Floor Statements

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

and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I speak in support of Jorge Alonso, who has been nominated to serve as a Federal district court judge in the Northern District of Illinois. He will fill the vacancy that opened when Judge Ronald Guzman took senior status last month.

Judge Alonso is an outstanding nominee for the Federal bench. He was reported out of the Judiciary Committee last month on a unanimous voice vote.

I want to thank Chairman Leahy for his efforts to move Judge Alonso's nomination promptly through the Judiciary Committee, and I want to thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, for scheduling this vote on the floor.

Since 2003, Jorge Alonso has served as an associate judge for the Cook County Judicial Circuit. He is currently in his third appointed term as a State trial court judge. Judge Alonso has presided over hundreds of cases that have gone to verdict or judgment, including at least 88 jury trials.

He also presides over the Women's Justice Mental Health Call in Cook County. Judge Alonso helped to create this program, which provides intensive support and services to women in the justice system who have suffered from trauma and addiction.

Prior to serving as a State court judge, Judge Alonso served for 12 years as an assistant public defender in Cook County. As a public defender, he participated in approximately 30 jury trials and 150 bench trials.

In addition to his substantial courtroom and judicial experience, Judge Alonso has an admirable record of service to the Chicago community. Among his activities, he serves on the boards of the Daniel Murphy Scholarship Fund, which provides scholarships and support to low-income Chicago students, and the Cristo Rey Jesuit High School in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood.

He also works as a judicial intervenor with the Lawyers' Assistance Program, which assists members of the bar who are struggling with mental health or addiction issues.

Judge Alonso came highly recommended to me by a bipartisan judicial screening committee that I established in the Northern District. I was pleased to recommend Judge Alonso's name to the White House for this nomination.

I also thank my colleague, Senator Kirk, for submitting his blue slip in support of the nomination.

In short, Judge Alonso has the experience, the integrity and the judgment to be an excellent addition to the Federal bench in Chicago. I urge my colleagues to support this outstanding nominee.

Vote on Alonso Nomination

Mr. President, I speak in support of the nomination of Jack Blakey to serve as a Federal district court judge in the Northern District of Illinois. Mr. Blakey has been nominated to fill the seat that was left vacant when Chief Judge James Holderman took senior status last December.

In Illinois we have a bipartisan process for recommending Federal district court judges to the White House. Under this process, Mr. Blakey was recommended by my colleague, Senator Kirk, and I support his nomination.

Mr. Blakey currently serves as the chief of the Special Prosecutions Bureau in the Cook County State's Attorney's Office. He has served in this position since 2009. During that time, he has also served as a special assistant U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Illinois. He helps supervise all joint State-Federal investigations and prosecutions in Cook County.

Mr. Blakey previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago from 2004 to 2009, as an AUSA in Miami from 2000 to 2004, and as an assistant State's attorney in Cook County from 1996 to 2000.

Mr. Blakey has gained significant courtroom experience over the course of his career. He has tried over 90 cases to final verdict, including at least 27 jury trials.

Mr. Blakey is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and Notre Dame Law School.

Upon Mr. Blakey's confirmation, the Federal district courts in Illinois will be operating at full strength, with no vacancies in the State.

I urge my colleagues to support this nomination.

Vote on Blakey Nomination

Mr. President, I want to thank my Senate colleagues for joining me in supporting and passing the Achieving Better Life Experience Act. I especially want to acknowledge Senator Robert Casey, who has been a champion for all people with disabilities and the ABLE Act for years.

Earlier this year, Senator Casey introduced us to Sara Wolff--a 31- year-old law clerk at O'Malley and Langdon in Scranton, PA. Since 2007, Sara has been an advocate for the National Down Syndrome Society. She also happens to have Down syndrome. Currently, Sara cannot have more than $2,000 in assets before her government aid is cut off. Every month, she works with her employer so that she doesn't earn more than $700. This enables Sara to maintain her much needed government benefits.

Over a year ago, Sara lost her mother to a sudden illness. It was a tremendous loss--her mother was her No. 1 advocate. Before her mother passed, Sara promised her that she would fight to get the ABLE Act passed. Sara has her whole life ahead of her and she needs a savings account to plan for her future, and she is not alone. Thousands of people with disabilities are outliving their parents. Parents need the peace of mind that their children will be taken care of.

Everywhere I go in Illinois, I meet people whose lives have been affected by disabilities. Take Gene and Lynn Bensinger--from the north side of Chicago. Gene and Lynn are the parents of two adult sons. Their oldest son, Nate, is 21 years old and has autism spectrum disorder. Nate is about to ``age out'' of services offered through Chicago Public Schools and will no longer be eligible for special education services that he relies on. Nate's parents, along with thousands of Illinois families, experience many sleepless nights worrying about their responsibility to financially support their adult children today, in the future, and long after they are gone. Without this important legislation, it is almost impossible for those with disabilities--like Nate and Sara--to save enough so that they can be financially independent.

The ABLE Act will encourage and assist individuals and families to invest in private savings accounts, which can then be used to support activities that allow those with disabilities to maintain a healthy, independent life. Here's how it will work. The ABLE Act establishes tax-exempt accounts to assist parents of children with a disability to help provide for their long-term care. The accounts can be used to pay for medical care, dental care, education, housing, transportation and other community-based supports for individuals with disabilities. The money earned in an ABLE account would supplement but not replace Medicaid, Social Security, or other benefits. This would enable people, like Sara, to earn a livable wage and save for the future without worrying about losing coverage for critical health services.

I thank Senators Robert Casey, Richard Burr, and 77 of my colleagues for cosponsoring this legislation. This is a true bipartisan effort. By passing this bipartisan bill today, Sara gets to keep her promise to her mother--and thousands of people with disabilities--like Nate--will finally be able to save for the bright futures they deserve.

Mr. President, today we celebrate the passage of a bill I have been working on for 6 years--the Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act.

The bill is aptly named after my predecessor from Illinois in the Senate--Paul Simon. Paul Simon was ahead of his time on so many issues--including on the importance of clean water and sanitation for the world's poor.

He understood if you wanted to avoid conflict between some nations, you had to look at the issue of water. He understood if you wanted to keep a girl in school or reduce infant mortality, you had to provide adequate sanitation and clean water. He understood that without clean water and sanitation, efforts

to improve health and economic opportunities will never be fully realized.

In fact, a dollar spent on clean water and sanitation returns between $4 and $8 in economic, health, and other benefits. Paul understood all this.

In 1998, he wrote the book, Tapped Out. It was prescient in its wisdom and policy proposals. Despite my recommendations, the book never became a bestseller. Though Senator Simon's wife, Patti Simon, has become a champion on water in her own right.

In 2005, the Congress passed the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act, which made providing access to clean water and sanitation for the world's poor a key priority in U.S. development assistance.

When we passed this bill, it was the first time our Nation had written into law our commitment to any of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.

Since then, we have succeeded in increasing funding for these important goals. USAID established an Office of Water and a Senior Water Coordinator for Water, and last year, it launched its first-ever Global Water and Development Strategy to significantly increase clean water and sanitation programs.

These efforts and the original legislation have made real differences in the lives of the world's poor. I have seen the simple wells providing water for thousands in Haiti.

For the first time, water and toilets have been provided to slum communities in Indonesia, where USAID's program has helped the local water utility reach thousands upon thousands of poor people who never had access to clean water and sanitation.

In fact, in 2012, the world achieved the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by half the proportion of people in the world without access to clean drinking water and basic sanitation. At that time, it was the only Millennium Development Goal to have been achieved.

So for the last several years, we have tried to pass the Simon Water for the World Act--and in 2009 it passed the full Senate, only to stall in the House. Again last Congress, it passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Today's version does not include everything from the original bill--I wish it would have included more. But such is the nature of compromise.

Today, with passage of the Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act, we are going to make more progress.

It would not have happened without my partner in this effort, Senator Corker, and strong support from Senators Coons, Flake, and Murray here in the Senate. I also need to acknowledge the leadership of Representatives Blumenauer and Poe and the great help of Representative Royce in the House.

This bill will lock in many of the leadership, program, and strategic changes that have occurred around USAID water and sanitation programs in recent years. It will establish the diplomatic and conflict mitigation priorities around water at the Department of State. It will refine and establish key criteria to ensure our scarce foreign assistance dollars for water and sanitation are truly reaching the world's most impoverished populations.

We have made progress. But there are still almost 1 billion people around the world who lack access to clean water, and at least 2.5 billion more people lack access to adequate sanitation.

Every day in the developing world, 5,000 children die from water- borne diseases. Millions of poor children miss school every day because they have to walk for hours to find water for their families, or they are sick from drinking dirty water. Girls and women suffer most when this happens because they are the water-carriers of the world.

Experts in the Pentagon and elsewhere have called the world water shortage a real and growing threat to America's own security.

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman published a devastating piece about how drought and water mismanagement contributed to Syria's bloody civil war that makes that clear.

We also know that every dollar we invest in clean water and basic sanitation yields many times that amount in benefits: people are healthier; kids stay in school; food is safer; AIDS drugs and other critical health treatments are able to work.

So I thank my colleagues, my key cosponsors in the Senate and House, Patti Simon, and the many organizations for supporting this important legislation. It will help save lives.

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

Madam President, I see my friend from Wyoming, who spoke on the floor earlier and is in the Chamber, and I wish to publicly acknowledge--and I hope he will too--that we are friends, but we disagree on the nomination of Dr. Murthy to be the next Surgeon General. I will speak for a few moments about why I support him, and I hope a majority of Members will join me in supporting his nomination.

This is an indication of what can go wrong in the Senate. We received this nomination from the President of the United States to fill the post of Surgeon General, which was reported from the committee in February of this year. Obviously we are in December. It has been sitting here since February. In fact, the post of Surgeon General has been vacant since July of 2013.

The Surgeon General is supposed to be one of the leaders in America speaking to issues on public health. Can anyone think of a public health issue we have had to face since February when Dr. Murthy was reported to the floor of the Senate? Perhaps one of the deadliest diseases that has ever been recorded is being fought in west Africa, and we are being asked on a regular basis how we will respond in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control plays a major role in it but, historically, Surgeons General have played a major role when we faced similar public health challenges.

I can remember coming to the U.S. House of Representatives years ago when President Reagan had been elected, and he had chosen C. Everett Koop to be his Surgeon General. C. Everett Koop was a controversial choice by President Reagan because he had been outspoken on some major political issues. He personally had strong feelings against abortion and had said as much before his nomination, and some other issues. It led many people to believe he was too political for the job and that President Reagan had made the wrong choice. But Koop was chosen. Despite the fact that he had been at least engaged as a medical doctor in discussing political issues, he was chosen. I wasn't in the Senate at the time; I didn't have a vote when it came to his choice, but I will tell my colleagues this: When Dr. Koop took over as Surgeon General, he made it clear he understood his obligation was to be the Nation's doctor, not the Nation's leading medical politician. He did some extraordinary things. I don't know what America would have been like if it were not for Dr. Koop's presence, pushing back on a lot of political spin when it came to public health issues--issues involving AIDS, for example.

It is no secret--it is well known--that many politicians--in both parties, for that matter--were reluctant to go into the whole issue of the AIDS crisis in America for a variety of reasons. But if my colleagues will remember, history shows that under Dr. Koop, we ended up mailing every household in America to let them know about the danger of the AIDS epidemic. That was an extraordinary act of public leadership when it came to public health, and Dr. Koop was Surgeon General when that occurred. So those who worried that C. Everett Koop was too political for the job were disabused of that notion as we watched his service to our country.

I make that point because I don't want the same mistake to be made in criticizing Dr. Vivek Murthy whom we are going to vote on later today to be our next Surgeon General. It is true that he has engaged in political activity, as any American citizen is entitled to. I hope that will not disqualify him. When I read in a few moments the groups that are supporting him, people will understand he isn't in this position of being nominated simply because of his political activity. He has extraordinary backing of individuals in the medical profession.

Now we need him more than ever. We need to fill the post of Surgeon General of the United States of America. We hope we can see an end to the Ebola epidemic, but we are not quite there. But we ought to have a Surgeon General in the United States of America. To think we have waited since February while this doctor's name has been on our calendar, and we had to use some extraordinary parliamentary moves to even bring his name up for a vote. I think it is time for us to vote and it is time for us to confirm the nomination of Vivek Murthy as our next Surgeon General.

This past year, Americans have battled public health crises on all fronts. Here at home, parents watched while a severe strain of enterovirus spread from State to State, threatening young children. My home State of Illinois was one of the hardest hit. I heard from doctors across the State that the minute they discharged one child with respiratory symptoms from the emergency room, another came in.

Abroad, we still face the worst Ebola epidemic in history. With over 6,300 deaths and many more diagnosed with this devastating disease, now more than ever America needs to fill the spot of top doctor. It has been vacant since July--since July of last year. Dr. Murthy is that doctor, and I am proud to vote for him as the next U.S. Surgeon General. I am hoping my colleagues will join me.

Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about his background. Dr. Murthy is an attending physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital and an instructor at the Harvard Medical School. Part of what is extraordinary about him is that as well as treating his patients individually, he also thinks about the systemic issues affecting the health of patients and tackles those as well. He is a leading voice in public health, publishing his research on the participation of women and minorities in cancer clinical trials and top journals, including Science, Journal of the American Medical Association, and Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Critics of Dr. Murthy who say he is not up to the job should look at the literature. He has published in medical research areas of great importance. He also cofounded and chairs the Trial Networks, a software company that helps clinical researchers collaborate more effectively and efficiently with drug developers to speed up drug discovery.

In 2011, Dr. Murthy was appointed to the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health. Over 100 national, State, and local public health organizations have endorsed his nomination. They describe him as ``a well-qualified, forward-thinking, innovative leader with a strong commitment to public health.''

Does that sound like a political hack when 100 organizations say that about this doctor?

The organizations that support Dr. Murthy include the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the list goes on from there.

In his confirmation hearing before the Senate HELP Committee last February, Dr. Murthy stated that, if confirmed, he would prioritize his efforts on obesity and tobacco-related disease and ``make prevention and health promotion the backbone of our communities.''

This is a priority I share with Dr. Murthy. For the past 30 years, serving in the House and Senate, I have worked on the issue of tobacco and public policy. I have worked to reduce youth smoking, implement programs to help people quit, and rein in the most insidious practices of the tobacco industry. Moreover, as a cochair of the Senate Hunger Caucus, I have become familiar with the complex and arguably unjust way food is distributed and consumed in America, leaving communities-- including many in Illinois--simultaneously facing high levels of food insecurity and high rates of obesity.

Obesity and tobacco-related diseases are part of a growing trend of chronic disease that account for 7 out of the top 10 causes of death in America and make up 84 percent of America's health care costs. Dr. Murthy says these are his priorities. They should be. These statistics are unacceptable.

I believe Dr. Murthy understands the importance of the national crises before him. I feel confident that his experience, his training, and his tenacity have proved that he has the qualifications needed to tackle these issues.

Not only is Dr. Murthy an outstanding doctor and public health expert, he also remains closely connected to his community and family.

Dr. Murthy was born to parents who originally were from the southern part of India. He came to the United States at the age of 3 and grew up in Miami, FL. He did very well in school. He was valedictorian of his high school, graduated magna cum laude from Harvard in just 3 years, and then got a combined medical and business degree from Yale.

So Senators come to the floor and question this man's resume, his ability? For goodness sakes. He has an extraordinary background and that is why the President nominated him.

From a very early age, Dr. Murthy did not set out to make money, he set out to make a difference. In 1995 he cofounded Visions Worldwide, a nonprofit organization that conducts and supports HIV/AIDS education and empowerment programs in India. Until 2003, he served as the president of that organization and then board chair. He is a dedicated uncle and friend, consistently described by those who know him as humble, soft-spoken, and tireless. I know the Indian-American community across this Nation is so proud of Dr. Murthy's accomplishments, as all of us should be.

Many years ago I worked for a State Senator in Illinois named Cecil Partee. Cecil Partee used to say, For every political controversy, when you listen to the arguments, understand there is a good reason and a real reason.

What is the real reason for the opposition to Dr. Murthy? It may have come down to just one thing he said. It was alluded to by the Senator from Wyoming earlier. In an online post, he said he believed gun violence was a public health issue. Gun violence, a public health issue. For making that statement, he has been pilloried and excoriated by the gun lobby, and that may be a major reason why his nomination is controversial.

I am proud to represent the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois. Gun violence is a public health problem. Go into the emergency rooms--and I can give the names of the list of hospitals in Chicago to start with. Go to the emergency room on Friday or Saturday night and you tell me that gun violence isn't a public health issue. In those emergency rooms we see the victims of gun violence, many of them fighting for their lives. If we go to Mount Sinai Hospital in the Englewood section of Chicago, we can look across the street to a rehab institute. Those who have survived gun violence at Mount Sinai go across the street to the Schwab Rehabilitation Hospital and learn how to live a life as a paraplegic or a quadriplegic. Does that have anything to do with public health? It certainly does. Gun violence is a public health issue, no apology necessary.

I think Dr. Murthy, as has Dr. Koop, has made it clear they are not aspiring to be the leading doctor in America to engage in a political debate, but rather to engage in public health debates about obesity and tobacco and things that make a dramatic difference to the lives of so many people who live in this country.

I am supporting Dr. Murthy. I think he will be an extraordinary Surgeon General. I am sorry he and America have had to wait so long for this vote. I hope the majority of my colleagues will step up and support his nomination as well. At this time of challenge when it comes to public health issues, we need his leadership. We need his expertise. We need a person of this quality as Surgeon General of the United States.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I don't understand this. I am glad the Senator from Alabama is still on the floor, but I just don't understand this.

How many speeches have we heard on the floor of the Senate that the No. 1 priority on the Republican side is border enforcement? How many times have we heard over and over again that before we can have any conversation about those in the United States, we have to seal our borders from the illegal immigrants coming into our country? I have heard it from the beginning. In fact, I heard it every time a Republican Member initiated a conversation about immigration. Isn't this interesting.

Two days ago we passed the budget bill for the remainder of this fiscal year that was initiated by the House of Representatives and sent over here. It was not called an omnibus spending bill, which would have meant all of the agencies of the government are in the budget. It had this peculiar name--CRomnibus. I don't know who came up with it, but what they were trying to say was that there was one agency of government that was not included in the overall budget. What was that agency? Well, it turned out it was the Department of Homeland Security.

The Republican leadership in the House of Representatives refused to send any spending bill here that would give ordinary appropriations to the Department of Homeland Security. Well, what does the Department of Homeland Security do? They guard our borders and stop illegal immigration. They have a massive responsibility at the borders, which the Republicans have said repeatedly is their highest priority.

So the first thing they do is send us a spending bill that has what is known as a continuing resolution to tie the hands of the Department of Homeland Security when it comes to spending money to enforce our borders and stop illegal immigration. But that was not enough. Now we hear the opposition of

the Republican side to filling the position that is responsible for enforcement of our borders, the position responsible for stopping illegal immigration. It is called ICE--Immigration and Customs Enforcement--which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. It was created in 2003. It is the largest investigative agency in the Department of Homeland Security. It is the second largest criminal investigative agency in the entire Federal Government. It has an annual budget of approximately $6 billion. It has more than 20,000 employees and more than 400 offices in the United States and 48 foreign countries. What is the responsibility of Immigration and Customs Enforcement? To enforce the border and to stop illegal immigration.

So the first--

I will not yield until I finish making my statement, and then I will be happy to yield.

First the Republicans send us an appropriations bill, and they will not pay for the agency to enforce the border and stop illegal immigration, and now they come to the floor and argue against filling the position that is responsible for enforcement at the border and stopping illegal immigration.

How long has it been since the Senate has confirmed a person to head this critical agency? July 2012 was the last time--more than 2 years-- because of repeated objections by the Republicans to filling the vacancy of the person responsible for stopping illegal immigration.

The President has sent us a nominee. I will read what has been said about that nominee. Her name is Sarah Saldana. I quote:

Ms. Saldana [is] the first Latina United States Attorney in

Texas history, and only the second woman to hold that

position in the 135-year history of Texas' Northern District

. . . In her role as U.S. Attorney and prosecutor over the

past decade, Ms. Saldana has served our state with honor--

fighting corrupt public officials, organized crimes, sex

traffickers, and other dangerous criminals. Throughout her

career, Ms. Saldana has developed a reputation for her

decisive and fair temperament and her commitment to

excellence.

Can you imagine a more ringing endorsement for someone to head up ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement? You would expect that came from the White House, wouldn't you? You would think such a glowing tribute to this nominee must have been personally written by President Obama. No. The quote I read to you comes from the senior Senator from Texas, Mr. John Cornyn. Senator Cornyn, of course, sits on the Republican side of the aisle. Senator Cornyn didn't vote for Ms. Saldana in committee. I take that back. Every Republican Senator in the Judiciary Committee, including Senator Cornyn, voted against her nomination, so that part is accurate, but all the Republicans voted against her. Get the picture?

All the speeches about border enforcement, all the speeches about stopping illegal immigrants being the No. 1 priority of the Republican Party on immigration--first, they don't fund the agency; second, they won't fill the position responsible for administering the law.

Then comes an imminently qualified woman to run the agency--to paraphrase the words of Senator Cornyn of Texas--and they object to her. They refuse to stand by her nomination.

If you think this is hard to understand or follow, imagine what we have seen over the last 2 years. It has been about 540 days since the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill with 68 votes. Fourteen Republicans and the Democrats passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill that had the strongest border protection in the history of the United States. It would have virtually created a seamless fence--literally and figuratively--on the border between the United States and Mexico from San Diego to Galveston. It would have put more technology and more people on the border. Under this bill, the people on the border who are working for us to stop illegal immigration would have been able to literally stand and see another person standing half a mile away along the 2,000-mile border, 24/7. That is how many people were in this bill. We passed it with 68 votes. It was lauded by conservatives and liberals, the chamber of commerce, the AFL-CIO, faith groups, justice groups. They all said this is a good bill.

It passed the Senate and went to the House of Representatives, where it was never ever called in over 500 days. Speaker Boehner refused to call the bill on the floor. Why? Because it would have passed. He knows it would have passed, and that is why he would not call it. It was because of the failure of the Republican leadership in the House to even call this bill that the President issued his Executive order.

We had a hearing--the Presiding Officer chaired it--last week in a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we discussed the President's Executive order on immigration. There were two witnesses who opposed the President's order, two professors. It was Professor Eastman and Professor Ting, if I remember correctly. I will correct the Record if I am mistaken. They opposed the President's Executive order.

I asked a simple question: This is a world of choices, and we have three choices, and I would like to ask each of you which one you would choose.

The first choice is to continue this broken immigration system in America and do nothing, which is the position taken by the House Republicans. They have done nothing for a year and a half. So that is the first choice. We could leave it as is--a broken system that we know has 11 million undocumented people in the United States with no registration, no guarantee they are paying taxes, and no criminal background checks. That is choice No. 1.

Choice No. 2 is deport 11 million people in the United States of America who are here undocumented. Deport them. That was Mitt Romney's choice when he was running for President.

Choice No. 3 is what the President has proposed--that anyone who has been here for at least 5 years must come forward, register with the government, submit themselves to a criminal background check, pay their fair share of taxes for a temporary work permit, which must be regularly renewed so we can check again. If they have done anything wrong or if there is a criminal record, they are gone. If there is no criminal record, they can stay and work on a temporary basis.

I said to them: Those are the three choices--the broken system, mass deportation, or the President's approach. Take your pick.

They didn't want to make the choice. Of course not. Those are terrible choices if you oppose the President's position.

I think the President has done what is reasonable, and it is what 11 other Presidents have done--Executive orders on immigration.

I want strict border enforcement. I voted for it here on the floor of the Senate, the strongest in our history. But I can't understand the Republican position which opposes funding border enforcement on a regular basis, opposes filling the position that administers border enforcement, and which has no alternative to offer. That is what we have before us.

Murthy Nomination

I will yield the floor and add in closing that coming up for a vote at 5:30 p.m., if I am not mistaken, will be the nomination of Dr. Vivek Murthy to be Surgeon General of the United States of America. I gave a speech about him earlier today. He is eminently qualified. Here is a man who has an extraordinary academic background, including graduating magna cum laude from Harvard. He has worked on a combined degree of a medical degree and a business degree. He has taught at Harvard. He is published in the journals and has the support of over 100 professional medical organizations that believe he would be an extraordinary Surgeon General.

I ask, at a time when we are facing the greatest public health crisis in current memory with the Ebola epidemic, how in the world can we leave this post vacant?

I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),

the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Will the majority leader yield for a question?

I would like to ask the majority leader for some clarification.

Is my understanding correct that at midnight tonight officially the funding of our government ceases?

And the majority leader asked the Republican side of the aisle to at least extend it several days while we completed our work on the omnibus budget bill sent to us by the House?

Was there an objection by the Republicans to the short- term extension so our government would continue operating?

Late last night, the junior Senator from Texas came to the floor. Is he part of the group that is objecting to moving forward on the omnibus bill?

I might just ask the majority leader, this is the same Senator who shut down the government last year in protest over the Affordable Care Act?

I thank the majority leader and hope we can find some support to moving forward to fund the government and accept our responsibilities.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.