Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to reflect on the 1-year anniversary of rain and winter storms that swept across the State of Illinois, causing widespread flooding and devastation.

In the midst of the holidays, heavy rainfall of over 7 inches a day in some areas caused water levels on rivers in Illinois to reach record, or near record, heights. The Mississippi River at Thebes reached its highest crest level on record at 47.7 feet.

Flooding forced many communities to evacuate their homes for their own safety. Damages to property in these Illinois communities totaled more than $15 million.

Sadly, these storms were so severe that flooded roadways tragically claimed the lives of 10 people whose vehicles were swept away by flooding.

Alexander and Randolph counties were two areas most impacted by this flood. I went to visit two towns in these areas--Olive Branch, IL, and Evansville, IL--and I saw miles of flood damage to agricultural lands, homes, and businesses. What I saw was heartbreaking.

I spoke with residents who were concerned about being able to recover from the flood and resulting damages and who were concerned about what could happen if levees overtop and breach again in the future.

People like Bruce Ford, from Olive Branch, IL, worked day and night to clean out debris and move equipment back into their businesses, but he worried about how long he would be out of business and whether or not he would be able to rebuild in the event of another disaster. And he is not alone--many residents in these communities worry that they will not have the means to fix properties and businesses all over again.

The Governor declared 23 counties State disaster areas, and State and local emergency responders were dispatched to affected areas. I supported his request for a Federal disaster declaration for 21 counties in the State.

The State disaster declaration allowed people in affected communities whose homes and businesses were damaged to start repairs and receive the help they needed.

And I want to say thanks for the hard work and dedication of James Joseph, head of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency; he was there when his constituents and communities needed him the most.

The State provided over 997,000 sandbags, over 4,000 tons of sand, and 117 Illinois Department of Transportation trucks for flood mitigation and response efforts.

The Small Business Administration also made loans available to homeowners and businesses in Christian, Iroquois, Ford, Kankakee, Macon, Montgomery, Sangamon, Shelby, and Vermilion Counties.

I want to acknowledge the dedication of the State and Federal employees who pitched in at every level, from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to the Illinois Emergency Management Agency.

Finally, I can't overstate how proud I am of the volunteers, National Guard members, and local law enforcement agencies who came forward to keep our communities safe. Before flooding began, local law enforcement and emergency responders went door-to-door to advise residents to evacuate and move to higher ground, saving the lives of many who heeded the call and sought out shelter with family and friends before the flooding began.

There is still work to be done, but the people who live and work in the damaged communities have made incredible progress rebuilding. Thousands of volunteers have helped with the cleanup. People from all over the State pitched in to help their neighbors and even strangers get back on their feet. Hearing these kinds of stories make me proud to be from Illinois.

Our thoughts remain with the many people who lost their loved ones, their homes, and other property last year.

I want to thank everyone who has been engaged in the rescue and cleanup.

We are rebuilding--as Illinoisans always do--and we will be stronger for it.

Mr. President, the pending business in the U.S. Senate is to set the stage procedurally so the Republican majority of 52 to 48 can repeal ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. That is what we are about. That is the business of the day, the week, and probably the weeks to come. So we are addressing that issue and others related to the budget.

I would like to start by sharing a story that was told to me by a family who I represent, Richard and Mary Laidman, who live in Naperville, Illinois. They told me a story, and I will recount it to you.

My 13-year-old son Sam was diagnosed with leukemia one day

after the ``no pre-existing conditions exclusions for

children''

protection went into effect [under the Affordable Care Act.]

The good news is that the form of leukemia has, so far, been

effectively controlled by a magic-bullet drug. My son is

currently a very robust young man and in otherwise good

health (while the drug keeps him alive). The bad news is that

the drug, as I understand it, costs [Blue Cross Blue Shield]

about $10,000 a MONTH! Without even going into the issue of

``Big Pharma'' pricing--

They wrote--

this means that it would take about $6 million to get my son

into his 60's. Obviously we are feeling dependent on all the

clauses of the [Affordable Care Act] right now--no pre-

existing conditions exclusions, no caps on benefits, allowing

Sam to stay on our health insurance plan till [he reaches]

age 26.

Mr. President, the bottom line according to the Laidman family of Naperville, IL, is that the Affordable Care Act is critical to their family's health and financial survival. That is what this debate is about. It is not about talking about promises made in campaigns or slogans one way or the other. It is about families like the Laidman family in Naperville who understand that were it not for the provisions in the Affordable Care Act, their son might not be here today or they may be penniless.

That is what it was like in the old days. If you had a son with leukemia and wanted to buy a family health insurance plan, good luck. If they would sell it to you, you probably couldn't afford it. And secondly, many policies had limits on how much they would pay. Listen to what she tells us: $10,000 a month just for this drug that keeps her son alive. There were policies that had $100,000 limits on the amount they pay each year. Oh, they were affordable and cheap enough. What would the Laidman family have done if that is all they had to turn to?

Sadly, we know thousands, perhaps millions, of families across America face that. That is why the Affordable Care Act made a difference. That is why it is inconceivable that the Republicans are coming to the floor, saying they want to repeal the Affordable Care Act without any replacement.

They have had 6 years to come up with a better idea, 6 years to come up with a list of improvements, and they have failed and failed miserably. Why? Because it is hard. It is difficult. We found that when we wrote this law.

Let me concede a point to the Republican leader who was on the floor this morning. I am ready to sit down. I think other Democrats are as well. If you want to change and improve the Affordable Care Act to make sure that American families like the Laidmans of Naperville have a chance for these protections in a better situation, I want to be part of it, and I have wanted to be part of it for 6 years. But the Republican approach has been very simple: All we will propose is repeal. We will not come up with an alternative.

It is catching up with them this week in Washington. Have you noticed? Senators on the Republican side of the aisle and even some House Republicans are saying publicly: You know, we really ought to have a replacement.

It is not fair for us to say to America: We're going to repeal the only protection you have. Trust us. Some day in the future we might come up with a better plan.

The atmospherics have changed--maybe even changed with the President- elect. Remember a few weeks ago when he said he thought that provision about the preexisting conditions was a good idea? Well, he is right, and so is the provision to make sure you don't have limits under the policy, the provision that allows the Laidmans to keep their son under their family health insurance plan until he reaches the age of 26.

Yesterday, Mrs. Kellyanne Conway, Senior Advisor to President-Elect Trump, was on a morning show, and she said: ``We don't want anyone who currently has insurance to not have insurance.'' That is a good statement. Then, when she was asked about whether the Republicans should come up with a replacement, she went on to say: ``That would be the ideal situation. Let's see what happens practically.''

Well, I don't know Mrs. Conway, but her observations square with what we feel on this side of the aisle, and more and more Republicans are starting to say publicly that it is irresponsible for us to repeal the Affordable Care Act without an alternative. It invites chaos. We know what is likely to occur. We know that if there is no replacement that is as good or better, people are going to lose their health insurance.

Illinois' uninsured rate has dropped by 49 percent since the Affordable Care Act was passed. A million residents in my State now have health insurance who didn't have it before the Affordable Care Act. Illinois seniors are saving on average $1,000 a piece on their prescription drugs because we closed the doughnut hole in the Affordable Care Act, which the Republicans now want to repeal. More than 90,000 young people in Illinois have been able to stay on their parents' health plan until age 26 under our current health care system, and 4.7 million Illinoisans, such as the Laidman family, no longer have annual or lifetime caps on benefits, and that protects them when there is a sick member of their family and they need it the most. Under our current health care system, 5.6 million Illinoisans with preexisting conditions no longer have to fear denial of coverage or high premiums.

I am going to close with this brief reference. Remember the first thing President-Elect Trump did when he went to visit the State where they were going to keep 800 jobs and not transfer them overseas? He took justifiable pride in the fact that he had jawboned the company into deciding to keep at least some of the jobs in the United States-- 800 jobs. That is good. America needs companies to make the decision to keep jobs here. We need all the good-paying jobs we can get, particularly in manufacturing. But do you know what the repeal of the Affordable Care Act means to jobs in Illinois? Well, the Illinois Health and Hospital Care Association knows. They told us that it would have a devastating impact on hospitals in Illinois. That includes many rural downstate hospitals, the major employers in their community. They estimate that we would lose between 84,000 and 95,000 jobs with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. We could have a press conference for saving 800 jobs at Carrier, but are they going to have a press conference and celebrate when they are killing 84,000 jobs in Illinois with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act? They shouldn't. They should do the responsible thing.

Let's work together. Let's make the Affordable Care Act better, more affordable. We can do it, but the notion of repealing it first and then promising to get around to a substitute later invites chaos. That is going to make America sick again.

Mr. President, I yield.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are discussing the budget resolution. It is an interesting time to do it in the month of January. The fiscal year, the spending year for the Federal Government, starts October 1. We have tried, with no success, to pass appropriations bills--12 of them--that would meet our obligation to fund the government for the entire fiscal year. We have had two continuing resolutions, which are temporary spending bills. And here we are again discussing a budget resolution.

But it isn't really about the budget; it is about the Affordable Care Act, known as ObamaCare, a law passed 6 years ago with the goal of providing affordable health insurance for all Americans. I voted for that bill. It is one of the most important bills I have ever voted for, and I believe that, despite shortcomings, it has achieved its goal and it has done it in a way that most American families would agree they want to see.

As an example, there are very few families in America who have every member of the family in perfect health. In the old days before the Affordable Care Act, if you happened to have a child who had survived a cancer situation, a spouse with diabetes, and you went to buy a health insurance plan, you ran into a problem: They might not want to insure your family because of that sick child, or they might want to charge you a premium way beyond your reach. So in the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, we said: As a health insurance company, you cannot sell insurance in America and discriminate against a family or person because of a preexisting medical condition.

From where I am sitting, my own personal life experience and my family's experience, thank goodness. We had members of our family with serious health issues. I worried about that all the time as a husband, as a father. The Affordable Care Act gave me and every other American the peace of mind that health insurance companies could not discriminate against us or our families because of a preexisting condition.

There was also a practice where they would put a limit on how much coverage you could buy in a health insurance policy. So many people thought: I have a great health insurance policy. It has a $100,000 limit. I will never hit that number; I am a healthy person.

The next accident, the next diagnosis, and that healthy person realized that $100,000 in today's world of health care costs--you could eat that up in a minute and find yourself without any health insurance protection. What happens to you next?

You have been diagnosed with cancer. You start treatment. It is expensive, and now your health insurance policy has reached a point where it doesn't cover you anymore. What then are your options? Stop treatment? Exhaust your savings? Throw yourself on the mercy of a hospital and hope for the best?

We ended that. ObamaCare ended that. They can no longer put limits on health insurance policies because none of us--not one of us--knows what kind of health crisis we might face or a member of our family might face tomorrow. That is important.

A third provision in ObamaCare, which most families would understand in a hurry, involved what to do with that recent college graduate. What are you going to do with that daughter whose graduation you are so proud to go to, and then it dawns on you that she doesn't have a full- time job yet and that the part-time job she has doesn't have any health insurance benefits.

I remember calling my daughter and saying to her: Jennifer, I know you had health insurance as a student. What is your situation now?

Oh, Dad, I am fine. I am healthy. I am not worried.

I am worried, as a father, something is going to happen to her and she will have no health insurance protection.

Do you know what ObamaCare did? ObamaCare said I could keep my daughter under my family health insurance plan until she reached the age of 26. Peace of mind for 2, 3, 4 years while that son or daughter is starting their professional life, their life of employment. For thousands in Illinois and across the United States, more peace of mind that health insurance would be there when your family really needed it.

We also said we don't think you ought to discriminate against people when you sell them health insurance just because, for example, you happen to be a woman. Yes, the health insurance premiums charged women were higher than those for men. Obviously, women can have challenges in their lives but so can men. We said you cannot discriminate in health insurance premiums under ObamaCare between men and women.

These are issues that affect the real world--what people pay for insurance, whether they qualify for insurance, and whether insurance will be there when you need it. That is what ObamaCare did. By providing helping hands to those in lower and middle-income categories, we extended the reach of health insurance under ObamaCare to cover 20 to 30 million more Americans. We currently have the highest percentage of Americans with health insurance in modern history.

We had another provision too. We said: If you happen to be a senior citizen under Medicare and you are paying for your prescription drugs, that can be expensive. Under the old law, before ObamaCare, there was a gap in coverage, and you might spend $1,000 or $2,000 out of your savings account each year just to keep taking your meds. We closed the gap so you had continuous coverage under Medicare as a senior.

Important? You bet it is. A lot of seniors ended up retired with limited savings wanting their meds, their prescriptions, so they can remain strong and independent as long as possible. Don't we want them to? So that, in a brief summary, will contain four or five of the main features of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act--more Americans with the guarantee of health insurance than any time in our modern history in the United States of America.

How important is it to have health insurance? If you have ever been the father of a very sick child and you didn't have health insurance, it is a life experience you will never forget. I know. I lived through it. At that time, I thought, if I don't do anything else the rest of my life, I am always going to have health insurance, and I did. At some sacrifice to my wife and me, but we made sure we had it because for a period of time when we had no health insurance, I felt like I had let my family down and I let my daughter down. I didn't want it to happen again.

I don't want anybody else to go through that. We want to make sure health insurance is there for all of us. Some people say: If you are rich, you ought to get it, but if you are not, tough luck.

I don't think so. I think health care and health insurance protection should be a basic right in this great Nation of America. That was the driving force behind passing ObamaCare, passing the Affordable Care Act.

The Republicans hate the Affordable Care Act like the devil hates holy water. They despise it. Over 60 times they voted to repeal it in the House of Representatives. It drives them into a rage. The first thing they say is, we can't wait to get a new President and abolish ObamaCare.

The obvious responsible question to them is, And what happens the day after you abolish it? What happens when it comes to preexisting conditions? Can health insurance companies now discriminate against people again? What happens when it comes to the limits on how much a health insurance policy would pay? Are we going to be back in the day when there isn't enough coverage when you and your family desperately need it?

What happens to those kids fresh out of college if they can't get on your family health insurance plan? Do you want to go out and buy an individual policy for that son or daughter who is still looking for a job? How about the seniors? Are they going to go back to the time where they have to pay out of pocket for their prescription drugs? I think those are all legitimate questions.

Do you know what the answer is on the Republican side? Trust us. We are just going to abolish this program, and someday, not today and not soon, but someday we will come up with another

idea. That is irresponsible. They are replacing affordable care with chaos. They are saying to the American people: Just trust us. Someday we will dream up a plan.

You know what, they have had 6 years to come up with a plan, 6 years to come up with an alternative to the Affordable Care Act. They have been unable to do it. It is difficult. It is painful.

You know what is ironic, the Affordable Care Act is based on a Republican model of health insurance. This was what the Republicans suggested years ago: Use private insurance companies and make it available to all Americans. That is what we did. A lot of Democrats felt there was a better way: Why don't we make a Medicare Program for every American a nonprofit program that is there. We couldn't get it done. We didn't have the votes, and the Republicans wouldn't help us.

In the first step of the new year and the new Congress, the new Republican majority in the Senate wants to abolish the Affordable Care Act, wants to put millions of American families at the mercy of health insurance companies. They must think we are suffering from amnesia and that we had forgotten what that was all about--sitting on the phone for hour after weary hour with some adjuster who may or may not be in the United States, trying to argue about whether your son or daughter can go into a hospital, whether your wife can receive the medical treatment the doctor asked about.

That is what it used to be, and that is what it is going to go back to when we abolish the Affordable Care Act and don't replace it with something that is as good or better. That is the first step in the Republican program, make 20 to 30 million Americans more vulnerable when it comes to their health care. That is not the end of it.

I live in a State that has the great city of Chicago, Cook County regional area, but downstate we are very rural, smalltown America. I know from my congressional experience and from my life as a Senator representing that State, there are downstate hospitals that cannot survive without the Affordable Care Act. In my State, some of those hospitals are the major employers in their communities and the only go- to place for someone seriously ill or injured.

The Republicans have yet to suggest any suggestion at all about how we are going to keep those hospitals open. They are starting to contact me now--the hospitals as well as the clinics and the health care providers, and they are asking: The Republicans really aren't going to do this, are they? They are not just going to abolish it and leave us with this chaos to follow.

Sad to say, that is exactly what they are going to do. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky wrote an article today and said he thought it was wrong on the Republican side to do that. He said: The responsible thing to do is to have an alternative before you abolish the Affordable Care Act. Good for him. That is common sense. You would expect it from a party that says it is conservative in its approach to government. What they are suggesting with the Affordable Care Act is not conservative. It is destructive. It is catastrophic. It is irresponsible.

I hope my colleagues will join me. We need two or three Republicans to join us to stop this effort. Let us sit down together, Democrats and Republicans, take the Affordable Care Act and make it more effective, fix the problems that are part of it--and there are some--make sure we keep our promise to the American people that they will have access to affordable, quality health care. Keep these providers covered by the Affordable Care Act in business in rural areas and inner cities and all across our Nation. That is our responsibility.

Mr. President, by calculation, we have today and 3 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- Shabab--had some communication among their membership targeting malls in America for extremism and terrorism. God forbid that ever happens.

I know those who are managing these malls look at the terrible situation that occurred in Africa and want to make certain it is never repeated anywhere, let alone in the United States. They are making extraordinary efforts to protect people across America, not only as they are shopping in malls but in other places, as they should.

What is the lead agency to protect America against terrorism? What is the lead agency to make sure 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 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 efforts to keep us safe. They have done a good job. I am sure they have made some mistakes along the way, but they have really dedicated themselves--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 appropriations--the budget--for the Department of Homeland Security, the Republicans insisted we take that Department out of the regular budget process and give it only temporary funding, a continuing resolution--temporary funding--which limits the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to 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 they don't want to properly fund it? They are only giving it temporary funding and a continuing resolution because they disagree with President Obama's position on immigration. That is it.

They want this issue of immigration, separate and apart from the budget of the Homeland Security, to be debated, and they insist they will not fund the Department of Homeland Security until it is debated. So come February

27, in just a few days, this Department of Homeland Security is going to shut down. It is going to shut down.

Many of the employees are essential. They will be asked to come to work even though there is only a promise of a paycheck, and they will show up because they are loyal to this country and they want to do their job to keep it safe. Why won't the Senate and the House do its job?

Why can't we pass a clean appropriations 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 appropriations 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.

What is ironic is that now that the Republicans have the majority control of the House and the Senate they can call any bill they wish. After funding the Department of Homeland Security, they can turn immediately to a debate on immigration. It is their right. They pick the topics, they dictate the calendar, and those of us in the minority have to accede to their wishes. They are in the majority. They are controlling, but still Speaker Boehner and Senator McConnell, the Republican majority leader, refuse to pass a clean appropriations bill to the Department of Homeland Security.

Luckily some Republicans are stepping up and saying this is wrong. I 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, Senators Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. We need eight more Republican Senators to come forward and say we need a clean appropriations 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. Then, if the leaders want to move to a debate on immigration, so be it. But let's have eight more Republicans step forward and join us 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 is what it comes down to. If the President used every penny given to him by Congress to deport those who are undocumented in the United States, he could reach about 4 percent of those who are eligible for deportation-- 4 percent. 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 are 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 has reached that point in the debate. It is 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 Republicans object to that.

There is something else they want to do too. The House of Representatives wants to challenge the President's right to 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, the President initiated an Executive action known as DACA. This Executive action said that if someone qualified as a DREAMer, they would be allowed to stay without threat of deportation. We estimate that 2 million young people in America would qualify as DREAMers, and 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 up in this country, went to school in this country, have no problems in their criminal record and want to be part of America. That is it.

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 senior Senator from Maine has authored 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 in this country under DACA. I have to say that as one learns the stories of those who are protected by the President's Executive order, we wonder what are the Republicans thinking.

I have tried to tell these stories in light of individuals, not statistics, and here is one I wish to tell everyone today. It is about a young man who came to America when he was 9 years old from Thailand. His name is Jirayut New. He was brought here at the age of 9 from Thailand by his parents.

He grew up in San Francisco and he said:

I forced myself to read mystery novels, dictionary in hand,

in order to expand my vocabulary, one word at a time. I

mispronounced words, even in the face of ridicule, until I

mastered the English language.

It is amazing. These stories have happened many times in the past, but it is incredible to think of a 9-year-old facing that ridicule but learning the English language in San Francisco.

This young man became an excellent student and his dream was to be a doctor. Throughout high school New worked 30 hours a week in his family's Thai restaurant. Here is what he said about that experience:

I spent most of my time in 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. He graduated salutatorian 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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Despite this setback, New persevered. In May of 2012 he graduated with honors from Berkeley with a 3.7 grade point average and a major in molecular and cellular biology. One month after he graduated, President Obama issued his Executive order, DACA, and now New was protected from deportation. As a result he was able to pursue his dream to become a doctor.

Last fall New went to medical school at the University of California in San Francisco. Now what does he do in his spare time as a medical student? He volunteers at a homeless clinic run by students at the University of California in San Francisco. He has cofounded Pre-Health Dreamers, a national network of more than 400 DREAMers who are pursuing careers in health care.

New and other similar DREAMers 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 is obvious.

So why do the Republicans persist? Why are they determined to take this amazing young man and deport him? They have forgotten our legacy in

America. We are a nation of immigrants, and our immigrants have come to this country from all over the world because they appreciate the values and opportunity of America. I am lucky. My mother was an immigrant to this country, and I stand on the Senate floor representing the great State of Illinois. It is my story, my family's story, and it is America's story.

The time is clearly upon us to fund the appropriations of 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 also let us dedicate ourselves to passing legislation which fixes our broken immigration system and helps this young man and others like him to be a part of America's future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I listened carefully to the remarks of my friend and my colleague from Texas.

If my friend has a moment as he walks out this door, he should take a sharp left and stop at the staircase and look up. At the top of the staircase the Senator from Texas will 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 Emancipation Proclamation in the midst of the Civil War while surrounded by his Cabinet. This Emancipation Proclamation freed 3 million slaves in America from involuntary servitude.

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 found one moment in history. According to arguments you heard on the floor, there could not be very many more. Let's fast forward to the late 1940s with President Harry Truman. President Harry Truman, after World War II, decided to finally end racial discrimination in the ranks of our military. How did he do it? 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 has happened. But to argue that Executive orders that have been used by President after President are inherently unconstitutional defies any accurate, honest reading of history.

Here are some realities. The immigration system in the United States of America today is broken--broken terribly--to the point where we may have 12 to 13 million undocumented people in this country, where our borders are stronger now than they have ever been, but still have to be fortified to make sure we don't have the unnecessary migration of people into the United States in an illegal status. There are so many things we need to do to fix this broken immigration system, and we addressed them.

Two years ago eight Senators came together--four Democrats and four Republicans. I was honored to be part of it. 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 Senate Judiciary Committee, and it passed on the floor with 68 positive votes. Fourteen Republicans joined the Democrats for the bipartisan bill which was supported by the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, and conservatives and liberals across America.

Pretty good work for a Congress that is blamed many times for just being obstructionists. We passed it with 68 votes, sent it to the House of Representatives, where it languished for almost 2 years, never being called for a vote--never.

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 is what he proposed--two things, basically. He said: If you are here in America and are the parent of a child who is a U.S. citizen or the parent 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. If you clear it or you 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 is what the President proposed, and that is what they want to stop.

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 is what they want to end. They think the President went way too far in setting up this process. I think they are wrong.

The Republicans had a chance to pass a comprehensive immigration bill and they refused. In refusing, they left the President no alternative. He is trying to make sense out of a broken immigration system. It would be better if the Republicans joined us in the House and the Senate in a bipartisan effort to achieve that.

The last point I want to make is this: I think one of the most heartless things I have seen in my time in the House and Senate is the effort by the Republicans to end DACA. DACA was the protection the President gave to DREAMers. DREAMers are children brought to America-- children, infants, toddlers, and young kids--by their parents, who grew up in America and went to school, have no serious criminal issues in their background, and who simply want the chance to be part of America's future. That is all they are asking for.

The President's Executive order gives them that chance to prove themselves, and the Republicans want to eliminate that order. I don't understand it. If they take the time to meet some of these young people, they would realize what a waste it would be of such great skill and talent and love of America.

I will close--and I see my friend and colleague Senator Murray--and say this: 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, to be part of this great American experiment, to have an opportunity for their next generation to have a chance for a better life, that is what defines us. That is who we are.

I stand here--and I have said it so many times and proudly so--the son of an immigrant mother who was brought here at the age of 2. She was the first DREAMer in my house, and she raised a son to serve in the U.S. Senate. That is my story. That is my family's story. That is America's story.

It is time for us to fund the Department of Homeland Security and protect America and then have an honest debate about an immigration policy consistent with American values.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) would have voted ``no.''

Mr. President, I have been trying to understand what has been holding up the funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

The Department of Homeland Security is the agency we created after 9/ 11 that merged 22 different agencies of our government to make sure that 9/11 never happened again. We created this new Department, and we said to them: Keep America safe. Use our tax resources and your best efforts to keep America safe. Thank goodness that we have not had a repeat of that terrible tragedy of 9/11 since--under either Republican or Democratic Presidents.

When we started debating about funding the agencies of government in December with an omnibus budget bill, the House Republicans said: We will fund the entire Government of the United States, but we will not give regular budget appropriations to the Department of Homeland Security. They singled out the one department responsible for our safety and security and

said: We will give them temporary funding.

In fact, the funding for this round ends February 27, in 15 days. So we are in an almost impossible-to-explain situation where the agency with the premier responsibility of keeping America safe is not being adequately funded to do its job. Now, we know we live in a dangerous time in the world's history. Evidence continues to be shown of the ruthless, barbaric tactics of extremist groups such as ISIS.

Kayla Mueller, this magnificent young woman--I believe 26 years old-- taken captive by ISIS, was killed by them. They murdered a Jordanian pilot by burning him alive. They beheaded the Japanese journalist. So we know they are ruthless and barbaric, and we know that they are extending their reach.

Well, we are doing what we must do with the Department of Defense when it comes to stopping them, but we are not doing enough when it comes to the Department of Homeland Security because we are not funding this agency as it should be funded. It has been singled out by the House Republicans as the only agency that doesn't receive regular appropriations.

We sat down with Secretary Johnson and asked him: Well, what impact does it have on you, on managing your Department when it comes to temporary funding, as opposed to a regular budget?

He said: I can't make grants to fire departments in Illinois, Nevada or Arizona. The fire departments come to me and say: Our firefighters need better training; can you give us a Federal grant for that purpose?

Or if they need equipment to keep themselves safe, he said: I can't give the grants because I am under a continuing resolution.

If we look at the budget for this Department of Homeland Security, honestly, there is no real disagreement on how much they should receive. When we look at this budget of $47.8 billion, it raises some obvious questions.

I wish to mention for the record some of the items the money is used for. There is $8.5 billion, roughly, for the Coast Guard. We know the Coast Guard's responsibilities--focusing on preventing terrorist attacks; addressing evolving threats to our maritime and transportation systems as well as the global supply chain; preventing the unauthorized acquisition, importation, and use of chemical, biological, radiological, and explosive materials. That is what the Coast Guard is supposed to do. I said $8.5 billion, but it looks like it is $10 billion in total that is supposed to go to the Coast Guard. But it is being held up by this continuing resolution.

We have to ask ourselves: What is stopping us from funding the Coast Guard properly so they can protect us?

How about Customs and Border Protection: There are $12.5 billion for Customs and Border Protection to secure U.S. air, land, and sea borders; safeguard and streamline lawful trade and travel; and disrupt and dismantle transnational, criminal, and terrorist organizations.

The list goes on and on. What is it that is holding up this appropriation? It took some research, but I found what is holding it up.

It is this young woman on the poster. Her name is Herta Llusho. Herta Llusho was brought to the United States from Albania at the age of 11.

She grew up in Grosse Pointe, MI, a suburb of Detroit. She quickly learned English and became an academic star. She graduated from Grosse Pointe South High School with a 4.05 grade point average. In high school, Herta was a member of the varsity track team, won an Advanced Placement Scholar Award, and was a member of the National Honor Society.

Herta went on to the University of Detroit Mercy, and she graduated with honors with a major in electrical engineering. While Herta was in college, she completed internships at engineering companies, was very involved in her community, and volunteered at homeless shelters, tutoring programs, and in her church.

Listen to what her friends say about Herta Llusho:

I am humbled by Herta's willingness and desire to serve. I

have had the privilege of going to the same church at which

she faithfully serves. She spends hours tutoring kids and

volunteering with the junior high Sunday school class. It's a

joy to watch so many kids run up to her at church because of

the love they receive when they are with her.

Herta, after she graduated, learned that she could be protected from deportation--because she is undocumented--with a Presidential order called DACA. It is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and it was an Executive order by President Obama which says that Herta Llusho could be a DREAMer, allowed to stay in the United States, and will not be deported.

It turns out that Herta Llusho is the reason why we can't fund the Department of Homeland Security, in the minds of Republican leaders. They believe she needs to be deported first before we fund the Department of Homeland Security.

I hate to put that burden on Herta's shoulders, but she and many like her are at the center of this debate--600,000 young people, many of them people such as Herta Llusho, who came to this country as children, made a great record in high school, have no criminal issues whatsoever, and who want to be part of America's future. And what we are hearing from Republican leadership is that we will not fund the Department of Homeland Security to protect America until they deport Herta Llusho. That is what the House bill says. It makes no sense whatsoever.

We were off to a flying start in the Senate. We had 3 straight weeks of debate and 30 to 40 amendments from both sides of the aisle. I thought there was--but for one bump in the road on a Thursday night--a great spirit of cooperation. Amendments were being offered on the Democratic side and on the Republican side. Some were controversial, and people didn't want to vote on them. But I happened to welcome what happened on the floor. I think that active debate, deliberation, and all these amendments were the right thing to do, even though I disagreed with the basic bill, the Keystone Canadian pipeline bill that came before us. We took it through to its conclusion.

There were countless times when any Democrat could have stood up, objected and stopped the Senate for 30 hours or 60 hours, as we saw over the past several years. We did not do that.

We tried in a spirit of bipartisanship to engage in an active debate, even on an issue where we knew the Republicans would prevail. I think that was the right thing to do.

Sadly, in the past 2 weeks, we have fallen back into bad habits. There has been this insistence by Speaker Boehner that the Homeland Security bill not go forward to fund this critical agency unless they can challenge President Obama on immigration issues.

Why are they doing this? Why are they endangering the safety of the United States of America?

Is it because of Herta Llusho and their determination to make sure this spectacular young woman leaves America, is deported back to Albania, a country she barely remembers? Is that why we are doing this? If it is, it is sad. In fact, it borders on being disgraceful.

We need to pass a clean Homeland Security bill. We need to do it now. We can take up the debate on immigration any time the Speaker and the majority leader want to bring it up. It is within their power to call the next issue we are going to debate.

I sincerely hope that before we leave for the President's week break that we call up this bill; that we debate it and pass it, so we can make sure America is safe in this age of terrorism, and then let's save for another day the debate on Herta and the thousands just like her and what their fate and future will be in the United States of America.

Some Republicans have stepped up recently and joined us in our effort. I thank the Presiding Officer for the time he joined us on the rollcall. Yesterday, my colleague Senator Kirk, from the State of Illinois, made a statement on this issue. He said: My hope is that we pass the Homeland Security appropriations bill clean now. I would think we should just pass a regular appropriations bill under regular order. Republican Senator Jeff Flake said: To attempt to use a spending bill to try to poke a finger in the President's eye is not a good move, in my mind.

More and more Republican Senators are speaking up. I hope the leadership is listening and I hope the Speaker is

listening. If we want a debate on immigration, let's have it. I am anxious to tell the story of Herta and many others and to appeal to my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to come up with sensible immigration reform. But let us not withhold funding from this critical agency while we are embroiled in this political squabble.

I yield the floor.

Reservation Of Leader Time

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the President's nominee, Dr. Ashton Carter, to serve as our Nation's 25th Secretary of Defense.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel

Let me first say a few words of thanks to Chuck Hagel, our former colleague in the Senate, who has served as Secretary of Defense. He is a friend, he has had a long career in public service, and he is a veteran of Vietnam. The people of Nebraska rewarded him by asking him to represent them in the United States Senate.

As our Nation's first person of enlisted rank to serve as Secretary of Defense, he had a unique, ground-level view on matters of war and peace, and a strong commitment to our troops. I thank Chuck Hagel for his service and his family for their sacrifices over the last 2 years.

Dr. Carter has an impressive and distinguished record of service as well in government, as an adviser and as a scholar. He has what it takes to be a great Secretary of Defense.

His credentials as one of our Nation's top security policy experts are well established. He earned a bachelor's degree in physics and medieval history from Yale and his doctorate in theoretical physics from Oxford. He has served as faculty chair at Harvard and is the author of 11 books.

As singularly impressive as this is, Dr. Carter is also very much a doer. He has served no fewer than 11 Secretaries of Defense, including Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel. He has four times been awarded the Department's Distinguished Service Medal, as well as the Defense Intelligence Medal.

As an assistant secretary during the Clinton administration, he was instrumental in removing nuclear stockpiles from the former Soviet states of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus.

As Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, he was renowned for breaking through bureaucratic logjams to get our troops what they needed, when they needed it. We talked about this at some length when we met in my office a few weeks ago. How can we continue, I asked him, to reform DOD so that it will be able to rise to the occasion of today's challenges?

As part of the discussion, I was pleased to hear his appreciation for the organic industrial base of the Department of Defense, especially one near and dear to my heart, the Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois.

He recalled his experience in Afghanistan as he tried to bring our troops the body armor and armored humvees they needed. He also recalled working alongside the great dedicated employees at the Rock Island Arsenal as they delivered the necessary lifesaving equipment to our troops and rolled it off their assembly lines in record time.

I am confident Dr. Carter can steer the Department of Defense through difficult times and provide the President with the best policy advice to deal with our Nation's challenges. He has my full support.

Mr. President, while I am pleased the Senate is moving, and moving quickly, on Ashton Carter, I am troubled that my colleagues across the aisle are delaying consideration of Loretta Lynch, the President's nominee for Attorney General of the United States. It has been 96 days since the President announced the nomination. This is longer than any other Attorney General nominee has had to wait in recent memory. By way of comparison, the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Michael Mukasey as Attorney General in 53 days, Eric Holder in 64 days.

I sat through the hearings with Loretta Lynch, and I listened to the questions, particularly from the Republican side, because most all Democrats I know of are supporting her. I listened to the questions on the Republican side and I came to the inescapable conclusion that Republican Senators were going to refuse any effort to renominate Eric Holder for Attorney General. That is all they had to say. Their grievance was with the sitting Attorney General, who has announced he is leaving as soon as his successor is chosen. I listened carefully for any criticism of Loretta Lynch and I didn't hear it.

Then they had the panel of public witnesses. That is a panel that has a majority of Republican-chosen witnesses and Democratic witnesses. Early on, I believe Senator Leahy asked the question of all the witnesses there: How many of you who are on this public panel oppose the nomination of Loretta Lynch for Attorney General? Not one--not one Republican, not one Democrat. There is no opposition to Loretta Lynch.

Why are they holding up this important appointment by President Obama? Why don't we consider that this afternoon? It can be done, and it should be done very quickly.

Nobody has questioned her record as a Federal prosecutor. She has twice before been unanimously confirmed to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. She has been vetted and examined and questioned to a fare-thee-well. She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee for nearly 8 hours, answering every question, including 600 written questions that were sent to her.

It is time to move forward and confirm this obviously well-qualified and historic nominee.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will have the opportunity to report Ms. Lynch out this week. We have the opportunity to confirm her immediately. There is no reason for further delay. What are the Senate Republicans trying to prove by holding up an obviously qualified nominee for a critically important agency such as the Department of Justice?

I hope the spirit of bipartisanship shown in that committee can be shown on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, are we in morning business?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, regular C-SPAN viewers, this is your DVR alert. Get your TiVo ready. After today you will no longer hear the dulcet voice of Kathie Alvarez calling the roll in the United States Senate. After nearly 30 years as an integral part of the floor staff, Kathie is leaving the Senate.

Her road to the Senate began as a young seventh grade history teacher in Louisiana. In 1984 she chaperoned her

students during a class trip to Washington, DC. During the trip she met an old college friend who told her about a job opening in the Senate Document Room. While her students were touring the Capitol, Kathie interviewed and was hired on the spot. Unfortunately for those students, they lost a great teacher that day, but it turned out to be a gain for the Senate.

In 1985 Kathie was hired as the second assistant bill clerk and was quickly promoted to assistant bill clerk.

In 1991, for the first time, Senators came to this Chamber and heard a woman's voice taking the rollcall vote. It was Kathie Alvarez, the first female bill clerk of the United States Senate. What an achievement.

Before the end of the millennium, Kathie Alvarez was a part of another first when she was 1 of 10 officers--all women--presiding over the Senate at the start of the day. If that were not enough, Kathie once again made history when she was promoted to legislative clerk in 2009. She was the first woman to serve in this role too. What a career.

In 1922, for the history books, Rebecca Latimer Felton was the first woman to sit in the Senate. She served in this body for only 1 day, but during those 24 hours she made a bold prediction for her time about the future role women would play in the Senate. She said:

When the women of the country come in and sit with you . .

. you will get ability, you will get integrity of purpose,

you will get exalted patriotism, and you will get unstinted

usefulness.

Well, I will certainly second that.

As the first woman to serve as the bill clerk and legislative clerk of the United States Senate, I would say Kathie Alvarez has certainly lived up to Senator Felton's prediction. She began her career as a seventh grade history teacher and came to the Senate, where she made history.

Thank you for your service to this body. I know you will be joining your husband John and your high school student daughter Georgia in a much more fulsome way now, but we will miss you in the Senate, and I wish you and your family the very best.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is necessarily absent.

I object.

Mr. President, I don't understand why the Republicans in the House and the Senate have decided to hold up one appropriations bill of our Federal Government, the appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security, the one agency that is supposed to protect us against terrorism.

Last December, the House Republicans said: We are just not going to give regular funding to this Department--$48 billion this Department spends on the Coast Guard, border security, and a myriad of different things to keep America safe--but the Republicans said this is one agency we are not going to fully fund. We will put them on temporary funding, called a continuing resolution, and we will get back to you on February 27.

Then what they did is to lash the budget of this Department to the thorny, difficult issue of immigration and insist that we can't fund the Department of Homeland Security unless we take up what I consider to be some rather outrageous riders put on by the House of Representatives on the issue of immigration.

The good news is we have come up with a solution on this side. I am going to make it in the manner of a unanimous consent request, and it is very straightforward.

First, because Senator Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire has stepped forward and offered, with Senator Mikulski, S. 272, we have a clean appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

If the Senator would like me to yield for a question, I will yield at this point.

I would answer in the affirmative. That is why the unanimous consent request I am going to make is the easiest, quickest solution to our problem--a clean, bipartisan appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. But we are not running away from the immigration issue. Because Senator McConnell is now the majority leader and controls the business of the Senate and Speaker Boehner controls the business of the House, they can take up the immigration issue immediately after we have funded this Department.

So what I am going to suggest in my unanimous consent request is that they use their power in the majority to take us to this important debate on immigration after we have given a clean appropriation to the one Federal agency empowered with keeping America safe from terrorism.

Let's not play politics with terrorism. Let's not play politics with the budget of the Department of Homeland Security.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that following the enactment of the text of S. 272, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader 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.

Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate one of the most admired, well-known Americans and Presidents this great Nation has ever seen. Just 56 years ago, Carl Sandburg addressed a joint session of Congress and remarked about him: ``Not often in the story of mankind does a man arrive on Earth who is both steel and velvet, who is as hard as rock and soft as drifting fog, who holds in his heart and mind the paradox of terrible storm and peace unspeakable and perfect.''

Those words echo today, as it marks the arrival as the 206th anniversary of

President Abraham Lincoln's birth. Born on February 12, 1809, Lincoln had humble beginnings in Kentucky and Indiana before moving to Illinois as a young adult. He began his journey into politics there, serving in the State legislature, the U.S. House of Representatives, and eventually as U.S. President.

As President, he led our Nation through its most perilous times, successfully ended slavery, and saved the Union. His contributions were timeless as he paved the way for America to appreciate the true meaning of freedom, opportunity, and equality. We have come a long way since his time and continue to work towards the America that President Lincoln envisioned.

Every day we are reminded of President Lincoln's contributions. Symbols of him are found anywhere you go--whether it be on the face of the penny or the monument down the street. We can and should preserve these reminders of his work and his ideals of freedom, opportunity, and equality for generations to come.

Mr. President, I am standing in today for the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, who is absent for a medical procedure. He was with us yesterday and will be returning after the break. We wish him a speedy recovery. He has gone through quite a bit after the accident that he endured on January 1, and we wish him the very best and quick recovery.

Department of Homeland Security Funding

Mr. President, we are going to have a chance to do something this week that is important, to fund the Department of Homeland Security. This was a department created after 9/11 for obvious purposes. We never want America to be vulnerable again to that type of extremist terrorist attack and all the death and destruction it brought with it.

So on a bipartisan basis we created this Department. Twenty-two different agencies were merged into one so we would have a common effort to keep America safe and secure, and the Department of Homeland Security has done a great job. Secretary Jeh Johnson, who is currently the leader of that agency, is an extraordinarily gifted, talented man, and he is doing his best to keep America safe.

We should do everything we can to keep it safe, too, and that means the Senate and the House of Representatives need to do their job when it comes to the Department of Homeland Security.

As everyone knows, when we talked about funding the agencies of government this past December after the election, there was only one agency, one department, which the Republicans singled out and said we will not properly fund this one department.

What was it? The Department of Homeland Security. I don't understand this.

If the Department of Homeland Security has the singular responsibility of keeping America safe, why would we risk the security and safety of America by not properly funding the Department? But the House Republicans insisted on that position and Senate Republicans backed them up.

Why would they jeopardize America's security over the funding of DHS? So the Republicans could engage in a political debate over President Obama's immigration policy. It is an important debate. It is a worthy debate. There is no reason we shouldn't engage in this debate. But why would the Republicans insist that this debate be at the expense of funding the Department of Homeland Security? It doesn't make any sense. In fact, we are running a great risk by what we call continuing resolutions instead of regular budgetary appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security.

Secretary Johnson has talked to us about what is going to happen if we don't properly fund the Department of Homeland Security. There are grants that are given through DHS to fire departments and police departments across America to train their personnel, to upgrade their equipment, and to be ready, God forbid, for the next challenge that faces America.

Yet the Republicans insist on stopping that grantmaking to the local police departments in your community and mine--and to the fire departments--so they can engage in a debate with the President over immigration.

What is it about the President's immigration policy that infuriates the Republicans? Could it be that the President has said he wants to prioritize deportations in America so that we, in fact, are going to deport those who are the most dangerous in the United States? I hope that is not it because the President's position is something most Americans would endorse, heartily endorse.

Could it be they object to the President's proposal that those who are here undocumented--parents of American citizens and parents of legal residents--that those who are here undocumented step forward, pay their taxes, submit themselves to a criminal background check in order to have a 2-year temporary work permit? I doubt many Americans would disagree with that. It would mean these tax-paying workers would be checked, and if there is any problem, deported.

The Republicans want to stop that. They disagree with the President's Executive order. I think we ought to have that debate but not at the expense of funding the Department of Homeland Security, but that is their position.

So in 16 days the Department of Homeland Security runs out of money. The Department entrusted with keeping America safe from terrorism runs out of money.

What are we going to do about it? There is something very easy we can turn to. It is on the Senate Calendar of Business. It is on every desk on the floor or available to every Senator: S. 272, a bill introduced by Senators Shaheen and Mikulski to make the appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security to give them the budget they need to protect America. It takes out all of the immigration riders insisted on by the House and takes us down to the basics.

So are we going to fund the Department of Homeland Security?

Well, the Republican majority leader has insisted he will stand in the way of funding DHS unless we can get into this political debate about immigration. I think that is shortsighted.

Senator Reid came to the floor a few days ago and said: We are prepared to engage in this debate on immigration--but not at the expense of the Department of Homeland Security. We have had three votes on the floor of the Senate and this effort by the Republicans has fallen woefully short in every single vote to receive the 60 votes necessary.

So why does the majority leader insist on sticking with this approach? It is hard to explain. It could be that within his own caucus--and maybe he personally thinks that the efforts of the President to protect certain people from deportation are just plain wrong.

One of those efforts is one I heartily support myself. It is called DACA. DACA was an Executive order issued by the President in 2012. In that Executive order the President said those who are eligible under the DREAM Act would be given protection from deportation.

The DREAM Act was a piece of legislation I introduced 14 years ago which said: If someone was brought to America as an infant, a toddler, a small child, and they stayed in America, had no serious criminal issue, finished high school, and they were prepared to enlist in the military or go on to college, they would get a path to legalization. That is what the DREAM Act said. It has never become law.

But these young people, we estimate 2 million nationwide, are left in limbo. They came to America, were brought to America at an early age, grew up in America, went to American schools, pledged allegiance to our American flag, sang our national anthem, and believed they were Americans. Then they were told, sorry, but you don't have the necessary documentation. You are not here legally.

So they are left in limbo. They have nowhere to turn. Under the laws of the United States they are subject to deportation. President Obama said on a 2-year basis we will protect these young people from deportation. They will have a background check, they will pay their fees, and on a 2-year basis they can live in America without fear of deportation and work in America or go to school in America. Those are the DREAMers. That is the DACA provision which the Republicans are opposing in the House of Representatives. It

is the provision which the majority leader insists we vote on before we can fund the Department of Homeland Security.

I think it is instructive to introduce these DREAMers to Members of the Senate who may not know who they are, and I want to introduce two of them today: Nelson and John Magdaleno. Nelson is on the left in the suit, and John is on the right on his graduation today. They were brought to the United States from Venezuela when Nelson was 11 and John 9 years old. They were both honor students at Lakeside High School in Atlanta, GA. In high school John was the fourth highest officer and commander of the Air Honor Society in his Junior ROTC.

Nelson and John both went to the Georgia Institute of Technology, one of the most selective engineering schools in America. In 2012 Nelson graduated from Georgia Tech with honors and a major in computer engineering.

President Obama established the DACA Program shortly after Nelson graduated from Georgia Tech. Thanks to DACA, Nelson has been working since 2012 as a computer engineer for a Fortune 500 semiconductor corporation.

John also received DACA in 2012, while he was still a student at Georgia Tech. He then worked for 2 years as a researcher in a biomedical engineering lab at Georgia Tech, researching glaucoma, one of the leading causes of blindness.

In 2014 John graduated from Georgia Tech with a major in chemical and biomedical engineering and with the highest honors. He is now working as a process engineer with a Fortune 500 company.

Nelson Magdaleno wrote me a letter, and here is what he said:

To me DACA means an opportunity to be able to live my

dreams and contribute to society in ways that I could not

have imagined. DACA means one of my life goals, owning my own

company, could be a possibility in the future. DACA means a

chance. DACA means the American Dream.

His brother John wrote, and here is what he said:

I consider an American to be someone who loves, and

wholeheartedly dedicates themselves to the development of

this country. From age nine, I have made the United States my

home, and it has made me the man I am today. I proudly call

myself an American.

When you hear the stories of these two young men, who attended college and finished without any government assistance or loans, who worked hard to get their degrees in challenging fields such as computer engineering, who went to one of the best schools in America, who now have talents and skills that create opportunities not only for discovery but for innovation and entrepreneurship, I wonder: What are the Republicans thinking when they say these two individuals don't belong in America, that they need to be deported, that they need to be sent back to Venezuela, a country neither of them really knows. Is that the answer to America's future? Is it to export the most talented minds, the hardest working individuals, and that the amazing achievements they have made in their lives are to be ignored? I don't think so.

I think Americans by and large believe in fairness. Fairness says we will not hold the children of the parents who were responsible for wrongdoing responsible themselves. If you are pulled over for speeding, you may get a ticket. But it would be fundamentally unfair to give one to the child sitting in a car seat in the car. They weren't driving. These kids weren't driving either. Their parents came to America without any permission from the children. But they set up a life here and they made a good life here. Should we now penalize these children because their parents came to America?

That doesn't make sense. Frankly, it doesn't represent what this country is all about. We are a nation of immigrants, and the immigrants who come here make a difference. They bring not only a determination for a better life, but they are risk takers. They leave it all behind from wherever they were. They come to America and risk it all in the hopes they will have a better life and, even more importantly, that their children will. That is who we are. That is what America is all about and has been from the beginning of time.

Why would we turn our backs on this heritage? Why would we ignore the opportunity these young people bring? That is the Republican position, at least the one stated by the House of Representatives. It has been summarily rejected now three different times on the floor of the Senate. Yet the majority leader comes to us today and says he may do it again.

This is not fair to the Department of Homeland Security, it is not fair to John and Nelson, and it is not fair to this country. Let us do the right thing. Let's fund the Department of Homeland Security before we leave for any recess. Let's get it done so that Department can protect America.

The majority leader talked about what we have achieved here--the Keystone Canadian pipeline act, which was the highest priority of the Senate Republicans. TransCanada, a Canadian corporation, would be able to transport oil from Canada to a refinery in Texas and then export it from the United States. There are benefits of construction, of course, and 35 permanent pipeline jobs, of course. But in the end the refined oil coming in from Canada will not benefit the American economy. We had an amendment on the floor that would address that very issue, and every single Republican said we will not vote to keep that refined oil product in America.

We also suggested that if we are going to build a pipeline in America, we use American steel. Let's put American workers to work at the steel mills to make the steel that is necessary to build the pipeline, and that too was rejected by the Republicans. They said no, insisting on American steel won't be part of this so-called pipeline jobs projects.

Well, I think there are better ways to get the economy moving forward and to create more jobs. One of them is infrastructure, and I am sure we will debate it at a later time.

The other thing mentioned by the majority leader was the Clay Hunt bill, which was a bill that was needed and important, related to veteran suicide, and it passed overwhelmingly, to no one's surprise.

Why was this bill held up in the previous Congress? There was an objection to bringing the bill to the floor by a Republican Senator--by a Republican Senator. There was no obstruction in passing this bill on the Democratic side, and I am glad it passed. I know the President is about to sign it.

The other thing I want to mention is that it is unfortunate we are leaving this week for the 1-week Presidents Day recess. We are leaving at a time when the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be Attorney General of the United States is still pending. She has been pending, I understand, longer than any nominee for Attorney General in recent history.

I went through the hearing with her and there was no opposition-- none. They asked the witnesses who were brought in if any one of them objected to her being Attorney General, and not one would raise their hand. There were no objections. There is no objection to this woman serving our Nation. She has been the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. She has done an amazing job. Why are they holding her up? What is the purpose in this? We should approve her nomination before we leave this week.

Pullman National Monument

Mr. President, a Chicago neighborhood that has played a significant part in our country's African-American and labor history is being recognized next week in an exciting way. Next Thursday President Obama is going to declare the Pullman Historic District on the South Side of Chicago a national monument. This is the first time a unit of the National Park Service would be established in Chicago.

This designation is the result of a collaborative effort by the businesses, residents, and organizations of the Pullman area in Chicago to restore and preserve this unique community. The people who are part of the Pullman legacy helped shape America as we know it.

The Pullman neighborhood includes almost 90 percent of the original buildings the railcar magnate George Pullman built a century ago for his factory town to build railroad cars. It was the birthplace of the Nation's first black labor union, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters.

Pullman workers fought for fair labor conditions in the late 19th century, and Pullman porters helped advance America's civil rights movement.

During the economic depression of the 1890s, the Pullman community was the catalyst for the first industry-wide strike in the United States, which helped to lead to the creation of Labor Day as a national holiday. The Pullman porters are credited with creating the African- American middle class.

I have supported this designation for some time and have introduced legislation with my colleague Senator Kirk and with Congressman Robin Kelly to make the site a national historical monument.

Alderman Anthony Beale of Chicago's 9th Ward has worked hard to garner support for the recognition of Pullman. Many others in Chicago helped advance the proposal: Eleanor Gorski, with the Chicago Department of Planning and Development; David Doig, president of Chicago Neighborhood Initiatives, Lynn McClure and LeAaron Foley with the National Parks Conservation Association, and many others who drew attention to the historical significance of this neighborhood.

The Pullman national monument will be an important addition to the current National Park System. It highlights stories from communities that are rarely represented in other national parks. The park's urban location on Chicago's South Side makes it easily accessible to millions of people by public transportation--again setting Pullman apart from other national parks.

The National Park Service is associated with national wonders such as geysers and forests. Urban national parks are few and far between. With this designation, the Pullman neighborhood is joining the ranks of the National Mall and the Statue of Liberty as national parks accessible in urban areas. The monument will also provide an opportunity for tourism and job creation--much needed in this community.

It is only right that Pullman be preserved and honored as a part of our National Park System. I commend the President for this decision to showcase the prominence and legacy of Pullman in our Nation's history.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.