptable from a public safety and national security view.''

The majority leader and Speaker Boehner are not listening. They are obviously not listening to me, they are not listening to the President, and they are not listening to former Homeland Security Secretaries.

They are not even listening to their newspaper--it has been referred to as their newspaper--the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal said that the Republicans' game of Russian roulette with our homeland security is destined for ``a spectacular crack-up.'' Republicans obviously are not listening to the Wall Street Journal. The Fraternal Order of Police has lambasted the Republican scheme. The Republicans are not listening to the police. The United States Conference of Mayors said: Please don't do that. If you do not fund the Department of Homeland Security, and even if you go with a continuing resolution, it is going to affect our ability to protect our cities. The Governors have said the same thing.

Republicans are not listening to anyone. They are bound and determined to see this doomed plan to the end. This is all because Republicans want to overturn DHS directives that prioritize the deportation of national security threats, convicted felons, and individuals apprehended at the border. It doesn't make sense. The administration sought a stay of the proceedings in Texas, but the trial judge in Texas never ever declared anything the President did as unconstitutional. If you read every word he wrote, the word ``unconstitutional'' is not written. He said the Administrative Procedure Act was not followed.

The President has the right to determine who is to be deported, and the families of these DREAMers are way down the list. So the President is well within his established constitutional authority and legal process to hear this out. So why would we divert resources from real threats just so Republicans can deport DREAMers, long-term permanent residents, mothers and fathers of U.S. citizen children who pose no security risk? Republicans say they are attacking the President's actions, but they are really attacking families.

I suggest to my Republican colleagues that if they won't listen to me, the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Wall Street Journal, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the United States Conference of Mayors, maybe they should at least heed what

our enemies are saying. We can all picture in our minds what happened just a few weeks ago. They put a Jordanian pilot in a cage and burned him, and they showed the world that for 22 minutes. We have seen the beheadings. They have not stopped. Twenty-one Egyptian Christians were beheaded just a few days ago.

Yesterday on national TV Secretary Johnson said that we must remain vigilant against threats because now they told us they are going to go to malls around America, including the Mall of America. We must listen. Why would our Republican friends want to shut off funding for Homeland Security in this environment? Listen to reason. Let's fully fund Homeland Security and do it now. Republican Senators are saying the same thing. I don't understand what is going on here.

Republicans reportedly have a backup plan--fund Homeland Security by passing short-term continuing resolutions. That is not an answer. It is not an answer. A continuing resolution will prevent the Department of Homeland Security from working with communities and States and their first responders in addressing new threats and emergency situations.

Our Nation is depending on the Department of Homeland Security, and fully funding it is what is needed to keep us safe. More than 230,000 Homeland Security employees are depending on a paycheck for their families. A simple way of doing this is to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, not some Rube Goldberg procedure where they make something very simple very complicated. It doesn't need to be complicated. We simply need to give the Department of Homeland Security the resources it needs to do its job, as said by Republican Senators in the past week.

Why are we doing this? Is it to please the House Republicans who cannot agree on anything? It is important that we fully fund this agency and do it now.

Would the chair now announce the business of the day. I am told the motion to proceed is now pending. Is that true?

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to one of the finest staffers I have encountered in my years in the U.S. Senate. Roger Cockrell is retiring this week after 15 years of service to the Senate Appropriations Committee, which was proceeded by more than 20 years with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, mainly in Vicksburg, MS.

I spent many years as either the chairman or ranking Democrat on the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. It is a great bill. It not only funds a lot of important energy and science priorities, it also provides the annual funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, both of which are tremendously important to my home State of Nevada. Sorting through all of the projects and programs that are funded through these two agencies is tremendously technical and complicated work.

I realized fairly early in my time at the top of that subcommittee that I needed an experienced engineer to ensure that we were prioritizing and funding these thousands of projects according to both technical merit and also national priorities. So, I brought in Roger as a fellow from the Corps of Engineers and it turned out to be one of the best decisions I ever made. As all Members have been known to do, I kept him as a fellow for as long as the Corps would pay him and then I hired him away.

Roger is exactly what you want in a staffer, particularly one who represents you on the Appropriations Committee: Smart, extremely well- prepared, hard-working, and, in the case of Roger, more willing to work with the staff of other Members to make their priorities work within the rules than anyone I have ever met. If Roger could not make your project work within the rules, regulations, and laws regarding a water project, it is a pretty safe bet that it was a bad project. So far as I know, Roger never turned down a meeting with anyone and his eternally sunny and friendly nature always made him a delight to work with.

I left that subcommittee many years ago now, but Roger stayed there and has gone back and forth to both the Republican and Democratic staffs several times depending upon who is in the majority around here. I can think of no higher compliment to a Senate staffer than to be held in such high esteem by both sides that he or she is retained by the majority year-after-year, Congress after Congress because of his or her expertise and, more importantly, fairness. And Roger is nothing if not fair to all who have appeared in his doorway over the years. The Senate is a better place because of people like Roger Cockrell.

I wish Roger and his wife Anna Lisa all the best as they move on to whatever is next in their lives. I am sad to see him go, but he has earned more time with his family, including his daughter Melissa. I have known him long enough to know that he won't be able to sit still for long. I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in expressing my gratitude for his long and dedicated service to our Nation.

Mr. President, Christine Prietsch, the director of the Senate's Employee Assistance Program, is leaving the Senate family after 11 years of dedicated service to Senators, staff, and family members. Before joining the Senate, Christy served with the Secret Service, Department of Justice and the Department's Offices of U.S. Attorneys EAP programs. We often celebrate those who dedicate so much to

the U.S. Senate with stories from the men and women whose lives were affected. Christy turned this program into an invaluable resource for Senate employees experiencing obstacles and struggles in their professional and personal lives. Her innovative methods for implementing training and programs made her a vital asset to the Senate and a devoted leader to her staff. It is our hope that the irony is not lost, that through the auspices of her professionalism, confidentiality, morality and ethics, we are prevented from hearing many such stories; only those who Christy helped know the true value of her service. Christy is a valued leader within the Sergeant at Arms and a trusted confidant to the Senate family. I thank her for her dedicated service, her unbridled patriotism and unwavering support.

Mr. President, I am not going to be able to be here the rest of the week. More than likely I have a personal matter I have to deal with.

Tribute to Kathie Alvarez

Mr. President, I wish to take a minute to talk about somebody whom I have worked with for 30 years in the Senate, and that is Kathie Alvarez, who has done such a great job of calculating our votes, tabulating our votes, and just being somebody who is always here.

We have had a great relationship. I know nothing about her politics. I just know something about her personality, which is warm. She has a great sense of humor, and I am going to miss her a great deal.

I wish her the very best. She has now worked in the Senate for some 30 years. For everyone who has had any dealings with her, which is everyone serving in the Senate, I am sure their experiences have been just like mine, a very pleasant experience.

Again, I wish her the very best in the future, whatever that might be, and someday if she needs a letter of recommendation or something, I would be happy to give her one.

The Economy

Mr. President, during the past 6 years of the Obama administration there have been 12 million jobs created. Remember when President Obama took office--because of the Bush administration and their activities-- we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. So I think it speaks well of what has taken place over the past 6 years to be able to talk about creating 12 million private sector jobs. Not everyone has benefited from these jobs, but a lot of people have.

We in Nevada wish we were doing much better, but we are doing much better than we were. In fact, in Nevada the unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since 2008 last month, but these are private sector jobs. If we had just a little bit of help with public sector jobs, we would be back to the Clinton years. The economy would be on fire.

The Environment and Public Works Committee is the ``Environment and Public Works'' Committee. The senior Senator from Oklahoma has been one of the leaders on that committee for a long time. He and I disagree greatly with what he does and what he believes dealing with the environment part of that committee.

But we have significant agreement on the other part of that committee, the public sector--environment and public works. He has been out front talking about the need to do something with the highway bill, to create these jobs which are good for the economy.

I know he and Senator Boxer are working to do something with a new highway bill, and I am behind them. I hope they can work something out. It would be so important if we could do something to help the public sector, and no place is better to go than to do something with infrastructure.

We have a $3 trillion deficit with infrastructure in this country: bridges collapsing, bridges in a state of disrepair, and of course highways. Most highways in America get a C-minus grade at best. So there are a lot of things we can do to help the economy and do something to take all of the pressure off the private sector.

Unemployment is down 5.7 percent. The stock market, all three of them, are at alltime highs. Manufacturing is doing quite well.

The automobile industry--we struggled when the great General Motors was going bankrupt, Chrysler was going bankrupt, and Ford was hanging on. We stepped forward and said we have to do something about saving one of America's great industries; and we did that.

Quite frankly, we received so much criticism from the Republicans. They were willing to let the automobile sector go bankrupt. We started Cash for Clunkers, we did all kinds of things, and now these companies are thriving and rightfully so.

The automobile industry has rebounded, and that is an understatement. A number of economies are on the right track. I state, for the second time this morning, does that mean everyone has benefited? The answer is no, but a lot of us have benefited.

But throughout all of this, in America--this great country of ours-- the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, the middle class is being squeezed, and that we have to recognize.

Let's talk about the economy, 12 million private sector jobs. Could we do better? The answer is yes. It would have been great had we not been thwarted, stopped because of a number of filibusters. We would have a minimum wage for the entire country. We weren't able to get that done. That would be great for the middle class.

It would be good if we could do something about the largest debt America has. It is not credit cards, it is student loan debt. I have admiration for the senior Senator from Illinois as to what he has done about student debt. He has spoken out that some of the things going on in our country dealing with education are absolutely wrong. But one thing that is wrong is we are placing a burden on these young men and women who are going to college and their families.

There are many things we should have done that we didn't do to help the middle class, including equal pay for equal work, but that didn't happen. We need to look at what has happened with the Republicans dealing with the economy. They are doing things that are not helping.

Look at the Politico paper today. They talk about what the Republicans are doing with these riders on the money to fund Homeland Security. At a bare minimum that would increase the debt some $30 billion.

We can say that for each DREAMer--there is about 600,000 of them--the Republicans want to deport every one of these DREAMers. The average cost of deporting these people is $10,000 each. Do the math--$10,000 times 600,000, that would all go toward increasing the debt.

So shutting down the Department of Homeland Security is where we are headed, and it is such a shame--or having a continuing resolution. Each of these would be a disaster for our economy. If Republicans refuse to fund Homeland Security, tens of thousands of employees that Secretary Johnson is in charge of would have to be furloughed. He says up to 30,000. Others would be ordered to come to work and not be paid.

The Republicans are saying, well, we may not close down. We may fund it, but we may do it at last year's levels, which would be a disaster for the States. There are programs Secretary Johnson funds that are so important to States: Terrorism centers; there is a great big one in Arizona that is waiting to be funded. If we have a CR, a continuing resolution, it will not be funded. We have programs relating to K9 units within police departments that are so important to local governments, State governments, and they would not be funded.

Secretary Johnson laid out on all the TV shows this past weekend about what would happen if we didn't fund the Department of Homeland Security or what would happen if we had to go with a continuing resolution.

SAFER grants, even with firefighters, are so tremendously important for States such as Nevada and around the rest of the country.

So, my Republican colleagues, who now have a huge majority here in Congress, why don't you work to improve the economy, not hurt the economy? Let's pass a clean bill and send it to the President. America deserves a safe homeland. Even conservative newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal criticized the Republicans yesterday about what they are doing with homeland security and what they failed to do with immigration. They have been so critical of the Republicans. The Republicans have a huge majority, and as the Wall Street Journal said yesterday, why don't they use it to the advantage of the American people, which they haven't done.

Would the Chair announce the business of the day.

Reservation Of Leader Time

Mr. President, the American people can get their news in various fashions, whether it is a blog, the nightly news or in a newspaper. They are very concerned. They are concerned about the threat of global terrorism. And why shouldn't they be? Look at what they see.

We see ISIS has murdered tens of thousands of people. One need only to look back at those thousands of Yazidi people who are trapped in the mountains in Iraq. We saw it play on day after day. These people were fleeing for their lives and many of them didn't make it.

We have watched not only tens of thousands murdered, but we have watched them behead people. Just a few days ago we watched them put a man in a cage, set the cage on fire, and burn him alive. They are so void of any respectability; they are so uncivilized. They filmed 22 minutes of that man suffering the utmost torture until he died--22 minutes of torture.

We look around the world, and in Paris 20 people are dead of a terrorist attack. People are dead in Belgium thwarting that terrorist attack. In Ottawa, Canada, at the Parliament terrorists attacked. In Sydney, Australia, there was an attack in a restaurant.

It seems that no matter what the day is, there is another act of terror that we have to be aware of. We have watched, with some dismay, at the terror that is coming. ISIS has bragged that they are coming our way.

We have our national security agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, which has protected us from attacks to this point. Now we are 18 days away from having no money for the Department of Homeland Security--18 days. But that is a false number because we are out of session for about 10 of those 18 days. So really, after this week, we are down to less than 1 week to protect our homeland.

Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security, was on national TV yesterday warning the American people of what we face. He went through what his agency does, what they do to protect our homeland. That agency was established during the Presidency of George W. Bush. It happened after 9/11. We consolidated 22 different agencies into something that is more workable. Jeh Johnson has done a very, very good job.

There is border protection, the Coast Guard, and they have responsibilities for preventing cyber attacks. There is rarely a day that goes by when there isn't some cyber attack. Which one is big that day? We had Sony play out, and we had Anthem just a few days ago.

Republicans are hellbent on playing chicken with our national security.

Jeh Johnson said yesterday he would have to furlough as many as 30,000 people if the Republicans decided to do a continuing resolution, which would be at last year's numbers. It would prevent the Department of Homeland Security from funding any new grants. These are grants that help our country, grants for dogs sniffing out all kinds of bad things. These grants fund counterterrorism task force units. A very big one is waiting to be established in Arizona.

In Las Vegas we have an urban area security initiative. We have 50 million people who come to Las Vegas each year. We need help to make sure local agencies can respond where they have to.

Why are we concerned about these grants? We are concerned because it is what helps local government be ready for these attacks when and if they come.

But the Republicans have come to the conclusion that they are far more afraid of these people--some of whom were here last week--the DREAMers. They dreamed of having a country they could relate to. They came to America as babies. It was the only country they even knew. It was a country where they saluted the flag for many years, and President Obama gave them respectability.

A woman who was here and I talked about last week is a young woman from Las Vegas. Her name is Blanca Gamez. She is a wonderful, wonderful woman. She has two degrees, and she is going to law school next year. She works, and she pays taxes. But it appears that the Republicans are more afraid of her than they are of ISIS--these people who behead people and they burn people in cages.

We cannot allow this to go on the way it is headed. These grants help local firefighters. The DHS directives target criminals instead of families. Republicans, I guess, want us to target these families rather than criminals.

Why are Republicans putting our country at risk?

This isn't some liberal cabal that is talking about this. Let's take, for example, one of the most conservative publications in America, the Wall Street Journal. They wrote a featured opinion piece today about Republican Members of Congress.

The Wall Street Journal says the Republicans' reckless strategy is doomed to fail. Even the very conservative editors of that newspaper said today that Republicans' reckless scheme is destined for--what is in their words--``a spectacular crack-up.'' These are a few things of what they say in the article.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the February 9, 2015, opinion article from the Wall Street Journal entitled: ``Can the GOP Change?''

I will read parts of the article:

If Homeland Security funding lapses on Feb. 27, the agency

will be pushed into a partial shutdown even as the terrorist

threat is at the forefront of public attention with the

Charlie Hebdo and Islamic State murders. Imagine if the

Transportation Security Administration, a unit of DHS, fails

to intercept an Islamic State agent en route to Detroit.

So Republicans are facing what is likely to be another

embarrassing political retreat and more intra-party

recriminations. The GOP's restrictionist wing will blame the

leadership for a failure they share responsibility for, and

the rest of America will wonder anew about the gang that

couldn't shoot straight.

This is about as serious as anything could be. We need to fund this agency which is so vitally important to our country. We need to pass a clean bill--the bipartisan bill that Speaker Boehner and the majority leader agreed to in November--and give the American people the protection they deserve. Anything less is not good, is a disaster for our country, and really is very, very bad to protect our homeland.

Reservation Of Leader Time

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of the Lunar New Year, an important and festive holiday for people of Asian and Pacific Islander heritage around the world. Lunar New Year celebrations not only sustain important cultural traditions that have been practiced for centuries, but also provide a moment to reflect upon the many contributions made by the Asian and Pacific Islander community in Nevada and across the globe.

In my home State of Nevada, the Asian American community is among the fastest growing in the United States. From 2000 to 2010, the Asian American population in Nevada more than doubled. Chinese Americans, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders have greatly enriched Nevada's history and culture, and I am pleased to stand today in recognition of these communities as they prepare for the upcoming festivities.

This year, families and communities in Nevada and across the world will welcome the Year of the Sheep, and I offer my warmest wishes for peace and prosperity in the coming year.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there is bipartisan objection to the request by the majority leader. It is worth our spending a minute or two hearing what Republicans Senators have had to say in the last few hours.

John McCain, the senior Senator from Arizona: Is that the definition of insanity, voting on the same bill over and over again?

Jim Inhofe: I think three is enough. There is a division within the conference on this.

Jeff Flake of Arizona: We can go through the motions, sure, but I don't think we are fooling anybody.

Another Republican Senator: I wish we could take no for an answer and figure out the next step.

Well, what has happened in the last 30 hours? We knew 30 hours ago about ISIS. We have watched their brutality, killing thousands and thousands of innocent people, going back, I guess, in memory to the days we thought would never exist again: Tamerlane killing thousands and thousands of people those many centuries ago, Genghis

Khan killing thousands and thousands of innocent people. ISIS has been doing this, but they have also added some things that we have watched not because we wanted to but because they forced us to: beheadings. Somebody kneels down in front of them, and they cut off their head with a knife. They film that and send it around the world for us to watch.

But what happened 30 hours ago? The brutality we thought had reached its pinnacle got worse. What ISIS did approximately 30 hours ago is put a Jordanian pilot in a cage--a cage--dump flammable liquid over that cage, and then film that man being burned alive for 22 minutes. We have been forced to watch that. Yes, ISIS is awful. The worst. Uncivilized. But that is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with that. Now Republicans forced an entirely unnecessary debate.

All the papers--not only the Nevada papers, but pick up the New York Times, pick up the Washington Post, and you will see a picture of a young woman from Nevada. Her name is Blanca Gamez. A young woman now, she came to the United States as a baby--a baby. Because of the direction taken by the President of the United States, this young woman and hundreds of thousands of others who dreamed of being able to lead a different life are now leading a different life. Blanca has gotten two college degrees. She is going to law school next year. She works. She pays taxes. Why in the world are Republicans afraid of Blanca Gamez? Why?

It has been said by Martin Heinrich and by Claire McCaskill that it appears Republicans in the Senate are more afraid of the DREAMers than they are of ISIS. Well, I know the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, as it relates to appropriations, came to the floor yesterday and talked about regular order. I say to my friend that regular order in the Senate has a number of different connotations. One of them is clear, so clear, and that is why John McCain spoke out, Jeff Flake, Jim Inhofe, and others spoke out, because in the Senate we need to fund our different subcommittees on appropriations. We have done that, except Homeland Security.

We have these terrorist acts all over the world taking place right now. We saw it in Canada. We saw it in Australia, all over the European Union, in Paris. All over. We have had so many frightening things happen. We in the United States of America are in a position where we are not going to fund Homeland Security because of Blanca Gamez.

We would love to debate immigration. We have done it here on the Senate floor before. It was a wonderful bipartisan debate. We are willing to do it again.

I am going to offer a consent request. I am going to object to my friend's consent request. That is on the record. I am going to make my own consent request. I am going to make a consent request that seems to me to be pretty good.

I ask unanimous consent that following the enactment of the text of S. 272, which is the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for this year, 2015, at a time to be determined by Senator McConnell, after consultation with me, but no later than Monday, March 16, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, as passed by the Senate by a vote of 68 to 32 on June 27, 2013, the text of which is at the desk. That is my consent request.

Mr. President, let me again state words I did not make up. John McCain--he is actually paraphrasing what Albert Einstein said: The definition of insanity is someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

That is what John McCain said. Is that the definition of insanity-- voting on the same bill over and over again and expecting a different result?

Jim Inhofe: I think three is enough.

Jeff Flake: We can go through the motions, sure, but I don't think we are fooling anybody.

Another Republican said: I wish we could take no for an answer.

There is bipartisan support to move forward on a freestanding bill that sends Homeland Security funding directly to the President. We want to do that. That is what should be done. That is regular order.

If the Presiding Officer and the rest of the Republicans want to come and debate immigration, we are willing to do that. That is what my consent request calls for.

The American people are crying out that we defend our homeland. They are doing it around the rest of the world, why shouldn't we? That is what this is all about.

If they want to debate immigration, go ahead and debate immigration but not on the back of Homeland Security, leaving it totally naked and not giving us the ability to do what needs to be done to protect our homeland.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the 40th anniversary of the Boyd Gaming Corporation, a leader in today's gaming industry that is respected in Nevada and across the Nation.

Boyd Gaming Corporation was founded in 1975, but the legacy of the company began in 1941, when Sam Boyd moved his family to Las Vegas, NV. Sam started his career as a table dealer and quickly gained experience by working his way across the Silver State through an array of jobs in the gaming industry. By 1952, he had saved enough money to purchase a small stake in the legendary Sahara Hotel and Casino. Sam's small stake in the Sahara eventually led to him becoming the general manager of the Mint, which was a hotel and casino in downtown Las Vegas.

Sam's son, Bill, has been a force in gaming in Nevada and throughout the United States. Bill is an accomplished lawyer, and now, an accomplished businessman. I am happy to call him a friend. Bill first partnered with Sam and others in acquiring a stake in the Eldorado Casino, but it was not until New Year's Day 1975 that the father and son partnership became the Boyd Gaming Corporation. The corporation's first major project was the California Hotel and Casino in downtown Las Vegas, which quickly became a success.

In 1979, Boyd Gaming opened ``Sam's Town'' on a 13 acre lot off Boulder Highway. The project carried the name of one of its founders, Sam Boyd, and for the first time, provided Las Vegas locals with a full-scale resort. While their California Hotel and Casino property was inspiring innovative marketing strategies, across town at the Sam's Town property, the corporation was providing an entirely new experience to local Nevadans.

Since then, Boyd Gaming has grown into a large corporation with 22 properties across the country, and enjoyed tremendous success. Throughout their history, Boyd Gaming has remained deeply rooted in its Nevadan history and has been guided by the principles of family and integrity first laid out by Sam Boyd. As an inductee in the Gaming Hall of Fame, Sam will always be remembered as one of the most influential businessmen and innovators in Las Vegas gaming history. I remember Sam not only for his entrepreneurship and business sense, but also as a friend who championed diversity among his employees, and would go out of his way to give back to the community.

I am honored to congratulate Boyd Gaming Corporation on reaching this

milestone and I wish the corporation, and the Boyd family the best on all future endeavors.

Mr. President, the record held by the Republicans dealing with Cabinet officers is not one they should be proud of. For example, during a time of the War on Terror, the Republicans held up the Defense Department's nominee for a historically long time. Never in the past had someone who was to be Defense Secretary been held up by being blocked from moving forward.

You would think that would be a lesson learned and that would be enough, but no, that is not enough. Loretta Lynch, for example, who was nominated by the President to be Attorney General, has been held up for longer than any nominee for Attorney General in the last 30 or 40 years. It is hard to comprehend that. For example, Senator Lindsey Graham said she was ``a solid choice.'' Senator Orrin Hatch has indicated that he supports her nomination. Why, then, do we have to keep waiting and waiting? We are approaching 3 months that this good woman has been held up from a job for which she has been nominated.

I would hope the Republican leadership would move this out of the Senate as quickly as possible.

Department Of Homeland Security Funding

Mr. President, I am not going to dwell very long on the matter that is before this body, and we will vote at 2:30. We have here with us the leading Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, and she will talk about homeland security. We have here on the floor today the assistant Democratic leader, who was one of the authors of a bill which we brought to the floor and which was debated for a long time and passed overwhelmingly before it was blocked by the Republicans.

We have before us a very interesting proposition. We have had terrorist attacks in Canada, in Australia, all over the European Union, including France and Belgium. Those countries, rather than talking about not funding homeland security, are talking about funding it with more money--but not the Senate led by the Republicans. They are doing everything within their power to make sure Homeland Security is held hostage to matters that do not really relate to homeland security.

If my Republican colleagues do not like something President Obama has done dealing with Presidential Executive orders--which, by the way, he has done less than any President in modern times--bring it up on the Senate floor and let's have a debate on that. Let's not do what happened previously and shut down the government. That is the direction we are headed. That is really too bad.

The President's Budget

Finally, Mr. President, the President has outlined a good proposal for a budget. It is nothing that is new. It is simply building upon the budget that was so successfully negotiated by Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan. That is what this budget he proposed is all about. It would seem to me, rather than the Republicans running out, as soon as he said a word, saying no, no, no, let's look at areas where we can compromise. Don't we need something done with the infrastructure of this country? The answer is obviously yes. Why can't we work something out in that regard? So I would hope that rather than saying no to everything the President does, that we should understand that our role, including Republican Senators, is to legislate. Legislation is the art of compromise.

Reservation Of Leader Time

Mr. President, it is really good to be back. I appreciate the kind remarks of the Republican leader. Senator McConnell and his lovely wife Elaine have been very good to Landra and me over the years. We appreciate their words of support.

I want to express my appreciation to my colleagues who have been so kind and thoughtful during my recovery time. The Presiding Officer--I received your phone call. That was very warm. I very much appreciate it.

Mr. President, as Senators, our work is measured by what we are able to accomplish for the middle class, what we are able to accomplish for the American people. I have watched very closely and been in touch, as we all know, having read all the stories, of what has gone on here in the last month. I am sorry to say that we spent 1 month on a bill calling for the importation of oil from a foreign country and then exporting that oil outside of America. I am glad we were able to work it out so that we had a number of amendments. That was really good. We felt very comfortable with that. I wish we could have done some more, but I am satisfied with what we were able to do. Of course now we await the action of the President, as we should be doing.

The work of this Senate is based upon--should be based upon--what we are able to do for the middle class. We are a constructive minority, and we proved that the last month. To show how constructive we are, take for example TRIA, terrorism insurance. It is so important up and down the Las Vegas Strip, Times Square, everyplace in America. That is important to the business community. Yet that was held up in the last Congress by my Republican colleagues. To show our good faith, we were able to pass that in a matter of hours. That is the way it should be.

We are going to vote tomorrow on the Clay Hunt bill. That is an important piece of legislation. I have worked hard on suicide prevention. We need to keep working on it. Each year in America 32,000 Americans kill themselves. That does not take into consideration the car accidents that are not reported properly, hunting accidents. We have about 24 veterans who kill themselves every day in America. We believe that is important for America, and because of that, we are going to pass that in a matter of hours tomorrow. That is the way it should be.

Mr. President, there is an issue that is now before this body. It is an important issue. All we need to look at is what is going on around the world--terrorism attack in Australia; terrorism attack in Canada; in France, scores of people killed. We saw what happened in Belgium. Terrorism is for real. Senator McCaskill said it about the best way I have seen it described. The Republicans are more afraid of the DREAMers than they are of ISIS. By the way, ISIS said they are coming our way. Why should we be dealing with issues that have nothing to do with homeland security?

We should pass a homeland security bill with no strings attached to it. That is where we are going to wind up. If the Republican majority in the House and the Senate wants to have a CR for Homeland Security--a continuing resolution--that would cut about $1 billion out of the budget for Homeland Security.

Homeland Security was developed after 9/11. It was a bipartisan piece of legislation that consolidated 22 different government agencies. We need to get that done and sent to the President in a clean fashion. If my Republican colleagues have some problem with something the President has done on immigration, for example, hit it head-on. Do not hide behind Homeland Security. We need a safe homeland. I hope my Republican colleagues will join us to get that done as quickly as possible.

Will my friend yield for a question?

My friend is modest, my friend the senior Senator from Illinois. But tell those within the sound of our voices how long you have worked on the DREAM Act--you.