Floor Statements

No objection.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is only 17 days until the Department of Homeland Security of the United States of America runs out of funding-- the Department of Homeland Security.

This is the Department we created after 9/11. We said: America needs to be safer. We have to put in place safeguards to make sure 9/11 never happens again. We created a new department, and it was done on a bipartisan basis. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat from Connecticut serving in the Senate, joined with Susan Collins, the Republican from Maine, on our side of the rotunda with like-minded people on the other side, and they crafted this new Department. They brought together 22 different agencies. They tried their best to achieve efficiency, to eliminate duplication, to save money but have a mission that would be accomplished in keeping America safe.

If you think about the departments of government, of course the Department of Defense comes to mind immediately when it comes to our safety, but not far behind is the Department of Homeland Security. So it was December when the Republicans of the House of Representatives, given a choice of funding the government for this year, decided they would pick out one department and not fund it on a regular basis. They decided that one department would be funded on what they call a continuing resolution, which means kind of grabbing last year's budget and trying to make it work this year. Now, what was that one department the Republicans decided needed to be handled differently and not properly funded? The Department of Homeland Security. That Department, in 17 days, will run out of money again.

What are they thinking? What is happening in those closed-door meetings when Speaker Boehner and the House Republicans or Majority Leader McConnell and the Senate Republicans sit down and plot their strategy? Is there anyone in that room who says: You know, I think we may have picked the wrong department not to fund.

The Department of Homeland Security is one we think about instantly when we see the terrible things done by ISIS, these terrorists of extremism, and pray to God they are never visited on the United States and that this awful group comes to an untimely ending as quickly as possible. Yet this Department, Homeland Security, has been the target of the Republicans to really execute a political ploy, a political strategy. Here is what they said: The way to get the President's attention on immigration is to refuse to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Well, they not only have the President's attention, but they have the attention of the United States of America. People are asking: What are the congressional Republicans thinking?

In fact, the latest inquiry, just referred to by the Democratic leader, was an editorial yesterday in--of all things--the Wall Street Journal. The article is entitled: ``Can the GOP Change?'' It basically challenges the whole strategy of jeopardizing the funding for the Department of Homeland Security in order to make the point that they disagree with the President on immigration.

What we have offered, what the Wall Street Journal suggests is to have a debate on immigration but not at the expense of funding the Department of Homeland Security. That is what they have called for.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the February 9, 2015, Wall Street Journal article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of these remarks.

So what are these immigration provisions that have the Republicans in such a rage that they are willing to jeopardize the funding of the Department of Homeland Security? One of them relates to a bill I introduced 14 years ago--the DREAM Act. Over the span of 14 years, though, this has not become the law of the land. It has become shorthand for a challenge we have with our broken immigration system. Here is the challenge: There were infants, toddlers, and small children brought to the United States by their parents many years ago. They were not documented. They grew up in this country, and they went to school in this country. They speak English. They have dreams about what they will do with their future, but being undocumented they are unable to realize those dreams.

The DREAM Act said if they have a clean criminal record, have graduated from high school, are willing to serve in our military or go on to college, we will give them a path to legalization in America. These are young people who know no other country. These are young people raised in America, educated in our educational system--at the expense of our taxpayers, I might add. They have been successful in life and want to continue to be a part of America. They only know one flag--the one they pledge allegiance to every morning in their classroom, which is the same one we on the Senate Floor. They only know one national anthem. Yet they are being told by the Republicans they should leave.

How many are there? We estimate 2 million across our country. There are 600,000 who have signed up for President Obama's protection program, called DACA, which says that on a 2-year basis they will not be deported. What the Republicans have said is: We want to deport these DREAMers--2 million of them--and let's start with the 600,000 who have stepped up for protection from deportation. So they are risking funding the Department of Homeland Security in order to make their point that DREAMers have to go.

Well, let's at least take a look at one of these DREAMers and understand the kind of people we are talking about. This is Johana Mejias. Johana was brought to the United States from Venezuela when she was a child. She grew up in Boulder, CO. She played on her high school softball team. She played viola in the orchestra and dreamed of becoming a doctor. Here is what Johana said about her childhood:

I've become a Boulderite in all aspects of that word. That

town, with those beautiful mountains, is truly my home.

In 2011 Johana graduated from the University of Colorado at Boulder with a double major. I am going to try to describe her major, but as a liberal arts lawyer I may get lost in some of these scientific terms. Here was Johana's major at the University of Colorado: molecular, cellular, and developmental biology, and psychology-neuroscience.

Johana finished at the University of Colorado without any government assistance because she is undocumented. She made it through these challenging majors, graduating with this double major. Her dream? To become a doctor. It was a dream she thought might never come to be because she is undocumented. She literally has no country. Then something happened. In 2012 President Barack Obama signed an Executive order called DACA, and Johana heard there was actually a medical school that was willing to admit students who qualified under this DACA protection--Loyola University Stritch College of Medicine in the city of Chicago. She couldn't believe it, and she applied quickly. Johana was accepted because she is an extraordinarily bright and promising young medical student.

Like many States across the country, my home State of Illinois faces a shortage of physicians in some communities. Loyola University decided if a DACA-protected young graduate is willing to come here and qualifies in the competitive field of admissions to medical school, they can come to Loyola medical school if they promise to give 1 year of service after they are doctors for every year of medical school, and if they promise to go to an underserved area in the inner city or rural areas where there are not enough doctors. Johana signed up for that. She said it was worth it. She would give 1 year of her life for each year of medical school if she was just given a chance to become a doctor.

This DACA loan program we have created is one that allows these students to receive the loans they need to finish at Loyola medical school. Last fall Johana began medical school at Loyola. I was there on one of her first days, and I met her. She is even more impressive than anything I could say in this speech. After she graduates, she has agreed to stay in my State of Illinois to help people who need a doctor.

Here is what she wrote to me in a letter about her life experience:

When the year 2012 came along, my life changed. My dreams

of becoming a doctor became a possibility again because of

Mr. President, we continue to debate the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act, of course, is the effort we passed in the Senate to try to make America a better place for those who need health insurance.

Our goal was accessibility, to make sure more and more people would have access to affordable health care. Our goals tried to transform health care into something that was more preventive, something that reduced the likelihood that someone would be hospitalized or have a serious disease. Our goal was to try to make certain we created incentives within the practice of medicine--for quality care, not the most expensive care. And we have achieved many of those goals in the first year.

Some 10 million Americans now have access to health insurance through the Affordable Care Program, and yet the Republicans in the House, as late as last week, for the 56th time voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Now we might ask ourselves: What do they want to replace it with? They surely wouldn't just walk away from it. And the answer is: They don't have a replacement. They are so determined to kill this program. I will say to their credit that two Republican Senators have stepped up and said: Here is what

we would suggest as an alternative. I will acknowledge they are the first, I believe, after all these years, to actually step up with a proposal. But it is important for us to take a close look at this proposal.

This new plan which the Republicans offered does not offer the same protection when it comes to insuring people with preexisting conditions. Does anyone know a person in their family or a friend with a preexisting medical condition? Everybody's hand ought to go up because we all do. Everybody has somebody in their family with some history--a history that, in the old days, would disqualify them from health insurance or end up with premiums they couldn't afford. The new Republican approach to replace the current protection of people with preexisting conditions doesn't give the same opportunity for health insurance for those people. That, to me, is a fatal flaw.

Secondly, we decided we would make prescription drugs under Medicare for seniors more affordable. We used to have something called the doughnut hole. It cost seniors over $1,000 a year to pay for their prescription drugs. We started closing that doughnut hole, and it saves on average in Illinois, for every senior citizen, $780 a year. So that is $780 for these seniors to have in their savings, in their checkbook. The new Republican approach, the Hatch-Burr program, eliminates that and we go back to the doughnut hole. We go back to this debt.

Sadly, it doesn't provide the Medicaid coverage which people in low- income categories need. Take a close look at Medicaid. The vast majority of people receiving Medicaid benefits in America are children and pregnant moms. When we cut back on Medicaid, as this Hatch-Burr proposal does, we do it at their expense. But the largest number in terms of dollars spent who receive these benefits are those in nursing homes who are broke.

Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, keep them alive. When we cut back on Medicaid, cut back on reimbursements to the nursing home, the obvious question is: What is going to happen to grandma? What is going to happen to mom?

So when they start cutting back on Medicaid, look long and hard. The people whom we are protecting on Medicaid Programs are some of the most vulnerable in America.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, it is ironic that the Senator from Ohio is presiding because I am going to speak about the situation in Ukraine.

For the record, the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman, the current Presiding Officer, and I have now initiated a bipartisan caucus in the Senate concerned with the future of Ukraine, and my remarks will address that during the next minute or two.

We are approaching the 1-year anniversary of a dark chapter in modern history, the forcible Russian seizure of sovereign territory in Ukraine. Perhaps the world shouldn't have been surprised by Russian President Putin's brazen attack on well-established international norms. We have seen this movie before when it comes to Mr. Putin, in Georgia in 2008, using military force to seize the territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

What we are facing in Ukraine is a threat to the foundation of European security agreements and norms of the last several decades. We are facing the use of military force by Putin to undermine a democratic sovereign nation's aspirations to join the international democratic community. These ugly threats and actions by Putin must not go unchallenged.

That is why this week I wrote a bipartisan letter, along with the Presiding Officer, Senator Portman, as well as Senators Brown, Barrasso, Blumenthal, and others to President Obama urging the United States and NATO to work together to ensure Ukraine has the defensive capabilities and equipment to halt and reverse further Russian aggression.

Thousands have been killed, thousands more displaced. A civilian airliner was shot down, murdering hundreds of innocent people, and nationalistic fervor and Soviet-style propaganda have been used to further rob the Russian and Ukrainian people of their own political freedoms.

Let's recall how we got to this awful situation. In March of last year, Russian President Putin used manipulation and military might to annex the sovereign region of Crimea--not because Ukraine was about to join NATO, not because Ukraine was about to join the European Union, not because Ukraine was about to cut economic or historical ties to Russia, even if it did sign an association agreement with the European Union, and not because Russian-speaking Ukrainians were in any danger.

No, Putin took this brazen and destabilizing action because he needed to rally nationalist sentiment in his own country for his own political survival--to protect his own kleptocracy. He did so because he needed a war to distract Russians from the frustrations they had over a weak national economy, domestic political repression, the elimination of Russia's free press and civic organizations, and increasing Russian exasperation with the heavyhanded rule of Mr. Putin.

He did so because his ally and former Ukrainian President Yanukovych was democratically removed from office by a unanimous vote of the Ukrainian Parliament after he squandered negotiations for closer trade ties with the European Union and then presided over the murder of more than 100 of his own citizens. Apparently Putin did so because he felt aggrieved by the West.

Instead of inspiring his own people to share the many talents and accomplishments of the Russian nation as part of the larger global community, Putin has spread a message of victimhood and the West is really still the enemy.

What a waste. What an insult to the proud and talented Russian people. Putin's tactics are from the old Soviet playbook, tired and dated tactics of propaganda, military power, and domestic repression.

The resulting destruction and human misery in Ukraine has been significant and has been increasing by the day. Thirteen innocent Ukrainian citizens, including pensioners and little children, were killed in a horrific bus attack last month in Volnovakha.

The city of Mariupol recently came under shelling, killing 30 and injuring another 100 civilians--part of a likely attempt to militarily seize another strategic coastal area.

Ukrainian Government forces and civilians have come under mounting fire in the strategic city of Debaltseve, where residents are fleeing by the busload. Russian heavy weapons and military personnel continue to brazenly flow into eastern Ukraine, despite Putin's refusal to acknowledge the obvious. Nearly 750,000 Ukrainian citizens are now living as displaced persons within their own country because of this offensive action by the Russians.

The World Health Organization estimates that 5 million Ukrainians living in areas where the fighting is fiercest are in dire need of basic health care services. People trapped in the cities of Luhansk and Donetsk are essentially without any medical assistance. The Ukrainian officials say January was one of the bloodiest months in eastern Ukraine since the conflict started. All the while, Russia and its proxies in eastern Ukraine continue to balk at peace talks and even deny their military actions.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States and Europe have worked to strengthen ties with Russia, to help it become a partner in the global community. Of course, our interests didn't always overlap, and there were disagreements. That is the nature of any international relationship. But to whip up anti-Western propaganda on state-controlled media and insult Russian people--they deserve more.

The West didn't lock up Western opposition leaders whose only so- called crime was to disagree with Putin. The West didn't shut down all the independent media in Russia to deny the Russian people a free flow of ideas. The West didn't shut down Russian groups whose sole purpose was to ensure fair elections. The West didn't conduct a Russian Presidential election in 2012 that was loaded with fraud and irregularity. The West didn't create a system of corruption around Putin that enriches a lucky few oligarchs and tarnishes Russia's economy and international reputation. The West certainly didn't focus on creating false enemies, both domestic and international, to distract from the real work of diversifying Russia's economy.

Let me be clear. The West did not cause the protests in Ukraine, in the Kiev, Maidan Square. The protesters were Ukrainians fed up with endless corruption and political malfeasance. I met with several of those leaders in Ukraine, and I can assure everyone they were Ukrainian patriots, not Western proxies.

While I have been giving the speech, my friend and colleague Senator McCain has come to the floor, with whom I visited Ukraine several months ago. He was there during the Maidan demonstrations and has firsthand knowledge of how this was a homegrown effort to bring real change to Ukraine. I am glad to see him on the floor at this moment.

New York Times columnist and Pulitzer Prize winner Tom Friedman called what is happening in Ukraine under Putin ``the ugliest geopolitical mugging happening in the world today.''

Perhaps you have seen the recent excellent episode of the PBS ``Frontline'' documentary entitled ``Putin's Way.'' It meticulously laid out the web of corruption and destruction around Putin's rise to power. It showed how each contrived crisis at home has been used to consolidate Putin's grip on power, and it left little doubt the lengths Putin will go to to protect the web of corruption that is ensuring his future. What a waste.

I commend the President for working with our European allies to impose severe economic sanctions on Russia for its actions in Ukraine. These sanctions have some impact. In fact, Russia's credit rating is now reduced to junk bond status. But Putin and his proxies have only doubled down, launching new offensives in eastern Ukraine, leading to more death and human misery.

I have concluded, and I believe the Senator reached a similar conclusion because of a letter we cowrote this week, that the United States has to do more to protect the Ukrainian people. I know it is a debating point with some of our European allies as to whether we are escalating the conflict. But to leave Ukraine poorly prepared to defend its own territory--to leave the civilians in Ukraine so open to the aggression of the Russian invaders--is

wrong. We can provide lethal defensive weapons to help the Ukrainians defend their own homeland, their own country, from this Russian invasion. I think we should, and I encourage the administration to move forward. I have reached the conclusion we eventually have to deal with this bully with force. Force must be met with force. We must give the Ukrainian people the means to defend themselves and to build a modern democratic nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Calendar of Business has been put on the desk of Senators. The Calendar of Business makes reference on page 12 to S. 272.

That is a bill that has been introduced by Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire, who is on the floor and is the ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee responsible for the Department of Homeland Security, as well as Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, who is the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee.

On page 128 is the answer to our dilemma. This solves our problem.

S. 272 is a bill that is going to fund the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this year. This Department that we count on every minute of every day to protect America will receive all the funds they need and they will receive them almost immediately because there is no debate between the House and the Senate about how much to send the Department. The debate comes down to all the other extraneous matters which

the House Republicans added to this bill.

So if we are looking for a solution to the problem, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Maryland. We have page 12, S 272.

What the Senate heard just a few moments ago from our Democratic leader is something none of us will ever get out of our minds. Imagine--imagine--this Jordanian pilot captured by ISIS, put in a cage, covered with flammable fluids, liquids. They started a fire and burned him to death.

The King of Jordan was visiting the Capitol when that horrible news came out and rushed back to be with his countrymen. He has now vowed that Jordan, which has played a judicial role in trying to find peace in the Middle East, is now dedicated to stopping ISIS even more.

So if ISIS thought they were going to break the resolve of the King of Jordan and the Jordanian people, exactly the opposite occurred. If ISIS is resolute in their barbarity, we need to be resolute in protecting our country. To think that we are caught up in this political debate over immigration, the President's actions, and not funding the Department of Homeland Security is disgraceful.

The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security came to our lunch just 1 or 2 days ago and he said: Trying to operate this Department, the Department of Homeland Security, with this temporary funding is like trying to drive a car with a gas tank that only holds 5 gallons and you don't know where the next gas station is going to be.

That is what he is up against. So the Department of Homeland Security is unable to fund critical, necessary investments.

So what is the issue? What is the political issue that is so important to the Republicans that they would stop the funding for the Department of Homeland Security? Well, I will say what the lead issue is. The lead issue is DREAMers.

Fourteen years ago I introduced the DREAM Act that said if you were brought to America as a child--a toddler, an infant, a small child by your family--and they didn't file the papers so you could be legal in America, and you knew grew up in this country and had no serious problems in your background, graduated from high school and wanted to be part of America, we would give you a chance. You would get a chance at the dream. Oh, you have to go on to school beyond high school or enlist in our military, and we will put you on the path to legal status. We couldn't pass that despite 14 years of efforts. It would pass in the Senate, not in the House, and so forth.

Finally, President Obama stepped up 2\1/2\ years ago and said: OK. There are about 2 million young people in America--just like this-- brought to the country when they were kids, and now they want a chance to work here, to live here, and to even go to school here without fear of deportation.

He created something called DACA. The DACA Program allowed them to register, pay their fees, and be protected from deportation--600,000 signed up, 35,000 in the State of Illinois.

They signed up so they could get protection from deportation. The House Republicans and the Republicans in the Senate have insisted we deport these young people. I wish to give the story of one of these young people very quickly because I know there are other Senators seeking recognition.

This is Everardo Arias. He was brought to the United States from Mexico in 1997 at the age of 7. He grew up in Costa Mesa, CA. He was an outstanding student in school. He dreamed of being a doctor. It was not until he applied to college that he realized his immigration status made that next to impossible. He was accepted at the University of California, Riverside, but because he was undocumented he didn't qualify for a penny of Federal assistance to get through school.

When he was a sophomore, he met with a counselor to ask him: How am I going to get to medical school? The counselor told him: You can't go to medical school. You are undocumented in the United States of America.

He didn't give up. He did not give up. In 2012 he graduated from the University of California, Riverside, with a chemistry major and research honors. Then a miracle occurred. President Obama issued an Executive order called DACA and Everardo Arias was given a chance to sign up for protection with this Presidential order and he did.

After he received this DACA protection, Everardo worked for 1 year as a mentor for at-risk kids in his own hometown of Costa Mesa. The following year, through AmeriCorps, Everardo worked as a health educator with seven local clinics, volunteering and working through AmeriCorps with some of the poorest people in his community.

During his year as a health educator, he decided now, with the protection of DACA, to apply to go to medical school. Everardo Arias is in his first year at Loyola University in Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine. He is one of seven protected by DACA who had a chance to go to school, but there is a catch. Loyola University said: You can go to medical school here, but for every year you are in medical school, you have to promise to give 1 year of your professional life working with the poorest people in my home State of Illinois, in small towns and rural areas as well as big cities, and he agreed to it.

He has a giving, caring heart. He agreed to it, to finish medical school, and to give the years of service necessary to the poorest people in my State.

Why do the Republicans want to deport Everardo Arias. Why do they want to take this outstanding individual who has struggled and succeeded in life, who knows no other country but America, and deport him to Mexico?

Will we be a better nation if this young man is not a doctor? Will we be a better country if he is not given a chance to give back?

This is what he wrote to me in a letter about this DACA Program which the Republicans want to abolish. Everardo wrote:

DACA changed my life. It opened the door to the future

ahead of me. If it weren't for DACA I would not be here and I

probably would not have pursued medicine. I'm blessed to have

the opportunity to do what I love to do and to give back to

the country that has given me so much.

We are a nation of immigrants. Immigrants have come to this country and made it what it is. We should never forget that. This is the latest generation of immigrants who want to give back to America and make us a stronger nation. Why the Republicans are opposed to giving them that opportunity, I cannot understand. They clearly have not met these young men and women. If they did, their feelings would change.

So let's debate. Let's have the debate on DACA but not at the expense of the appropriations for this Department.

Page 12 of the Senate Calendar, S. 272, offered by Senator Shaheen and Senator Mikulski is our answer, a clean bill to fund America to protect against terrorism and, as the Democratic leader suggested, then start the debate on immigration. That is the right thing to do for our country.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the issue that impacts the lives of every American--food safety.

In 1997, I introduced a bill to consolidate at one agency the Federal oversight of food safety, and I have introduced that bill seven times, including most recently just last week. So I found it heartening to see the President's proposal to consolidate most of those responsibilities into one agency as part of the fiscal year 2016 budget.

Today, 15 different Federal agencies have food safety responsibilities. This patchwork of oversight makes it harder to focus on the highest risks in our food system and makes foodborne illness outbreaks more difficult to manage. President Obama's budget puts in motion a plan to create the efficiencies we have been talking about since 1997.

The President's plan would create a single new agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. That agency would have primary responsibility for food safety inspections, as well as enforcement, applied research, and outbreak response and mitigation. And the proposed agency would be the Federal point for coordinating with State and local entities and food safety stakeholders. This is an important step toward creating a single food agency.

I first got involved in updating our food safety system in response to a letter from constituent. The letter shared the story of a mother purchasing, cooking, and serving her 6-year-old son a hamburger. Very few foods are more basic in American than hamburger, but on this day that hamburger was contaminated with E.coli. This simple hamburger ended up taking her son's life. This story, as sad as it is, is only one of many. Each year, 48 million Americans become sick as a result of foodborne illnesses. That is one in every six people. Mr. President, 128,000 of those will be so sick they will need hospitalization, and 3,000 of those will not survive their illnesses.

While we have made significant reforms to our food safety system with passage of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act--which will improve our food safety--we have still not solved this problem.

Recently, the New Yorker ran an article called ``A Bug in the System.'' The story details the experience of Rick Schiller, who had contracted a form of the salmonella bacterium, known as Salmonella Heidelberg. The condition led to multiple days in the hospital. After his release, he was contacted by the Centers for Disease Control, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture collected some chicken from his freezer as a potential source for the foodborne illness. More than a year later, he had not heard back from the investigator and he still wasn't sure that it was the chicken that almost killed him.

This New Yorker article highlights problems that have been identified by the Government Accountability Office, the National Research Council, and the Institute of Medicine for decades. Simply determining which of 15 Federal agencies is responsible for inspection of a particular food can leave the average citizen scratching their head.

In the current regulatory regime, a pepperoni pizza--because it contains meat--has ingredients that will be inspected three times before the product hits the grocery store freezer. A vegetarian pizza produced at the same facility, however, will probably not undergo any inspection.

For eggs, it is even more scrambled. If it is a fresh egg, it is inspected by U.S. Department of Agriculture. But if that egg is part of premade product like a breakfast biscuit, it is the Food and Drug Administration. It just does not make sense. The experts said it, the data reflects it, and we can be left with only one conclusion.

The fragmented nature of our food safety system has left us more vulnerable to risk of foodborne illness and too often forced consumers to go it alone in the case of outbreak. I agree with the President that it is time for a new governmentwide approach. I would like to take it a step further and establish a single food safety agency.

The Safe Food Act I introduced last week would transfer and consolidate food safety authorities for inspections, enforcement, labeling, and research into a single food safety agency. That will allow us to prioritize system-wide food safety goals and targets. With a single food safety agency, food producers and manufacturers will just have a single Federal regulatory structure.

An egg is an egg is an egg and will be regulated by the same agency regardless of how you cook, process, or serve it. This should make it easier for those in the food industry to comply with food safety laws, even if those laws are no less stringent. The bill also modernizes certain aspects of our federal food safety laws to protect and improve public health.

Specifically, the bill would authorize mandatory recall for all foods. Today, it is easier to recall toys than tainted meat. The bill requires facilities to use risk-based analysis to identify and protect against potential hazards at their facility. The bill will authorize performance standards for pathogens like salmonella and campylobacter and for the first time authorize the agency to prevent products that are not meeting those standards from entering the market. The bill will provide for full trace-back of foods to better identify and stop the outbreak at its source. Finally, the bill provides a single point of contact for families harmed by foodborne illness to turn to for answers.

This new agency will help those families navigate the differing Federal, State, and local food safety agencies to get the answers they deserve. It is bad enough to suffer severe illness or lose a loved one to foodborne illness; you should not have to spend months going from agency to agency trying to get as simple an answer to a question like, Did this chicken make me sick?

This is not the only approach to creating an agency with the primary responsibilities for overseeing and directing food safety, but we think it will help close existing gaps in our food safety system, reduce the likelihood of foodborne illness, clarify our inspection regimes for industry, and provide more clear assistance to people made sick by foodborne illness.

In closing, I want to take a moment to thank some of my colleagues. I would like to thank Senators Feinstein, Blumenthal, and Gillibrand for joining me in introducing this bill, and I stand ready to work with any Member on either side of the aisle who wants to tackle this issue.

I commend the administration for embracing this idea of consolidating oversight of food safety. I hope it doesn't take another serious foodborne outbreak before we decide to act.

Mr. President, I rise to honor the 150th anniversary for Lincoln College in Lincoln, IL. One hundred fifty years ago tomorrow, the Illinois General Assembly granted a charter establishing the new college, originally known as Lincoln University. Just 6 days later, on President Abraham Lincoln's 56th birthday, ground was broken for University Hall, a building still in use today. Lincoln University was the first institution to be named for Abraham Lincoln and the only during his lifetime. The first commencement in 1868 included a total of three students--two men and one woman. Lincoln College has come a long way.

This year, Lincoln College enrolled about 640 students, and 90 percent of those who graduate will continue their education at a 4-year university. Lincoln College now has campuses in Lincoln and Normal, IL, with a tradition of personal education. By providing a low faculty to student ratio, Lincoln College offers individualized attention that makes the difference between failure and success for many students. The school provides a springboard for students who go on to continue their education and helps students find good paying jobs.

Lincoln College offers more than just great student services and academic programs that are second to none. Lincoln College fields a number of varsity sports teams that have won national championships, hosts a speaker series, and maintains Civil War era artifacts at the Lincoln Heritage Museum.

I thank President John Blackburn for his leadership at Lincoln College and congratulate the institution on 150 years of providing Illinois students with a quality affordable education.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, yesterday we were informed of another barbaric act by ISIS--literally burning a Jordanian pilot to death in a cage. This follows news reports of beheadings of Japanese citizens, Americans, and so many others. It is an indication of the threat not just to the Middle East but to the world of terrorism in its extreme, as ISIS demonstrates on a regular basis.

It was ironic that the same day we learned this, I visited the Department of Homeland Security and met with the Secretary, Jeh Johnson, and talked about the political strategy of the Republicans when it comes to funding the

Department of Homeland Security--the same Department that is responsible for keeping America safe from the threat of terrorism.

You see, the Presiding Officer knows well that when we were here in December passing an omnibus appropriations bill, the House Republicans insisted that one agency be singled out and not properly funded, one agency of our government: the Department of Homeland Security. They funded every other agency of the government to September 30 of this year in a regular appropriations process but refused--the Republicans refused to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Why? They wanted to reserve the right to fight with the President over the issue of immigration. They wanted to reserve the right to object to any Executive action taken by the President related to immigration. Their forum for this objection? The appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security.

Yesterday Secretary Johnson came to our Democratic caucus lunch to explain what it was like to manage a department of our government under a continuing resolution. That is the technical name in our Budget Act for temporary funding. He said it was like driving a car with a gas tank that only held 5 gallons of gasoline and not being sure where the next service station was going to turn up. He said: That is how I am called on now to run the Department of Homeland Security--the Department that we entrust more than any other to keep us safe from terrorism.

Why? Why would the Republicans choose this Department to single out and not properly fund? At a time when we are facing threats of ghastly terrorism in this world that we have not seen, why would the Republicans insist on making the appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security the forum for their debate with President Obama?

Now the Senator from Kentucky, our majority leader, comes to the floor and says: Well, yesterday the Democrats refused to vote to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

I will make a point for the record here that when the majority leader turns to page 12 of the publication sitting on his desk, the Calendar of Business of the Senate, when he turns to page 12, he should look at line 7 on page 12 of the Calendar of Business of the Senate, and there he will find S. 272, introduced by Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Senator Mikulski of Maryland.

Let me read what S. 272 is:

A bill making appropriations for the Department of Homeland

Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and

for other purposes.

Read the second time and placed on the calendar on January 28.

This bill will fund the Department of Homeland Security. This bill is a clean appropriations bill.

If you look at the bill Senator McConnell and others have brought to the floor for funding the Department of Homeland Security--I invite the Senator from Kentucky and those who are interested in debate to turn to page 55. Start reading on page 55 the general provisions that were sent to us by the House of Representatives--page after page of riders and restrictions on the appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security.

You see, the House of Representatives said: We will only fund the Department of Homeland Security if we can have our way when it comes to these restrictions on how they spend money.

Well, what is it that is so important to the House Republicans and Senate Republicans that they are willing to risk funding of the Department of Homeland Security? What is it that is holding them up from putting the resources in the hands of Secretary Johnson and this Department that they need to keep America safe? It must be something that is momentous, historic. What is the reason they are taking a stand and leaving America vulnerable? Well, the Republicans clearly must have something that they think is even more threatening to the United States than terrorism. What could it be? Well, it turns out we know, because of riders attached by the House of Representatives. The Republicans in Congress are more fearful of a group known as the DREAMers than they obviously are of the threat of terrorism from these extreme groups.

Who are these DREAMers? Well, I know this issue better than some. Fourteen years ago it came to my attention that there was a serious miscarriage of justice taking place in the United States. It turns out that children brought to our country by their parents who were undocumented literally had no country. They grew up in America. They went to school in America. They lived in America. They considered themselves Americans. They pledged allegiance to our flag in their classrooms. They sang our national anthem. They dreamed of their future, only to learn when they were still children that that opportunity was not there for them. You see, they were undocumented. Their parents brought them to America, never filed any papers, and they were undocumented.

It did not seem right to me at the time that a young person--a toddler, an infant--brought to this country would be paying this heavy price with their lives because of any wrongdoing by their parents. So I introduced a bill, the DREAM Act, at the time cosponsored by Senator Hatch of Utah. We said in that bill: If you were brought to America as a child and your parents brought you here and did not file the papers or left you in an undocumented state, but you lived in America, did nothing wrong in America, graduated from high school in America, we would give you a chance. We would give you a chance to step forward if you were willing to either serve in our military or go to college and put you on a path to legalization. That was the DREAM Act. It was introduced 14 years ago. It has never become the law of the land.

In that period of time, of course, thousands of young people have found themselves in this predicament. It was 2\1/2\ years ago when I joined 20 other Senators and wrote to President Obama and said: Can you consider an Executive order that would protect these DREAMers from deportation so that they can live in America? And the President, 2\1/2\ years ago, did. It was known as DACA, and this program said to these young people, this is your chance. Come forward, register, go through a criminal background check, prove you graduated from high school, and the President, 2\1/2\ years ago, said: We won't deport you.

We estimate 2 million young people would be eligible. Six hundred thousand have stepped forward and have been given this protection from deportation.

This is the program that has led the Republicans in the House and Senate to threaten funding for the Department of Homeland Security. The very thought that these young people could stay in America, live in America without fear of deportation, work in America, go to school in America, is so reprehensible to the Republicans in the House and Senate, they are prepared to jeopardize the funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which protects America.

I have come to the floor on more than 50 occasions to tell the story of these DREAMers, which I will do again this morning.

I ask my Republican colleagues in the House and the Senate to listen to the story of a DREAMer and tell me: Do you believe the person I am about to describe should be deported from America?

His name is Pablo da Silva. He was brought here from Brazil in 2001 when he was 13 years old. Pablo grew up in New Jersey. This is what he said about his childhood:

The same as every other kid growing up in the U.S., I

attended middle school, pledged allegiance to the American

flag, and sang the National Anthem. As I grew older, I came

to understand that one thing about me differed from my

classmates. I was undocumented. However, my parents always

taught me to see barriers as a measure of perseverance and an

opportunity to thrive.

Pablo's dream was to become a doctor. During high school and college, he volunteered at nursing homes every week. He was a member of a group called Doctor Red Nose. That is where he and others would dress up like clowns visiting hospitals and nursing homes to cheer up the patients and health care providers.

Pablo was accepted at Rutgers University, one of our Nation's best. But because Pablo was undocumented, he didn't qualify for any financial assistance. He would have had to pay out-of-State tuition. So he couldn't afford Rutgers. Pablo enrolled in a community college. Because he had taken

community college courses when he was in high school, Pablo was able to complete a 2-year associate's degree in only 1 year.

With an associate's degree in hand, Pablo was able to transfer to Kean University in New Jersey. In 2011, Pablo da Silva graduated at the top of his class with a major in biology, summa cum laude. He received an award for the highest grade point average in the biology department. He was on the dean's list every semester of college and a member of the honor society Phi Kappa Phi.

Remember, this is the person whom the Republicans in the House and the Senate want to deport from the United States and refuse to fund the Department of Homeland Security until this DREAMer is deported.

After graduating from college, Pablo da Silva was unable to pursue his dream of becoming a doctor. He couldn't go to medical school as an undocumented person, so he worked in a variety of manual labor jobs.

In 2012, President Obama established DACA, and then Pablo heard something amazing. Loyola University of Chicago was prepared to accept students who had received DACA into its medical school.

Like many States across the country, Illinois has a shortage of physicians in inner city and rural areas. Loyola University's DACA Program is an opportunity to address this problem.

The State of Illinois has created a DACA loan program. Under this program, Loyola's DACA medical students can receive loans to help cover the cost of medical education. For every year of loans, every year they get loans to go to medical school, these students must work for 1 year in a medically underserved area in my State of Illinois.

It is quite a tradeoff--1 year of medical school for 1 year of professional life as a doctor helping people who have no access to doctors. As a result, an amazing thing happened. Some of the best and brightest students in America have come to Loyola to get a medical education, and they have signed up to stay in Illinois to serve the parts of our State where the people I represent are desperate for a doctor.

Last fall, Pablo da Silva began medical school at Loyola where he is pursuing his dream of becoming a cardiothoracic surgeon. He wrote me a letter and this is what he said about the DACA Program:

DACA has allowed me to fulfill my long-lasting aspiration

to pursue a career in medicine. It has truly changed my

future and for that I'm truly grateful. I'm eager to

contribute my share to the country I call my own.

When you read this letter, you stop and think, how can the Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate have made this man their enemy? How can they look at this young man, who has struggled throughout his life to obtain an education--who has overcome the odds, who has volunteered time and again in his community, who is willing to work in underserved medical areas--how can they look at this man and say he is the enemy?

The Republicans in the House and Senate fear Pablo da Silva more than they fear the extremist terrorist groups. They fear this DREAMer, and they are willing to give short-term funding to a Federal agency to make their point.

If the House Republicans and some in the Senate have their way, Pablo da Silva won't be able to finish medical school. He won't become a doctor. And if they have their way and deport him--which is what the House bill calls on us to do--my State is going to be denied a doctor in a medically underserved area.

We are a nation of immigrants. My mother was an immigrant to this country. I believe immigrants have brought so much to America, not just in hard work--and they take the toughest jobs--but also this risk taking that is involved in immigration. They are willing to put it all on the line.

In my case, my grandparents came here with my mom, when she was a little girl, to a country where they barely spoke the language and knew a handful of people. They made a life, raised a family, and I was lucky to be part of it. And I am honored to stand on the floor of the Senate today.

That is my story, that is my family's story, and that is America's story. That is the story of Pablo da Silva.

Why are the Republicans at war with this young man? Why do they think that stopping his opportunity to go to medical school and serve America is in the best interests of our Nation? It certainly isn't.

Yesterday the Senate assistant majority leader said on the floor that DACA ``kicked the people who played by the rules to the back of the line and the people who did not to the front of the line.''

Here is the reality: The President's immigration action simply puts a temporary hold on the deportation of low-priority cases like immigrant students such as Pablo da Silva. It doesn't put the DREAMers or any other undocumented immigrants in the same line as legal immigrants, and it doesn't put any legal immigrants at the back of the line. Only Congress can do that.

Speaking of Congress, it is important to note that in 2013 this Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform with a strong vote of 68 to 32. Republicans and Democrats voted for it.

For the remainder of that Congress, the year 2013 and 2014--more than 1\1/2\ years--the Republican House of Representatives refused to allow a vote on the Senate's immigration reform bill, refused to call their own bill, refused to take any action. It was at that moment when the President stepped forward and said: I have to do something with this broken immigration system.

Instead of slowing down the appropriations to the Department of Homeland Security, I wish to remind the majority leader and the Speaker of the obvious. They are in control. They have the majority. They can call immigration issues before the Senate and the House at a moment's notice. We are prepared--prepared--to debate those immigration issues, but we are not prepared to do that, engage in that important debate, at the expense of funding the Department of Homeland Security.

Now we are going to waste a week of the Senate's time--a week when we could pass the Shaheen-Mikulski bill and fund this Department, a week when we could initiate the debate on immigration, a week when the Republicans can come forward with their own immigration ideas, if they have any, other than deporting Pablo da Silva. They can come forward now, but they refuse to.

They want to make this political point with the President, but they do it at the expense of the safety and security of America, and they do it at the expense of DREAMers such as Pablo da Silva.

Every time we have tried to pass comprehensive immigration reform, the Republicans have said no.

Every student of American history can tell us that anti-immigration parties eventually wither and die. We are a nation of immigrants.

There are some on the Republican side who understand that, and they can't really explain why the Grand Old Party, the Republican Party, is turning its back on immigrants in a nation of immigrants. That is their policy. They are so determined to pursue it they are willing to jeopardize the appropriations for one of the most important agencies of our government, the Department of Homeland Security.

The President has used his legal authority to bring some fairness to our broken immigration system. If the Republicans think they can do it better, they have every right as the majority party in the House and the Senate to offer legislation.

But with the Homeland Security Department facing a shutdown in just 3 weeks, we don't have time for these symbolic votes in the House bill on the floor. Turn to page 15, I say to the majority leader, of the Calendar of Business of the Senate, and you will find the answer to your question. You will find the way to fund the Department of Homeland Security in a responsible way.

What the majority leader should do is to swallow his pride, call Mr. Boehner and say: Your idea is not going to fly in the Senate. It is time for us to fund this agency. It is time to understand that as resolute as the terrorists are in harming innocent people and threatening America, America should be as resolute in fighting them back.

The first line of defense is the Department of Homeland Security. It is time to fund it. We could do it in a

matter of minutes this morning if the majority leader would simply call to the floor this clean appropriations bill.

I yield the floor.

Reservation Of Leader Time

Mr. President, since I see no other Members on the floor at this time, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.