Floor Statements

Mr. President, 3 weeks ago, scientists at Boston's Northeastern University made an amazing discovery in a pile of dirt. They found a new antibiotic called teixobactin. This new antibiotic, the first that has been discovered in more than 25 years, holds the potential to kill off a wide variety of disease-causing bacteria. It offers hope for a cure to serious and growing antibiotic resistant diseases.

President Obama noted in his State of the Union Address that antibiotic resistance is one of the world's most pressing public health challenges. In the United States alone, it costs us at least $20 billion a year and claims 23,000 lives.

A plastic storage crate filled with backyard dirt might seem like an unlikely source for a breakthrough, but that is exactly where these scientists--who were working under a grant from the National Institutes of Health--discovered this potentially lifesaving medical breakthrough.

Scientific breakthroughs are nothing new for the United States of America. In the last century we split the atom, defeated polio, conquered space, created the Internet, and mapped the human genome. All of those historic achievements had something in common with the discovery of teixobactin--they were backed by U.S. Government research funds.

I have people come up to me in Illinois and say: Name one thing this government has ever done. Well, aside from winning a few wars that were critical to the future of mankind, we have done amazing things when it comes to research.

For generations the United States was the unchallenged world leader in support of scientific research, but in recent years our lead has eroded. In 1965 the United States spent 25 percent of our nondefense discretionary budget on research and development--1965, 25 percent; today, 10 percent.

Meanwhile, other countries are stepping up. China has increased research and development funding by 20 percent a year every year from 1999 to 2009. If we stay on course, China will be investing more in research and development as a share of their overall economy than the United States in as soon as 5 years.

The erosion of U.S. funding is particularly troublesome and costly in the area of biomedical research. Thanks to budget cuts, and particularly the sequestration, the U.S. share of global biomedical research funding declined by 13 percent between 2004 and 2012. Lifesaving discoveries are being delayed and young scientists are finding fewer funding opportunities. A decade ago 30 percent of the qualified NIH grant proposals were funded, today it is just 18 percent.

In Illinois researchers regularly tell me how difficult it is to find government support for their medical research. They can spend as much time applying for grants and opening rejection letters as they do conducting experiments and analyzing data.

There are indications that young researchers are taking their talents to other industries and even other countries. In 1982 18 percent of NIH primary investigators were under the age of 36. In 2011 3 percent of NIH primary investigators were under the age of 36. The young researchers aren't going in to government-sponsored research. Meanwhile, our population is aging, medical conditions from cancer to Alzheimer's are touching more and more lives, and the need for medical breakthroughs has never been greater.

Back in Illinois I had the pleasure of visiting the lab of legendary researcher Dr. Janet Rowley at the University of Chicago. She was an inspiration. I wish I could have met her. Four decades ago, sitting at her dining room table in Hyde Park in Chicago, she had what she called an ``oh wow'' moment--a flash of insight that transformed the world's understanding of cancer. Until that moment it was generally assumed genetic abnormalities were the result of cancer. Dr. Rowley's work showed it was the other way around; that genetic mutations in fact caused cancer. That revolutionary insight led to targeted drug treatments for previously untreatable cancers. What family--what family on Earth--has not been touched by cancer?

Janet Rowley was working under a small grant from the National Institutes of Health when she made this historic finding. One of the parts of her story I love is when she and her family returned to Chicago in 1962, Janet told the University of Chicago she would like to come back to continue her research with a couple of conditions. She said: I am a mother of four boys. I can only work part time. Second, she wanted a microscope, a desk, and a salary. She asked for $5,000 a year. To its everlasting credit, the University of Chicago said yes. Ten years later came her ``oh wow'' moment that changed our understanding of cancer.

One of my deep concerns is this: How many other Janet Rowleys are being lost in America to medical research because they can't get the financial support for the grants they need to move forward? How many medical scientists have been forced to scale back or even abandon vital research because of ill-advised cuts to the National Institutes of Health?

If America is going to remain a world leader in research that does contribute to longer and healthier lives, Federal funding for medical research has to be a national priority. Last week I reintroduced a critical bill. The American Cures Act calls for $150 billion in Federal research funding to support medical breakthroughs over the next 10 years.

I guarantee we will get more than $150 billion in payback if we put that money in medical research. If we can delay the onset of Alzheimer's in this country just by weeks or months, and God willing cure it, think of how much we will save. Last year it cost our Federal Government over $200 billion to treat Alzheimer's patients.

For researchers making long-term plans, it is not only the amount of funding but its reliability. That is why the American Cures Act would eliminate the year-to-year unpredictability of congressional budgets and politics and set a steady growth rate of 5 percent over 10 years.

Francis Collins, one of the most extraordinary doctors in America, heads up the NIH, and he said: This, Senator, will make a difference.

These funds would go to four institutions: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Defense health programs, and the VA Medical and Prosthetic Research Program.

The American Cures Act will make funding for lifesaving medical research less political and more predictable.

I thank my colleagues, Senators Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, Barbara Boxer, Ed Markey, Ben Cardin, Al Franken, Bob Casey, and Chuck Schumer, as well as Congresswoman Anna Eshoo for cosponsoring and sponsoring this legislation. People may have seen the old bumper sticker that said: If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. Well, if you think biomedical research is expensive, try illness.

Medical research is a great investment. Every $1 we spend generates over $2 in economic growth. We more than double our investment and that is before counting the value of diseases cured.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, a brilliant epidemiologist who heads the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said of the discovery of teixobactin: ``That was a long shot--but it worked.''

That was also true with the polio vaccine, discovered 60 years ago by Dr.

Jonas Salk, and so many other American cures and breakthroughs that have changed the world. Private industry doesn't fund this sort of basic foundational science. It can't. This kind of science takes patience and time and a lot of investment.

America is blessed with some of the best and most generous medical philanthropies in the world, but they can't fill this funding gap. Only we can do it. It takes our government to fund the science that leads to breakthrough cures. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, and it shouldn't be a low-budget priority. I think it should be the highest.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the American Cures Act to help save lives, restore biomedical research leadership, and strengthen America.

As Jonas Salk, the pioneer of the polio vaccine, would say: ``The only way we can lose is if we stop too soon.''

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my leader on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski. She and I know what it was like on 9/11/2001 in this building. We were looking out the window down the Mall and saw black smoke billowing from the Pentagon. We didn't know what happened, but we were told immediately to evacuate this U.S. Capitol Building.

I had never heard those words before. We raced out of the building, standing on the lawn outside, unaware of exactly what happened.

We knew about the tragedy in New York. We didn't know what was next. We stood there in our bewilderment, thinking what could we do. Well, what we did was protect ourselves and our Nation and come together. I remember our choral director, when we came together, Senator Mikulski of Maryland, led us in singing ``God Bless America'' that evening on the steps of the Capitol.

There was a feeling of bipartisanship brought about by the tragedy of that moment and the belief that we had to rise above party to do something and keep America safe.

We did. I am proud of that, and I am proud of the role the Senator from Maryland played in that.

One of the aspects that went way beyond singing was to roll up our sleeves and decide how to make government work more effectively. We had two outstanding leaders in that effort: Senator Lieberman of Connecticut and Senator Collins of Maine. The ranking Republican and Democratic chair of that committee came together and crafted a bill literally to create a new department in our government, the Department of Homeland Security, that brought together, I believe, 22 different agencies under one roof so that we could effectively coordinate keeping America safe.

We agreed on a bipartisan basis and created that Department, and that Department has really served us well. The current Secretary, Jeh Johnson, is an outstanding individual. They have so many areas of responsibility. Other agencies play an important role--defense, intelligence, transportation--but the Department of Homeland Security is the coordinating department for America's safety against terrorism.

That is why it is incredible to me that we have refused to provide the funds the Department of Homeland Security needs to keep America safe.

The Republicans insisted in December, in the House of Representatives, they would not pass the appropriations bill for one department, the Department of Homeland Security, because they wanted to enter into a debate with the President over immigration policy. There is nothing wrong with a debate over immigration policy. In fact, the Republicans, now in the majority control of the House and Senate, could have started that debate weeks ago. They didn't.

Instead, they attached five riders to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, and they said: We will not allow that Department to be properly funded unless the President accepts these five immigration riders.

I wish to speak to one of those riders because it really tells the story of the feelings of many on the Republican side when it comes to immigration.

Fourteen years ago I introduced the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act is very basic. If you were brought to America as an infant, a toddler, a child by your parents, and you were undocumented in America, we believe you still deserve a chance.

As children, they didn't vote on the family decision to come to America, but their lives have been changed because of that decision. They have lived in America--many of these young people--undocumented, growing up, going to school, doing everything every child around them did, and then finally knowing they didn't have the necessary legal documentation to stay in this country.

Well, I introduced the DREAM Act and said for those kids--who should not be held responsible for any wrongdoing by their parents--give them a chance. Give them a chance if they have led a good life, if they have graduated from high school, if they aspire to serve in our military or go on to college. Give them a chance to be legal in America.

The DREAM Act we have never enacted into law despite 14 years of effort. But the President stepped in 2\1/2\ years ago and said by Executive order: We will not deport the DREAMers if there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, if they have completed high school, if they came here as infants, toddlers, and children. We will give them a chance to stay in America, to work in America, and to go to school in America.

We estimate 2 million young people would qualify, and 600,000 have gone through the process. They have paid the filing fee, gone through the process, have the protection of what we call DACA, and now don't have to fear deportation. Who are these young people? They, frankly, are some of the most inspiring stories I have met as a Member of the Senate.

The Republicans in the House of Representatives have said they want to deport the DREAMers. That is right. They will not allow the Department of Homeland Security to renew their protection from deportation, and they won't allow any others to apply for DACA protection.

That means 600,000 young people currently protected by DACA would be

facing deportation and another 1.5 million will be facing it as well.

Now, that is the answer of the Republican Party when it comes to immigration. Take these children--who came here as children to America, who have shown they want to be part of America's future--and deport them. Get rid of them.

From the Republican point of view in the House of Representatives, we have no use for these young people.

I wish to introduce one of these young people. This is Aaima Sayed. Aaima Sayed was brought to the United States from Pakistan. When she was 3 years old her parents brought her to this country. She grew up in Chicago like every other typical American kid. Aaima says:

I have no memories but those of living in the United

States; I am an American in every way, except on paper.

Aaima was an outstanding student. She graduated in the top 10 percent of her high school class, where she was secretary of the Spanish club, the math team, and a member of the National Society of High School Scholars. Her dream in life is to be a doctor. This is how she explains it:

It completely breaks my heart to see thousands of children

die of treatable diseases due to inadequate basic health care

facilities, and I want to have the skills and ability to

change that.

In January 2012, Aaima graduated from Rutgers University magna cum laude with a major in psychology. She was on the dean's list six times and had a grade point average of 3.75 out of 4.0. She was a research assistant at the Rutgers Department of Psychology and interned with a local cardiologist. Aaima took the Medical College Admission Test, the MCAT, after graduating magna cum laude from Rutgers.

She scored in the 90th percentile. Her score was better than 90 percent of those who took the test. Shortly after she graduated from Rutgers, she was told that President Obama had an Executive order that gave her a chance to stay in America. It was called DACA. She applied for it, and she was accepted.

For Aaima, it meant that now, for the first time, she could honestly think about going to go medical school. She has never received any government assistance, incidentally. As an undocumented person in America, she doesn't qualify. So when she goes to college, it is at considerable challenge and hardship beyond those who had help from the government. She never did.

Aaima sent a letter to me about DACA and its impact on her. She said:

I went from feeling hopeless and full of uncertainty

regarding my future to feeling confident and optimistic that

I will one day get the opportunity to help my community and

people in other poverty-stricken areas.

Then something amazing happened. Loyola University in Chicago, after the President's Executive order on DACA, decided they would create 10 spots in their medical school for DACA students around America such as Aaima. She applied.

I went to Loyola the day they started classes and met 10 of them. Aaima is an amazing young woman. This was an extraordinary academic achievement in her life, and she was surrounded by those just like her who were ``undocumented,'' protected by President Obama's Executive order.

The 10 were accepted to Loyola in this special program in their medical school on one condition; that is that when they finished and became doctors, they had to agree to serve in underserved areas where the poor people live in America and don't have doctors. They gladly agreed to do it.

They are not going to medical school to get rich. They are going to medical school for the enrichment of a profession where they can help so many deserving people. That is where Aaima is today, at Loyola's medical school. I thank Loyola University for giving her a chance and giving nine others a chance. I thank them as well for giving Aaima the opportunity to serve those in America--in cities and rural areas--who have no doctors.

The House Republicans want to deport this young woman. That is what they have said: We want to deport her. We don't believe she should stay in America. After all she has accomplished in her life, after all she promises to bring to our great country, the Republicans have said: No, we don't need you. We don't want you. Leave.

That is what the rider says on the Department of Homeland Security. I come to this floor virtually every day and tell another story, such as the story of Aaima, the story of what she has been through and the promise she holds for the future of this country. I cannot understand the mentality of some on the other side of the aisle who are so hateful when it comes to these young, idealistic, amazing young people. Some of the things they have said about these DREAMers are very sad. I have had a chance to meet them, and I am going to continue to work for them.

So let us do this. Let us pass a clean Department of Homeland Security bill. What does that mean? Take off the riders, take off the politically extraneous things. Let us pass the bill to fund the Department that keeps America safe and then turn to the majority party--the Republican majority party--and say: Now accept your responsibility. If you want to debate immigration, bring it to the floor of the Senate, bring it to the floor of the House. It is within your power to do it. Don't hold the Department of Homeland Security hostage. Please, when you consider the future of immigration in America, don't forget we are a nation of immigrants, and that immigrant stock has made this the greatest country on Earth, if I can say. Let us continue that tradition.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am a proud cosponsor of the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act and am pleased my colleagues chose to support it unanimously. The bill is designed to help reduce--and hopefully eliminate--veteran suicides by improving access to and quality of mental health care for veterans.

An estimated 22 veterans a day take their own lives. That is twice as high as the general population. Veterans of all ages and from all wars are affected by conditions that can contribute to depression and thoughts of suicide. We are learning more and more, for example, about how common post-traumatic stress disorder is among our returning heroes. PTSD can surface years--even decades--after a veteran was in combat. It is one of many factors that contribute to this disheartening problem.

The number of suicides is disproportionately high, however, for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Young men and women just out of the service and receiving health care from the government committed suicide at nearly three times the rate of active-duty troops in 2012. We have to work harder to make sure our heroes have access to the help they need.

The Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act will create a peer support and community outreach pilot program to connect transitioning service members with programs that could help them. The bill will create a pilot program to repay the loan debt of psychiatry students so it is easier to recruit them to work at the VA. It also will improve the accountability of VA mental health and suicide- prevention programs by requiring an annual evaluation.

Today, in a bipartisan fashion, the Senate said we need to do more to make sure our heroes have access to the assistance they need. I hope the step we took here today helps many veterans regain a path to wellness and happiness.

Mr. President, what is the order of business on the floor of the Senate at this moment?

Mr. President, first I wish to welcome back my colleague and friend, the minority leader of the Senate, Senator Harry Reid. I was told he was coming back. I found a way to avoid a blizzard in Chicago to be here with him because I wanted to be here for this moment.

It is a great moment for those of us on the Democratic side of the aisle to have him back. I know it means a lot to him. We have been on the phone. I know he has gone through a lot in terms of his injury and also his impatience at home when for a period of time he could not read a book, which he loves to do, watch television, or do much of anything. I know he was anxious to get back in the saddle and back here, and we are so glad he has returned.

His message at the outset shows he may be scarred and beaten up, but there is no diminution of the fighting spirit that Harry Reid has brought to the Senate floor on so many occasions with his opening remarks, reminding us we are going to embark this week on a question about the funding of the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. President, of all things, the Department of Homeland

Security, created to protect America from terrorism, is a Department that is underfunded by Republican design. The Republicans refuse to give the regular budget appropriation to the Department of Homeland Security to protest President Obama's Executive order on immigration. The House of Representatives went so far as to add five riders-- conditions--to the budget for the Department of Homeland Security and send them here. They have said they will not fund this Department unless we join them in what has become an extremely negative and, I believe, hate-filled attack on people across America.

Saturday we had a rally in Chicago, and at that rally was Secretary Jeh Johnson of the Department of Homeland Security. Joining us were Congressman Luis Gutierrez of Chicago, the mayor of Chicago, and literally hundreds of people, many of them DREAMers--young people who are now, because of President Obama's Executive order, allowed to go to school and work in America.

Remember, these were children--toddlers, infants--brought to America by their families, who are undocumented through no fault of their own. They have lived in America, they have been educated in America, they have pledged allegiance to our flag in their classrooms, and they have no future because we have not changed the immigration law to give them a chance. But President Obama has given them a chance. DACA is a program where, when these young people sign up for it, they can be protected to live in America without fear of deportation--to work here, to go to school here, and to start to realize their dreams. They even want to volunteer for our military. Many of them do. They are trying their best to be part of America's future, and the President gave them that chance.

The House of Representatives--the Republican majority--said: We will not fund the Department of Homeland Security to protect America against terrorism unless the Senate will vote to literally deport the DREAMers.

At a time, as Senator Reid said, when we are threatened with ISIS, when we are sickened by the images on television of innocent people-- including Americans--being beheaded, at that same time the Republicans on Capitol Hill are telling us: We are not going to properly fund the Department of Homeland Security to protect America unless we can protest what President Obama has done for 600,000 young people protected by DACA.

Senator Reid quoted Senator McCaskill, who spoke up at one of our meetings the other day, who said: Apparently the Republicans fear the DREAMers more than they fear the terrorists, more than they fear ISIS.

That is wrong. I do not know who cooked up this political strategy. They were not thinking clearly. If they were thinking clearly, we would fund that Department with a clean appropriation--one that is now sitting on the calendar of the Senate that was offered by Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Barbara Mikulski. It is sitting here. By unanimous consent, with the approval of the majority leader, we could pass it today, fund this agency.

I asked Secretary Johnson: Well, what difference does it make if you get a temporary funding bill or a regular budget bill?

He said: I can't properly run this Department. I am wasting time and money. I am not investing in things that make us safer because of the way Congress--in this case, the House Republicans--insists that they will not properly fund this agency.

It funded every other agency of government except for the Department of Homeland Security. What are they thinking? Why would they want to make an object lesson out of this critical Department?

I said to Secretary Johnson: So what types of things can't you do?

He gave one example. He said: We give grants for research to find ways to make America safer when we are attacked. We can't give those grants now because we are under a continuing resolution.

Research to make America safe has stopped. Is that a wise thing for the new Republican majority in the House and Senate to do? Clearly, that is their plan. But we are going to give them an alternative and very quickly. Tomorrow we are going to consider a procedural motion about whether we go to this House bill, which has the five riders on immigration. I believe the Democrats will say: No, we want a clean bill, and we want to move to that bill quickly.

And we need to do it not just because we need to keep America safe-- isn't that our first obligation?--but secondly because I do not believe our caucus--and I hope not a majority of the other caucus--has the same hate-filled feelings toward DREAMers that we have seen in the House of Representatives.

Mr. President, 600,000 of them have stepped forward. I have come to the floor day after day to tell their stories. They are the most amazing stories of young people who, with no help from the government, finished college and pursued professional degrees, without a penny of assistance from our government, whose only dream is to be part of the future of America. They are our future. They will help our economy. They will reduce our deficit. They will once again reestablish and reaffirm the American dream that people can risk everything to come to this country to make sure their children have a better life. These DREAMers deserve that chance. America deserves the chance to be properly secure in this age of terrorism. This Republican strategy is not going to achieve that.

I thank my colleague.

I will be happy to yield for a question.

I thank the Senator from Nevada, our minority leader. Fourteen years ago I introduced the DREAM Act, and I got into a spat with a Republican Senator, Mr. Hatch, who said: That is my idea.

I said: Fine. Then it will be the Hatch-Durbin DREAM Act.

And we introduced it 14 years ago, and it has not been enacted into law. Senator Hatch now has some misgivings over this issue, but I have stuck with it for 14 years. And the majority leader joined me in sending a letter to President Obama asking that he create this Executive order of protection.

I would like to say a word about Executive orders. Republicans come to the floor and suggest that when a President of the United States issues an Executive order, it is an unconstitutional exercise of power. You hear it over and over again.

If you step out of this Chamber and take just a few steps toward the staircase, you will see this magnificent, historic painting of Abraham Lincoln signing the Emancipation Proclamation. It is historic because, with the signature of President Lincoln, 3 million American slaves were freed--an Executive order. And it was an order which had the force of law. It was signed by President Lincoln--an Executive order.

It was not the only one. You think back in history to the historic Executive orders, and you have to think of Harry Truman. After World War II Harry Truman stepped up and said: We are going to integrate the Armed Forces of the United States of America, and I will not wait for Congress. Give me the pen and paper to sign the Executive order to achieve it.

So if President Lincoln can liberate 3 million American slaves, if President Truman can sign an Executive order integrating the Armed Forces, how can the Republicans come to the floor, one after the other, and say the use of an Executive order by the President is unconstitutional and want to hold President Obama accountable for their misguided thinking? It does not make sense.

I might just say--and I thought perhaps the Senator from Nevada was going to say it as well--if none of the Republicans like what President Obama has done on immigration, can I remind them they are now in majority control of the House and the Senate? If they think it is better to have a law enacted--despite the fact that for 2 years the House of Representatives refused to even call the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform--if they think it is proper and right for a law to be enacted on immigration, the

American people have given them the majorities in both Houses to do it.

So instead of cursing the darkness and failing to fund the Department of Homeland Security, why don't they roll up their sleeves and go to work as Members of the House and Senate and pass immigration reform? I think that is worthy of this great body and the one across the rotunda. But to underfund the Department of Homeland Security that protects us from terrorism? What are they thinking?

I thank the Senator from Nevada for returning. It feels great to have you back in your capacity here as our leader on the Democratic side and as my friend.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me say at the outset while the majority leader is still on the floor, it is true we have had a constructive relationship during the last several weeks as we have considered this bill. Although

those of us on the Democratic side don't want to get comfortable in our minority status, we are determined to make sure it is, as described, a constructive relationship.

To that end we have not used some of the tactics we have seen in past years. We have not insisted on burning 30 hours and 60 hours at a time, causing people who subscribe to C-SPAN to call their cable operators and say why am I paying for the Senate; nothing is happening. Instead, we have tried to use that time to put together packages, bipartisan packages of amendments and we have been successful.

I hope we can continue with that. As long as there is mutual respect, good faith, and cooperation, I look forward to in my role--as soon as Senator Reid returns--as the whip on the Democratic side to do our best to continue this constructive relationship.

I have said it before and I will say it again. What we have seen over the last several weeks is the Senate I remember, the Senate I was elected to, the Senate where there was active debate, deliberation, amendments. For some Members, it is a new experience. I hope in our role as the minority we can work with the Senators with a feeling of mutual respect to achieve at least debate on the floor, if not some significant legislation.

I would be happy to yield.

I thank the majority leader.

Mr. President, 29 days from today, on February 27, the Department of Homeland Security of the United States of America will run out of money. The only way to prevent this is for Congress to pass legislation to fund this Department. We should not even be debating whether we are going to fund the Department that protects America from terrorism threats, but that is fact.

Republicans in the House, when we did the budget bill, insisted that we would fund the entire Federal Government through September 30, except for the Department of Homeland Security. The reason they withheld regular budget funding for that Department was they wanted to make a political point. They are angered at President Obama for stepping forward with Executive orders on the issue of immigration, even though the same House Republicans have refused for over a year and a half to call the comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed this Senate on a bipartisan basis and refused for over a year and a half to address any aspect of immigration. In a fit of pique they said: We are so angry President Obama is going to do something by way of Executive order, we are going to withhold regular funding from the Department that protects America from terrorism.

What were they thinking? Look at the world we live in: a world of Charlie Hebdo, a world of beheading of Japanese journalists, a world that is in danger of terrorist threat, and the United States has felt that danger. We will never forget what happened on 9/11. After that experience, we made the Department of Homeland Security a critical, viable part of America's defense against terrorism.

The Republicans have said: No, before we fund this agency, we have to have five riders on the appropriations bill that attack President Obama. Then we might consider giving regular funding to this Department. One aspect of those riders is particularly troubling.

It was 14 years ago that I introduced the DREAM Act, a simple concept. Children brought to the United States by their parents who are undocumented should be given a chance--simple. Children who were brought to the United States as infants and toddlers and had no voice in the decision of their family and end up here undocumented should be given a chance--a chance to complete school, to be good citizens, to go on to college, to serve in the military, and then a path to legal status. It is not a radical idea.

At times many Republicans have openly supported the DREAM Act. When we couldn't pass it I appealed to the President, at least protect these DREAMers from being deported. These kids did nothing wrong. They were brought here by their parents. Why hold these children accountable? The President agreed and 2\1/2\ years ago created DACA.

DACA is an Executive order that says to these young people who would otherwise qualify for the DREAM Act, you come forward, you identify yourself, you let us make sure you have no criminal record that would be of worry to anyone, pay your fee, and we will allow you to temporarily stay in the United States as a student or a worker without being deported. It is just that simple.

We estimate 2 million young children are eligible for the DREAM Act-- 2 million--and 600,000 have already registered under DACA, the President's Executive order.

What did the House Republicans say? They said, before we will fund the Department of Homeland Security protecting America against terrorism, you have to deport the DREAMers, refuse to renew the DACA protection for 600,000 who have signed up, and refuse to allow any new young person to sign up for this protection.

I have come to the floor for a long period of time and I will continue to because I want people to know what the DREAM Act means. It is something, I guess, of significance to stand and give a speech, but it truly doesn't touch people until they hear actual stories.

The story I wish to tell today is of a young woman whom I know. I was just with her in Chicago. Her name is Karen Villagomez. She was brought to the United States at the age of 2. Incidentally, that was the same age my mother was brought to the United States as an immigrant.

Karen was brought here at the age of 2 from Mexico. She grew up in Chicago. She was an outstanding student, and she always had an interest in public service. In May of 2012 she graduated from the University of Rochester in New York with a major in political science. She was not only the first person in her family to graduate from a 4-year college-- because Karen Villagomez is undocumented, she didn't receive one penny of government assistance. She made it through college on her own without any help because as an undocumented young woman that was the only chance she had.

Just 1 month after she graduated, President Obama created the DACA Program. After she applied and cleared and received DACA protection from deportation, she found a job as a paralegal in a law firm in Chicago, where she has been working for the last 2 years.

I saw her 1 week ago Friday. She was in Chicago, and she is amazing. She served as an intern in my office. She is one of the brightest, most engaging people one could meet. She looked me in the eye and said: Senator, I am going to law school. I have just been accepted. She is supposed to start this fall. But if the House Republicans have their way, this fall she will find herself being deported from the United States of America.

Think about it. All we have invested in her, all we have put into her life in terms of education, not only K-12 but a college degree now, and the House Republicans would say to Karen Villagomez: Thank you for being part of America, but no thanks, leave. Take whatever skills you have, whatever determination you have to make a difference and take it someplace else. America doesn't need your idealism, the House Republicans say.

I couldn't disagree with them more. If they have their way, Karen would never attend law school. She will never be an attorney. She will be deported back to Mexico, a country she hasn't lived in since she was 2 years old.

Karen got up every morning in the classroom--just as we do on the Senate floor--and pledged allegiance to that flag. That is the only flag she knows. When she sings the national anthem, it is not the national anthem of Mexico, it is the national anthem of the United States of America. Karen wants to be part of the future of this country.

Two weeks ago when she joined me at Erie House in Chicago for a press conference, this is what she said:

DACA represents the values and heritage of this country of

immigrants; it was the right thing to do and it has changed

my life by replacing fear with hope. This executive action

gave me an overwhelming sense of relief and hope. It lifted

me from the shadows.

Karen's is one of 2 million stories of eligible young people who want to be part of the future of America.

It is time for the Senate to say no to the House on a bipartisan basis. It is time for us to reject this hate-filled amendment process they engaged in that put five riders on this appropriations bill to penalize young people such as Karen Villagomez.

Is that the face of the Republican Party of America--deporting Karen Villagomez and saying to her and others: You are not welcome in America. Leave.

I don't think so. There are many Republicans who come to me and say: I support the DREAM Act. So let's support the DREAM Act. This is their chance. Step up and defeat these horrible riders that were attached to this appropriations bill by the House Republicans. Step up and give us a chance as a nation to renew our commitment to our diversity, to our heritage as a nation of immigrants, and to renew our commitment to young people such as Karen, whom we have told: If you work hard against the odds and succeed, we want you to be part of our future.

Mr. President, earlier this month I had a chance to visit Cuba with a delegation of Senators and House Members. We met with Cuban Archbishop Jaime Ortega, who shared the wonderful story of Pope Francis's efforts to improve relations between the United States and Cuba and to secure the release of American prisoner Alan Gross.

We met with many Cuban reformers and activists, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, foreign ambassadors from many countries, various ministry officials, agriculture, telecommunications, science and technology, and the environment--all areas of considerable potential for the greater U.S.-Cuban cooperation.

Our visit came 1 month after President Obama secured the release of Alan Gross and made the historic decision to restore full diplomatic relations with Cuba and begin rolling back over 50 years of failed policies toward that island.

As I have said many times, I am not a fan of the Castro regime. It has a troubling history of human rights abuse and suppressing peaceful political dissent. It has squandered the talents of so many of its own people with a frozen economic and political system, and it has refused to provide a full accounting of the tragic death of Cuban activist and patriot Oswaldo Paya.

But I have also argued that our policy toward Cuba, which has spanned 11 different U.S. Presidents, has failed--and failed miserably--to bring reform and change in Cuba. Our policy toward Cuba has also hurt the United States and our diplomatic standing in the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean, where many--fairly or unfairly--regard U.S.- Cuban policy as an outdated relic of the Cold War.

So I was delighted and fully supportive when President Obama took this bold move. During my visit I could already see the dividends, most notably in the expressions of hope by the Cuban people. If you go down the streets of Havana, on their pedicabs there are American flags. That would have been unthinkable 2 months ago. Now it is part of their statement that it is time for a new relationship between Cuba and the United States.

As one Cuban activist starkly told me, her talks with others around the island highlighted something she thought had been lost to the Cuban people--a sense of hope.

We need to do all we can to fulfill the hopes of the Cuban people, and one easy way is to provide greater engagement with America, with ideas, with energy, with the vibrancy that our Nation can offer.

I am going to join today with my colleagues: Republican Senators Flake, Enzi, Moran, and Boozman, as well as Democratic Senators Leahy, Udall, and Whitehouse, to introduce legislation that will lift the remaining travel restrictions on American travel to Cuba. Representatives Sanford and McGovern will have a similar bill in the House.

President Obama recently eased these restrictions, but we need to do our part in Congress. It is not only the right thing for the Cuban people; it is the right thing for America. Americans shouldn't have restrictions on their freedom to travel. We don't restrict Americans from traveling to nations with whom we fought wars such as Vietnam, and we don't restrict Americans from traveling to countries with troubling regimes--North Korea, Iran, and Uzbekistan.

During the height of the Cold War, Americans were allowed to travel to the Soviet Union. So why not Cuba? Why do we still isolate this country? Some say that this is a repressive regime, and we don't want to show recognition to this regime.

It is just within this week that our President visited Saudi Arabia to attend the memorial service for the late King of that country. I would daresay there are aspects of the human rights policy of Saudi Arabia which aren't even close to American standards, and yet we consider them a valuable ally.

There is also a lesson in history. When the Soviet Union started to come down, it was cracking on the edges, in the Baltics, and in the Warsaw Pact. As the other republics saw the outside world, they saw the opportunity and the need for change.

We have not prevailed with isolation. Let's engage the Cuban people. Let's engage their economy. Let's engage their minds in thinking about a 21st century far different than the dark days of communism which they have lived under for so many decades.

I know that several of my colleagues here--particularly those of Cuban descent--have strong, strong personal and family feelings about our relationship with Cuba. I don't diminish that one bit. There is real suffering that has taken place by their families and many others.

But I hope we can look to the future, look to the next generation, and look to the possibility that we can engage Cuba in a positive way. Ultimately, it will be this new flow of American engagement and ideas that will help open Cuba and improve the lives of their people.

Certainly, we ought to try something different. There have been 50 years of isolation, and those 50 years have not worked. Today we are taking the first few steps on a path which I strongly support.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, 30 days from today, on February 27, the Department of Homeland Security, the

lead agency in protecting America from terrorism, will run out of money. The only way to prevent this important government agency from shutting down is for Congress to pass legislation to fund the Department and to do it quickly.

This morning, we moved to the second reading, what is known as a clean appropriations bill, which will provide resources for this critical Department. I hope the Senate can take that up quickly and pass it quickly as well.

We should not even be debating the funding for the Homeland Security Department. Every other government agency has been funded through the end of the fiscal year, the end of September, but not the Department of Homeland Security. The House Republicans insisted on separating this critical agency from the rest of the Federal Government and treating it differently, giving it temporary funding--what is known as a continuing resolution--and making it extremely difficult for the Department of Homeland Security to do its job to keep America safe.

Why did the Republicans insist that this one agency be treated differently, funded in a way that it can't do its job effectively? They are using the deadline, the end of February, on this Department's funding in an attempt to force the Senate to accept extreme anti- immigrant amendments that have been attached to the homeland security bill in the House. The House Republicans' message to the Senate is very straightforward: Accept our controversial immigration amendments or we will shut down the Homeland Security Department. That is the height of irresponsibility. Now is not the time to play politics with homeland security.

Just this weekend the world witnessed another horrible terrorist act, the beheading of a Japanese hostage by the terrorist group ISIS. In light of the terrorist threat we currently face, it would be the height of irresponsibility to shut down the Department of Homeland Security as threatened by the House Republicans. That is one of the key government agencies charged with protecting Americans.

Today I am calling on the Senate majority leader for a clean appropriations bill that we moved forward on the calendar this morning. Let's pass this bill. Let's make sure we do it in a timely way. Let's fund this Department.

Some Republican leaders are arguing, well, it is not such a big deal, giving temporary funding to the Department of Homeland Security, playing roulette with the prospects of whether it will be funded for the rest of this fiscal year.

Last week the Republican chairman of the Senate homeland security committee here in the Senate reportedly said, and I quote, that he ``isn't that concerned about the potential shutdown of the Homeland Security Department.''

Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security, has a much different view. He says our homeland security is already at risk because the Department is operating under a short-term funding bill known as a continuing resolution. Listen to what Secretary Johnson said: ``As long as this Department continues to operate on a [continuing resolution], we are prevented from funding key homeland security initiatives [including] new grants to state and local law enforcement [and] additional border security resources.''

How many times have we heard from the other side of the aisle the highest priority in America is our border security? Many of us agreed and voted for a comprehensive immigration reform that folded more resources than ever into protecting the border. Now the same people, the same elected officials, who have been arguing for a strong border are underfunding the Department with that responsibility. The Secretary reminds us their approach to this is going to jeopardize investments in border security.

What are these amendments the House Republicans feel so strongly about that they are willing to risk the funding of this critical agency? The bill the House passed would defund President Obama's immigration policies, including the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program known as DACA.

A quick history about how we reached the point we are at today. It was 14 years ago when I introduced the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act was designed to take care of children brought to America by their parents, children who were undocumented, and to give those children a chance, if they led a good life and finished school, if they were prepared to go to college or join our military, to have a path to legal status. Over the years this has been debated widely. Even many Republican leaders have stepped up and said, well, it is fundamentally just. Why would you hold the children responsible for a decision made by their parents to come to this country? Why would you jeopardize the future of a child because the parents came here, overstayed their visa, or failed to file the necessary papers for their child? Even former Arkansas Governor Huckabee, interviewed this Sunday on television, made that very point. You don't arrest a parent for speeding in the front seat and then arrest the baby sitting in the back seat for speeding. He made that point in light of his decisions as the Governor of Arkansas.

Over time this concept of the DREAM Act has been moving toward acceptance by both political parties but moving very slowly. For 14 years we have been debating this one simple idea, that children should not be held responsible for the wrongdoing of their parents, that young people brought to this country and undocumented should be given a chance. And, of course, 2\1/2\ years ago, President Obama did something. He did it at the request of many Senators, including myself. We wrote to him and said, Mr. President, while the Senate and Congress debate the future of the DREAM Act, there are literally thousands of these young people who have no future in America. They don't know which way to turn. They can't get drivers licenses. They can't go to school with any government assistance. They don't have any basic idea what their future is going to be.

The President said, here is what I will do. I will create this Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, the DACA Program. If these young people will come forward, if they will submit a filing fee to cover the cost of the program, if they will submit themselves to background checks, then we will give them temporary status in America-- temporary status in America. We are not making them citizens or declaring them legal forever. We are saying they can go to school and work without the fear of deportation.

We estimate there are 2 million young people in our Nation of 350 million-plus who would qualify for this DACA treatment. Six hundred thousand have in fact registered in the 2\1/2\ years since the President's decision. DACA put on hold deportation so these young people who grow up in this country would have a chance. These are the DREAMers. They are the ones we have referred to over and over on the floor and tell their stories.

Think about it. America is already invested in these young people. We paid for their education. We sent them to the classrooms in the schools. They stood there every morning by their desk, hand over their heart, pledging allegiance to the same flag we pledged allegiance to this morning. They sang the only national anthem they have ever known. They are just asking for a chance.

Over the years I have come to the floor to tell their stories because leaving the explanation at this point really doesn't touch on the reality of who these DREAMers are. I am going to tell another story this morning, and I want the record to show this young man I am about to speak about, Juan Rios. He is a person whom the House Republicans want to deport. They have said by their vote--by the amendment they put on this appropriations bill--they want Juan Rios to leave the United States of America. That is their goal, deport the DREAMers, all of those who have signed up for DACA and those who might sign up. That is just part of what they are trying to achieve. But that to me is the starting point that ought to be our starting point for debate.

Juan Rios was brought to the United States when he was 10 years old. In high school Juan decided what his calling was. It was military service. He became a leader in the Air Force Junior ROTC in his high school, group commander, and armed drill team captain, and he rose to the rank of cadet lieutenant colonel.

This photo is of Juan in uniform in high school. His dream was to attend

the Air Force Academy. Of course, it is a dream that couldn't happen. He is undocumented. Instead, he enrolled in Arizona State University.

In 2010 Juan Rios graduated from Arizona State University. What course did he study? It was a degree in aeronautical engineering. He is some student.

This is a picture of him at his graduation. But after he graduated with his degree in engineering, he didn't know which way to turn. He couldn't enlist in the military like he wanted to. He couldn't work as an engineer because he was undocumented. His talents were wasted. He sent me a letter at that time and said:

The United States of America is the country I want to live

my life in, where I want to flourish as a productive citizen,

where I want to grow old among my lifelong friends and where

I want to one day fall in love and raise a family.

So what happened to Juan after DACA, when the Executive order gave him the opportunity to have temporary protection and not be deported? In February 2013, after signing up for DACA, he interviewed for his first engineering job. Today Juan is working as a mechanical engineer in the semiconductor industry.

At the age of 27 he learned how to drive and bought his first car. After living in Arizona for 17 years, he was finally able to visit the Grand Canyon for the first time.

Juan sent a letter to me last week and said:

I am fortunate to have found the opportunity to prove

myself as a professional and to work in a place where I feel

my contributions are valued and recognized. The past two

years have changed my life in every way imaginable. I think

DACA is a responsibility, a privilege, and an opportunity for

everyone who receives it to demonstrate that we as a

community of Dreamers have so much to contribute to society.

Juan Rios is trying to prove to everyone that he is worth this investment, that he is worth this trust. He has done it. He will continue to do it.

So why in the world do the House Republicans want to deport Juan Rios? Why do they want to give up on this young man, with his idealism, his determination, and his record of accomplishment? Why do they want him to leave the United States of America?

Well, it is because he was brought here as a 5-year-old-- undocumented. For that decision by his parents, the House Republicans would say: We have no use for Juan Rios. We don't want him to stay.

There are so many other stories similar to this one. It is clear that DACA works for America. I have been to Chicago so many times and met with these DREAMers. I know these young men and women. I believe in them, and I believe they are going to make a difference in this country.

I also want to remind my friends on the Republican side of the aisle that America is a nation of immigrants. Our diversity is our strength. We come to this great country from so many different places, and we bring so many different cultures, languages, religions, ethnic backgrounds, and cuisines. We bring it all here, and we make it part of America's future.

I know a little bit about this story because my mother was an immigrant herself. She was brought here at the age of 2. Today I stand on the floor of the Senate representing the great State of Illinois. That is my story. That is my family story. That is America's story.

There is something else I would say to the critics of immigrants. Immigrants bring something special to America. Each one of these immigrant families took the greatest risk of their lives to come to America. Some of them literally risked their lives to do it. Others came to this country where they didn't speak the language, knew very few people, and didn't have any idea what their future would be. But they had heard about this America place, and they believed this was a better opportunity for them and for their kids. I am sure that is what brought my family to this country--my mother to this country--and I am sure that is what has brought a lot of people.

That is part of our DNA. Those immigrants, their courage, and their determination to be part of America and its future really bring to this country an energy that just can't be matched in many other places in the world.

House Republicans would kill that dream, and they have showed us that by this horrible amendment they have attached to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations.

They think America is stronger if we tell Juan Rios to leave. I don't. It is shameless to play politics with the life of this young man and hundreds of thousands of others. It is just shameless to put homeland security funding at risk, to punish Juan Rios for having been brought to this country as a child.

The House Republicans feel so strongly about deporting DREAMers they are willing to hold up the homeland security funding bill. The House Republicans are telling the Senate and the President: Deport the DREAMers or we are going to shut down the agency responsible for protecting America from terrorism.

I hope the Senate majority leader will reject this blackmail, and I hope that in the spirit of the Senate, where we came together on a bipartisan basis to pass immigration reform almost 2 years ago, we will reject this hate-filled message from the House Republicans.

For our part, Senate Democrats will insist that the Department of Homeland Security be funded and that the President have the authority-- which every President has had--to establish his own immigration policies.

I see there is another colleague on the floor. I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I announce that the Senator from 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, 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.