Floor Statements

Madam President, I am honored to recognize Ms. Katherine Grant-Davis on the occasion of her retirement from the New Jersey Primary

Care Association, NJPCA, after many years of remarkable service to the Garden State.

Kathy has admirably acted as the President and CEO of NJPCA, a non- profit organization that represents New Jersey's Federally-Qualified Health Centers, FQHC. Under her leadership, New Jersey's FQHC's have grown in both size and capability while modeling high standards of care for all ages and income levels. She represents the best of what NJPCA has accomplished in addressing the primary care needs of our friends and neighbors, and we owe her a debt of gratitude.

While New Jersey is home to 20 community health centers operating 121 sites throughout the State, this robust network would not be possible without Kathy's tremendous contributions. Under her leadership, FQHCs in New Jersey have come to represent quality, comprehensive, and most importantly, accessible care for more than 495,000 patients.

In addition to these and many more accomplishments during her tenure at the NJPCA, Kathy has also honorably served under two New Jersey Governors within the State's Department of Health and Senior Services. Throughout her career, Kathy has demonstrated an innate ability to get the job done without losing sight of the need to ensure the well-being of all. Whether working to develop new pharmaceutical funding initiatives, directing the New Jersey WIC Program, or helping to implement Title XX funding, her dedication and commitment has earned her the respect and admiration of her peers and colleagues.

In 2012, I was honored to recognize Kathy's efforts with the Evangelina Menendez Trailblazer Award, an honor bestowed upon the strong women of New Jersey who distinguish themselves in our communities each and every day. I am not alone in recognizing and honoring Kathy for the work she had done, as she has received commendations from the National Association of Community Health Centers, the NJ Biz Power 50 in Health Care, and NJ Citizen Action, among others.

While the Affordable Care Act brought the importance of access to high quality, accessible and affordable care to the forefront of the national conversation, it was an issue Kathy had already been working on for years. Her insight and counsel during the debate on health reform, as well as her constant vigilance on the law's implementation, has proven invaluable to me and of immeasurable benefit to FQHCs and their patients, not only in New Jersey but throughout the country. With our health care system evolving to focus on wellness, prevention and access to primary care, Kathy's work building New Jersey's network of community health centers into a nationally-recognized model ensures communities in New Jersey will flourish well into the future.

I congratulate Kathy on her retirement and would like to once again recognize, commend and applaud her legacy of extraordinary dedication to the New Jersey Primary Care Association and her unwavering service to the people of New Jersey.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about a New Jersey company, Louis Berger, and to draw the Senate's attention to the 30th anniversary of CHELBI, Louis Berger's successful engineering, design and infrastructure partnership in the People's Republic of China.

Louis Berger was established in 1953 and has in the years since developed into a multidisciplinary global consulting firm founded on its dedication to engineering excellence.

Today it has partnerships in major infrastructure projects spanning the globe, including in North America, Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East.

More than just undertaking projects, though, one of Louis Berger's founding principles is to transfer knowledge to people in the local countries and communities in which it operates to ensure the long-term sustainability of its projects.

For example, in 1984, Louis Berger undertook a groundbreaking partnership known as CHELBI--a joint venture between Louis Berger International and China Highway Planning and Design Institute, HPDI, Consultants.

This partnership created a new pathway for knowledge sharing in engineering design between the United States and China, and to millions of dollars for the U.S.--and New Jersey--economy.

Over the past 30 years, CHELBI has provided international and domestic consulting services for more than 600 highways, bridges, and other projects in over 30 provinces and cities in China, totaling more than 10,000 kilometers, including the 36 kilometer long Hangzhou Bridge, one of the longest ocean-crossing bridges in the world.

CHELBI also fosters international communications and cooperation between the Chinese consulting engineering field and counterparts in Western countries and projects beyond China.

In fact, it is my understanding that the partners in CHELBI have agreed to extend their historic venture for another 10 years beginning in 2014.

So today I would like to recognize the cooperation in engineering design between the United States and China since 1984, as encompassed by CHELBI's work, including its partners at Louis Berger and China Highway Planning and Design Institute, HPDI, Consultants.

The continued exchange of knowledge and coordination of work in large scale infrastructure projects in China and around the globe help to better connect people within and between countries and is of tremendous benefit, both for the countries where these infrastructure projects take place but also for U.S. global leadership in engineering consultation and design.

CHELBI is to be commended for 30 years of productive work--and I would like to express my continued support for initiatives undertaken by the venture and the benefits that such cooperation and coordination provides to both the United States and China.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the President's Executive order on immigration. I have been listening to my colleagues, both here and on the other side of the Capitol, and I rise in amazement. It is almost incredulous that our Republican friends are against the President taking the same action Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush took to defer deportation to solve a critical problem that we all know exists in the country--a problem that impacts millions. When President Obama exercises the same Executive authority-- the same--they are on the air, on television, on talk shows, on Twitter, fear-mongering, calling it illegal, calling it amnesty, a constitutional crisis. Where was all of that when Presidents Reagan and Bush did it?

They hold hearings in the House titled ``Open Border: The Impact of Presidential Amnesty on Border Security,'' which is a little ridiculous because we have more border security under this administration than we have had in the history of the United States. As a matter of fact, we spend more on border enforcement and immigration enforcement than we do in all of the other Federal law enforcement entities combined-- combined.

The Republicans threaten to sue the government or even shut it down. The irony of that is laughable because a shutdown over conducting background checks and collecting taxes from undocumented immigrants would only cost current taxpayers billions of dollars.

Certainly it would cost them billions of dollars if it is anything like the last shutdown that Republicans forced. So double standard? Absolutely. It is the very definition of ``double standard.''

On immigration reform, our Republican friends--particularly on the other side of the Capitol--have become the poster children for double standards. On the one hand, they know the political ramifications of the demographic reality. On the other, they refuse to catch up with history and fix our broken immigration system. They are sailing against the headwinds of history, and now they want to prevent the President from pulling them to shore, saving them from their own immobility, their own inaction. They are also sailing against the headwinds of what the American people want. In poll after poll we have seen that the American people want to fix our broken immigration system, and that which the Senate passed--and I was honored to be one of the Group of 8 who put it together 1\1/2\ years ago--and passed with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, still has the highest rating among the American people. It has been sitting in the House of Representatives for the last 1\1/2\ years.

A new Gallup poll shows that the President's approval rating among all voters has not gone down since the Executive action announcement was made, as some predicted it would, but, rather, it has increased 5 percentage points among all voters since early November. In my view, any action--Executive or otherwise--is movement in the right direction and it is what America expects of its leaders.

Americans are expecting someone to act, someone to tackle the difficult issues, and immigration, particularly for our House colleagues, seems to be a very difficult issue they can't tackle. It is not difficult for me, and it is not really difficult for most Americans who believe in the power of common sense, not for those who believe in the need to secure our borders, to secure the country, to promote economic opportunity, and preserve our history as a nation of immigrants and that core value of family values.

I cannot recall anyone coming to this floor and praising inaction, praising the President for not having done enough on a matter of consequence, but that is exactly what our Republican colleagues are doing, once again standing squarely on the wrong side of history--in fact, on the wrong side of their own history--invoking the double standard and claiming what is right for their party's Presidents is wrong for this President. History, however, is a funny thing. You can choose to ignore it, but eventually it catches up with you, and it has finally caught up with my Republican colleagues.

I repeat what I have said all along: The antidote to Executive action is passing immigration reform. Let's be clear. Regardless of how big or how bold the President's announcement may be, a permanent legislative solution continues to be our ultimate objective. Administrative relief will not grant anyone legal status or citizenship, but it will clear the way for many to come out of the shadows, register with the government, pass a criminal background check, get a work permit, and pay taxes as the rest of us do.

Because of the President's Executive action, the nature of who is eligible is really people who have U.S. citizen families here. It will prevent needless deportations and give a chance at a better life to those who want nothing more than to keep their families together. We are talking about millions of hard-working people who--right now many are exploited, creating downward pressure on the salaries and wages of all Americans by virtue of that exploitation. We have an opportunity to change that. I would rather know who is here to pursue the American dream versus who is here to do us harm, but I can't know that unless I get people to come forward and go through a criminal background check.

If our Republican colleagues are so concerned about getting immigration policy right, if they are so concerned about the President overstepping his authority, which is the same authority Republican Presidents have used, they can exert their own authority and push our bipartisan bill over the finish line with one vote--one vote in the House of Representatives.

The President himself has said he acted because there is a cost to waiting--a cost measured in the thousands of parents of U.S. citizen children who are deported, husband and wives who are separated from their U.S. citizen spouses, and the economic consequences.

I know there are some who suggest: Let's wait until the next Congress. Let's wait and see. Give them a little time. If not, we will act.

This is the same Republican Party--particularly in the House of Representatives--that blocked immigration reform in 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2014 despite a strong bipartisan bill here. So if they wish, they can join us at the negotiating table with their own proposals and their own solutions because doing nothing and maintaining the status quo is no longer an option. That is precisely why they didn't want the President to follow through on what he told them. He waited on Executive action. He gave them advance notice. He said: I want you to act, but if you don't act, eventually I will have to act.

Now let's look at what my Republican friends find so objectionable. To put it simply, the administration is creating a new deferred action for parental accountability, a program that provides deferred action on a case-by-case basis to undocumented parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents--those who were present in the United States on November 20 of this year, those who have continuously lived in the United States for 5 years, since January 2010, and are not an enforcement priority--and also is expanding the program that already exists for DREAMers by expanding the age content.

This isn't amnesty because amnesty means you did something wrong and you are forgiven and get whatever you want. Amnesty means you get something for nothing. First of all, these people have no pathway to becoming a permanent resident or citizen under the President's Executive order. Secondly, their only opportunity is not to be deported, assuming they can pass a background check and pay their taxes.

As a result of the President's order, more people will go to the southern border to protect it, more people will pay taxes who may not be paying them now, more families will stay reunited, and more people who are in the shadows will come forward and go through a criminal background check. I would like to know who those people are, and I would like to make sure they don't have a criminal background. More criminals and felons will be deported because now it will be a priority to deport those individuals. What is wrong with that set of circumstances?

So this is temporary relief as the Congress hopefully comes together on a more permanent basis.

In my State of New Jersey, approximately 137,000 parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents will benefit from the new action. About 67,000 will benefit from the new program on children. That is an estimated 204,000 people in New Jersey who can come out of the shadows and contribute to the community and the economy. These are moms and dads, good people, hardworking people who can register with the government, pass a background check, get a work permit, pay taxes, take care of their families, and no longer fear deportation.

The fact is, because of the President's Executive action, more felons will be deported, more resources will go to our border, more families will stay together, and more people will pay taxes. These are all good things.

The Council of Economic Advisers has found that over the next decade the range of Executive actions announced by the President will increase our gross domestic product by up to 0.9 percent, it will reduce the Federal deficit by $25 billion through increased economic growth, and it will raise the average wages for U.S. workers by 0.3 percent.

The Executive action the President has taken and the Republicans have criticized will increase the productivity of our workforce. How? By allowing those--from undocumented immigrants to spouses of highly skilled H-1B visa holders--to be part of the formal economy and match the skills they have with the skills needed by entrepreneurial startups that they often create.

By the way, that is a fraction of the economic benefits of what we did here on a bipartisan basis that has been sitting in the House of Representatives for the last 1\1/2\ years. The Senate bill we passed, according to the Congressional Budget Office--the nonpartisan scoring division of everything we do here--will increase the gross domestic product of the United States by over 3 percent in 2023--less than 9 years--and 5.4 percent in 2033, which is an increase of roughly $700 billion in 2023 and $1.4 trillion in 2033. It will reduce the Federal deficit by $197 billion over the next decade and another $700 billion between 2024 and 2033. That is almost $1 trillion in deficit spending which can be lifted from the backs of the next generation of Americans by giving 11 million people a pathway to citizenship. What do we ever do that we pass that grows the economy, reduces the deficit, and creates more jobs for all Americans? Very little. The immigration bill which the Senate passed and which has been pending in the House does all of that in addition to securing our border.

So let's be clear. The President's Executive actions are only temporary steps. Only Congress can finish the job. Deferred action is an act of prosecutorial discretion, but it is not a path to citizenship or a permanent solution. The fact is that we have waited and waited. In the absence of any Republican action in the House on immigration reform, the President has used the power he has available, which other Presidents have used as well. If the Republicans are concerned about an Executive action, they should use their own power to pass immigration reform--either the Senate bill or their own vision of what comprehensive reform is.

For those who question the legality of this, I would simply say there are three letters--one before the Executive action and two after--from law professors and former general counsels of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and chief counsels of USCIS. They say the President has the authority. He is on sound legal footing.

So we are tired of waiting for Republicans to say yes to something-- yes to taking action that is in the interest of millions in this country who expect leadership, expect action, expect progress, expect cooperation, not confrontation and obstruction. Millions of families are tired of waiting. The Nation is tired of waiting for Republicans to catch up with history--in this case, with the lessons of their own history.

Let's invite our Republican friends to invoke the memory of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and for once commend this President for following their lead in this, doing what is right by the Nation and doing what is right by our taxpayers, doing what is right for our security and doing what is right by our families.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I yield back all time on the nominations.

Madam President, very briefly, I appreciate working on both sides to be able to have what is a distinguished set of career ambassadors go to their posts and represent our country abroad, and I hope we can continue on this march as we move toward the end of the session.

I yield the floor.

I yield back all time.

Mr. President, I come first to support the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee in her endeavor to pass a continuing resolution. I, specifically, want to speak to support the President's request for authorization to stand up a title 10 overt, train and equip mission for vetted moderate Syrian opposition. The hearing I held yesterday in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee laid out specifics of how the President is moving forward in building the anti-ISIL coalition.

We will undertake targeted airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. We will train and equip a Syrian opposition force committed to a pluralistic, free Syria.

This is a multifaceted plan, and we heard both from Secretary Kerry and a second panel of regional experts that coalition partners are ready to contribute in real terms and not just empty words.

The ISIL threat is grave and it is urgent. We must stand with our partners in the region to confront this barbarism in the interests of all of the individuals being brutalized by ISIL but also because regional stability and U.S. Security demand it.

Training and equipping a fighting Syrian force is one urgent element in the broader plan.

We in the Senate must provide this authority, as our colleagues in the House did yesterday. In Iraq we have the Iraqi security forces and Kurdish Peshmerga forces committed to combating ISIL and partnering with us to do so. At this point in time we do not have such a force to partner with inside of Syria.

Let's be clear-eyed about what this challenge is. It is messy and complicated and not at all easy. There is no silver bullet. But without a trained, equipped, and capable moderate opposition force to fill the void, as we conduct airstrikes against ISIL, we would essentially be opening the door to Assad and his Russian- and Iranian-backed regime forces to regain lost territory.

Imagine how our adversaries will celebrate if we fail to build a force that is equipped, trained, and committed to defeating the barbarism of ISIL and Assad.

The administration was posed with the question yesterday: Why now? Why train these forces now, 4 years into this civil war?

There are several answers:

First, we have been working with these moderate armed groups for over 2 years now. We know them.

Second, there is no real alternative to building a local opposition force to take the fight on in Syria unless you are talking about American boots on the ground. That is not in play here.

Third, the region is standing with us in training and creating the ability to assist these Syrian rebels. It is truly a remarkable development that Saudi Arabia, for example, is willing to publicly discuss its support and publicly disclose that it will host and contribute to our train-and-equip mission. Other gulf countries are willing to fund this mission and help with recruiting efforts. No longer are our partners willing to quietly support from the shadows. They view the threat coming from Iraq and Syria with ISIL with such urgency that they are going public loudly and assertively.

I am clear-eyed about the enormity of the challenge. There is risk. But at this point, given the rapidity of ISIL's advance and the savagery of its actions, we must be willing to take some risk to degrade this brutal, barbaric organization. The fact is that Sunni neighbors across the region are lining up to join this mission.

The moderate Syrian forces we will train can pressure ISIL in Syria, the Iraqis from Iraq, and we pressure ISIL from the air. The question is, Why now? The response to the question is this: Yesterday I held--as the Presiding Officer knows, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed legislation last year to increase lethal assistance to the moderate rebels battling Assad in a bipartisan way. We do not get do- overs, so we cannot change what was not done. We cannot change what has already happened. But we can change what exists on the ground in Syria today. We can influence what happens going forward and work together to set conditions for how it ends.

Yesterday Robert Ford--our exceptional former U.S. Ambassador to Syria, probably our greatest expert on Syria and the rebels particularly, and until recently our senior State Department official working with the moderate opposition--could not have had more compelling testimony. In response to questions I posed to him about whether a moderate armed opposition still exists for us to train and arm, he said: Yes, they exist. Yes, they are already fighting ISIL. Yes, they share our view that a radical, extremist Islamic State should not be imposed on Syria. That conflict will only end with a political deal or negotiated settlement.

In response to questions about whether there is recruitment potential, whether we can find enough fighters who are moderate who will pass our vetting standards to receive our training, he said: Yes. We know them. We have provided them with nonlethal assistance, which they have used responsibly.

By the way, he described them as being pretty resilient in the face of being outgunned, that they are still engaged and fighting for their own future.

He also said: We have talked politics with them, meaning understanding where their mindset is as it relates to the future.

In fact, Mr. Ford said that the problem has always been that there were more willing fighters than there were guns and ammunition.

In response to whether the moderate armed Syrian opposition shares our goal of degrading ISIL, the answer was also affirmatively yes.

The force we train and arm will fight ISIL because ISIL is threatening their supply lines and has butchered hundreds of members of the moderate Syrian opposition. In Syria, the moderate opposition has been mired in a two-front war--one against ISIL and the other against Assad and his regime backers--for years. The language in the amendment to the CR reflects this reality. We are training and arming a force that will defend the Syrian people from ISIL attacks and also promote conditions for a negotiated settlement to end the conflict in Syria--in other words, going after Assad's security forces.

Finally, Ambassador Ford lamented that if we do not go forward with this proposal to train and equip the moderate armed opposition, Assad will likely become even more convinced that his strategy all along has worked. His strategy is to convince the world that he is the only viable alternative to ISIL and radical extremists and that we will eventually resolve ourselves to working with him.

Let me conclude by saying that the only course of action at this point in time is for us to commit to the grinding work of building a viable alternative, which is the moderate armed Syrian opposition.

Again, this is not going to happen overnight, but it certainly will not happen if there is not a moderate, capable alternative to Assad, a group that is neither radical nor has the barbarism of ISIL, nor the nihilistic, barrel bomb-dropping of Assad.

We must be realistic if we are going to degrade and destroy ISIL. Frankly, I still have many questions about the way forward beyond this issue. I intend to work with the administration to ensure that the plan is sound and the strategy is effective. We will continue to vet that through a series of both hearings and intelligence briefings. But I have no question that this particular action is needed now.

I fully intend for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to explore, vet, and ultimately craft what a possible authorization for use of military force should look like. In that regard, we need to get it right, not just do it fast. I do not want an AUMF that ultimately--as of September 2001--finds us 13 years later in a host of different countries that were never envisioned as being the authorization for it, to send the sons and daughters of America without the authorization of the Congress.

We will work on all of that in a determined, studious, and detailed way to make sure that we understand the strategy and all of its dimensions, that we can provide for that, and at the end of the day that we can defeat ISIL, but without an open-ended check.

With that, I urge support for the CR.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, next week, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will travel to the United States for the first time since his historic election victory. The U.S. and India are natural partners with shared values and common interests, yet we are far from realizing the full potential of our relationship to the mutual benefit of both of our countries. On behalf of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and thousands of Indian-American constituents across New Jersey, I welcome the Prime Minister to the United States and am confident that his visit will re-invigorate and refocus our partnership so that concrete progress can be made in a host of sectors.

India's new government has won a historic mandate to deliver change and reform, and we should be ready to support India's efforts to meet challenges--through concrete measures to

bolster trade and investment, strengthen defense cooperation, and deepen our security partnership.

The U.S. and India are engaged in a comprehensive set of diplomatic dialogue and working groups--currently there are dozens such groups covering a wide range of issues in the areas of economics, security, climate change, and education. This is a relationship that does not suffer from a lack of dialogue. It has, however, unfortunately suffered from a lack of results, especially since the civilian nuclear framework was agreed to in 2005. With a strong push from the Prime Minister, President Obama and the U.S. Congress, the time is right for these dialogues to translate into action.

There is broad support in the U.S. for a more robust economic and trade relationship with India. Investment should be at the top of this agenda. I welcome India's move to raise foreign investment ceilings in several sectors of the Indian economy, including defense, railways, e- commerce and insurance. These are important steps that have helped to ease some of the concerns American companies have had about barriers to entering the Indian market. However more must be done and I hope that the U.S. and India will work together to address these remaining barriers.

Vice President Biden laid out an ambitious trade target last summer in India, calling for a five-fold increase from $100 billion to $500 billion a year in annual bilateral trade. Prime Minister Modi and President Obama should reconvene the Trade Policy Forum this year, which will provide a platform to identify steps to improve our economic and trade relationship. The Prime Minister's visit will also present an opportunity to reengage on World Trade Organization negotiations, where India's concerns are the last remaining barrier to the important Trade Facilitation Agreement. I also hope we can smooth the way forward for continued discussions to complete a Bilateral Investment Treaty.

U.S. companies seek to invest in India, but need transparent governance, a fair regulatory environment, and strong legal mechanisms to protect those investments. If the Indian government can deliver on its plans for greater openness for capital flows and stronger intellectual property rights, I am confident our companies are ready to invest. We want to work together with India to help foster the best conditions for this kind of economic growth and partnership.

I welcome recent reports that India plans to develop a new comprehensive intellectual property rights, IPR, policy. We need to see real reforms on this key issue, which significantly impacts the ability of U.S. companies to do business in an important market. In particular, the life sciences industry faces continuing challenges on IPR protections. I appreciate that this is a complex issue. Policymakers in both the United States and India want to ensure access to medications for those who need them, especially for low-income and other vulnerable populations. International life sciences companies in my State and from other nations are concerned that India's lack of protection of IPR will threaten innovation and affect access for those very people. I look forward to the renewed dialogue with the Indian government on this issue.

India has a central role in contributing to prosperity in South Asia, a central foreign policy interest of the U.S. As the U.S. seeks to bolster Afghanistan's economic links in the region, within the framework of the New Silk Road initiative, we look to India to play a critical role in promoting trade with Afghanistan and the other countries of Central Asia. Regional economic connectivity should also extend to India's trade relationship with Pakistan. I urge both India and Pakistan to continue to work toward strengthening their bilateral relationship. Improved trade relations between India and Pakistan have the potential to unlock opportunities for over 1.5 billion people. The U.S. stands ready and willing to support efforts that enhance the cross-border trade relationship.

India is a strong partner in U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the region, and we have a shared national interest to confront terrorism, prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and maintain regional stability. In Afghanistan, India has been a key provider of development assistance and supporter of the Afghan National Security Forces. As the international community draws down forces in Afghanistan, the U.S. and India should be prepared to increase counterterrorism and intelligence cooperation and coordination, and both sides should commit to a robust set of military exercises. Last year India significantly increased its purchases of American arms and now conducts more exercises and personnel exchanges with the U.S. than any other country--I welcome and encourage expanding this important collaboration.

Defense cooperation remains the most promising area of U.S.-India cooperation, and I am pleased that Secretary Hagel's recent visit to India further deepened our defense ties. We should expand initiatives to strengthen our defense cooperation, including military exercises, as well as co-production and co-development of defense products. The Defense Technology and Trade Initiative should continue to advance efforts to reform India's defense procurement and management systems, and encourage both sides to explore the possibility of a revamped and expanded formal framework for a bilateral defense agreement.

I believe we should be expanding educational ties in all sectors--the best and the brightest from both sides should be exchanging ideas and building on the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit that exists in both countries. I encourage the U.S.-India Education Dialogue to continue to explore areas of collaboration, including student and faculty exchange, research cooperation, and implementation of technology-enabled education strategies, such as e-learning, and cooperation between community colleges.

Rutgers University has formed strong relationships with Indian educational and research institutions, and has increased the profile of India with businesses, communities, and nonprofit organizations in New Jersey. Rutgers was one of five recipients of the 21st Century Knowledge Initiative, which unifies many of the university's efforts with Indian institutions through faculty exchanges, and research and innovation collaboration in the priority areas of food security, climate change, sustainable health and public health. I strongly support these collaborations, and encourage the expansion of efforts to strengthen exchanges in technical and vocational education.

India has a long and rich history of religious, ethnic, and linguistic pluralism with a vibrant civil society. We should also continue to work together to ensure greater respect for human rights, and encourage a legal framework that protects the civil rights and liberties of the most vulnerable Indian populations, particularly women and children.

India is critical to international efforts to address climate change. There are huge opportunities for India to act on climate change while boosting development at the same time, and I urge the Indian government to continue to explore ways to make clean power more accessible and more affordable. We should also expand our partnership with India on energy, which would help them reduce dependence on unstable energy suppliers. Finally, we must continue to work toward cutting emissions from hydrofluorocarbons and coal--both of which contribute to climate change. I applaud Secretary Kerry and Minister Swaraj's efforts to establish a new joint working group on climate change, and am hopeful that we can continue to explore ways to expand R&D collaboration to bolster renewable energy sources, such as solar energy, to meet India's growing energy demands, while ensuring there are environmental protections.

Our agenda is extensive and the potential to accomplish our mutually beneficial goals is limitless. There is so much room for growth. With sustained attention and leadership, as well as active engagement by the Indian-American diaspora, I am confident in our ability to achieve results and work toward a more prosperous and secure future. I am proud to welcome Prime Minister Modi to the United States and I wish him a successful visit.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will first respond to the unanimous consent request made by the Senator from Texas, the son of immigrants himself, to prohibit certain actions with respect to

deferred action for students in the United States whom we call DREAMers. For these young people, as Senator Durbin said, the only flag they have ever pledged allegiance to is that of the United States. The only national anthem they have every sung is the ``Star-Spangled Banner.''

They came to this country not because they made a decision to do so but because their parents came here, just as Senator Cruz's parents came here. He now ultimately enjoys the benefit of being an American, even though it was a different time and under a different set of circumstances. Nonetheless, he didn't have a choice in that decision and neither did these children.

We have learned and we have often heard in this Chamber that you never subscribe to the child whatever errors exist of the parent, but that is exactly what the Senator from Texas would do.

My friend from Texas is entitled to his views and his opinions, but he is not entitled to his own set of facts. The reality is that he continuously refers to the deferred action on deportation for these young people as amnesty. Amnesty suggests that someone is forgiven for something they did wrong and they have a clear pathway to permanent residency and ultimately to U.S. citizenship. That is not what the President did for these young people who know no other country than the United States. Any action that would be taken on these young people will be deferred until after Congress has acted on the pressing question of immigration reform.

The Senator from Texas suggested that the Senate has failed in leadership. I wish to say to the Senator from Texas that the Senate exerted leadership over 1 year ago, when in broad bipartisan votes-- notwithstanding the Senator from Texas--a group of eight Senators, four Republicans and four Democrats, joined together and got two-thirds of the Senate to send comprehensive immigration reform to the House of Representatives. We sent over commonsense immigration reform that was the toughest on border protection that has existed in the history of the country, that was in the national security interests of the United States, that provided for the economic imperative as described by the Congressional Budget Office of the opportunities that immigration reform would provide for the country by raising the gross domestic product of the United States, raising the wages of all Americans, and reducing the national debt, all by virtue of immigration reform.

Two-thirds of the Senate voted on that at a time when it was rare to see two-thirds of the Senate come together on controversial or significant issues of the day. It was sent to the House of Representatives over 1 year ago, and they did not once cast a vote on that legislation or their own vision of what immigration reform should be.

I will be happy to do so a little later.

At the end of the day, the Senator from Texas argues that this measure is necessary to deal with the humanitarian crisis at the border. I will say that has gone dramatically in a downward slope.

He may argue that immigration policy is driving these children to make a dangerous and deadly journey. While I agree we need a long-term solution to the humanitarian crisis on the southern border, saying that this opportunity for DREAMers to stay in the United States is the cause is simply not true.

DACA, which is the law we refer to that the President did by administrative order, was announced in June of 2012. The influx of unaccompanied minors was reported months before that announcement. As a matter of fact, we can ask Senator Cruz's own Governor, Rick Perry, who sent a letter warning about the influx of children months before the President's DACA announcement.

The fact is that all of this talk about ending deferred action for children who have been here sometimes well over a decade or more ignores the elephant in the room; that is, that DACA does not cover these children. It only covers children who were brought here before the announcement was made. Eliminating DACA, as the Senator from Texas wishes to do, would not make any of these children less likely to come here. These children are fleeing extreme violence in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, which have some of the highest murder rates per capita in the world.

If I saw my father killed and my sister raped, it is likely I would think about trying to flee that set of circumstances regardless of what the promise might or might not be, and that is in fact what drove this humanitarian crisis.

We should solve the roots of the crisis and not try to create some connection to something that has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I know we are in the season in which--even if 10 angels came swearing from above that DACA is not the cause of the unaccompanied minor circumstances or that it is not amnesty, there will be those who will say, no, those angels are wrong. The reality is that one is entitled to their own views but not their facts.

Finally, the undeniable consequence of the Senator's attempt to dismantle these deferred actions for DREAMers would serve only to further separate families. I have listened time and time again to my Republican colleagues say they are the heart of family values. Well, tearing apart families is not my sense of a family value. Tearing children away from their mothers and fathers is not my sense of family values. Destroying any hope of a better life and a chance at success is not the doctrine of family values.

There is a reason the Senate hasn't voted on this bill--and it won't. I think the Senate Democratic leadership understands it would be a disservice to our country, a disservice to hundreds of thousands of these young people who we have already invested in through our public schools. Now is the time to take advantage of their service, whether in the military of the United States or whether through their intellect. Some of them are the valedictorians and salutatorians of our schools and colleges and universities. It is an opportunity to ensure they can be productive members of our society, with no guarantee--with no guarantee--as it relates to their ultimate status.

I hope the immigrant community in this country--I hope the Hispanic community in this country, I hope the Asian and Indian communities in this country, I hope the Eastern European community in this country, all who are rightly concerned about comprehensive immigration reform-- are listening to this debate, because as disappointed as some may be about the President saying: Well, we cannot move forward at this time until we get it right because of the politics that have been generated by the undocumented children along the border--as disappointed as some may be with the President--listen to what we will get if, in fact, this November there is a change of who ultimately has the majority in this Chamber. This is what we will get: We will get what we got in the House of Representatives, which is over a year of not casting one vote for their own vision of immigration reform. And every vote they have cast has been anti-immigrant at the end of the day.

For all of those reasons, I have to object to the unanimous consent request.

I would be happy to yield.

Mr. President, first of all, I would say to my friend from Texas that he totally mischaracterizes the comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform that was passed in the Senate. Do we know who voted for that? A whole host of Senators on the Republican side of the aisle who represent border States and who said: This is the most significant border protection and security effort we have had in a long time. They believed the national security of the United States was better preserved by virtue of that legislation. Our colleague John McCain worked assiduously on that question, as well as others.

So the bottom line is, that reform was going to end the process of those coming in an undocumented fashion; it controlled the border, moved the economy, and would bring out of the darkness those who are here to pursue the American dream, which is the only way we can secure America, to differentiate from those who might be here to do harm to the United States. I can't know that if people who are in the dark don't come and register with the government, pay their taxes, go for a criminal background check, and earn their way over the course of a decade to the possibility of becoming a permanent resident. That is what the Senate did.

So failure in this regard rests in the House of Representatives-- failure on the border, failure on national security, failure on the economy, and failure to reunite millions of people with their families.

Now, with reference to the second part of the question, the President acted. It is the President who brought the Central American presidents here and said: You have to work with us to stop your young children from coming to our country and you have to create better conditions in your country, and we want to work with you to do that. We want to work with Mexico to ensure that what they call the Beast--the train of death--ultimately Mexican authorities interceded to stop immigrants from getting on that train to the United States. It is the President who ultimately took the resources that existed in the Department of Homeland Security and reauthorized them to send them to the border and deal with the challenge. All of that, among other efforts, ultimately has found us with a dramatic reduction.

So I understand the politics of this. I appreciate everybody in this Chamber has the right to pursue that. But the bottom line is the President acted and the reality is we have dramatically reduced it, and the core challenge here is to have comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to honor the 12 young athletes of the Marlton Reds 10-and-Under Baseball Team from Evesham Township, NJ for their commendable victory at the 2014 Cal Ripken 10- Year-Old World Series on August 16, 2014. Led by the unwavering leadership of Manager Robert Reynolds, Coach Mark Bergstrom, and Coach Joe Morgan, the Marlton Reds won the 2014 10-and-Under Babe Ruth/Cal Ripken Baseball New Jersey District 5 Championship, the New Jersey State Championship, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Championship, and the 10- Year-Old Cal Ripken World Series. The twelve players of the Marlton Reds 10-and-Under Baseball Team that won the World Series are: Colby Reynolds, Jackson Edelman, Zach Weiner, Blake Weinstein, Chris Bonafiglia, Adrian Hernandez, Aaron Bergstrom, Blake Morgan, Raymond Stutzer, Josh Free, Ryan Furman, and Ethan Stith.

These wonderful young athletes have displayed the hard work and dedication that make goals and dreams attainable. Throughout their victorious season, the Marlton Reds garnered the support of their community, receiving countless donations to help them travel to Winchester, VA for the World Series tournament. Upon arrival, the Marlton Reds won all 6 of their games, including the Cal Ripken 10-and- Under Championship Game against a very talented team from Southeastern Lexington, KY by a score of 9 to 1. While every member of the Marlton Reds played exceptionally well, Blake Morgan made the All World Series Team while winning the World Series Batting Title and Most Outstanding Player award, while Jackson Edelman made the All World Series Team and the All Defensive Team.

I would also like to applaud the parents, coaches, and volunteers that work tirelessly to ensure athletes like the 12 members of the Marlton Reds have a place to grow and achieve in sports and in life. It is through the commitment of the entire community that our youth will develop into champions, both on and off the field. I commend the Marlton Reds 10-and-Under Baseball Team, as well as the people of Evesham Township who supported them throughout the season, for winning the Cal Ripken 10-Year-Old World Series.

Madam President, today I wish to honor the eighteen young athletes of the Brooklawn Brookers Baseball Team of the American Legion Post 72 from Brooklawn, NJ for their commendable victory at the 2014 American Legion Senior World Series on August 19, 2014. Led by the unwavering leadership of coach Dennis Barth, the Brooklawn Brookers won the 2014 New Jersey State American Legion Championship, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Championship, and their second consecutive American Legion World Series Championship. The 18 players of the Brooklawn Brookers Team that won the World Series are: Eric Becker, Joe Bobiak, Sean Breen, Austin Darrow, Phil Dickinson, Pete Farlow, Eric Grafton, John Malatesta, Anthony Harrold, Rocco Mazzeo, Steven Mondile, Tyler Mondile, Eric Schorr, Ray Taylor, Kevin Terifay, Fran Kinsey, Tre Todd, and Matt Parr.

These wonderful young athletes have displayed the hard work and dedication that make goals and dreams attainable. Throughout their victorious season, the Brooklawn Brookers played

with the passion and determination that made it possible to collectively win a championship despite the passing of their longtime Manager, Joe Barth, Sr. Upon their arrival at the World Series in Shelby, NC, the Brookers won all five of their games, including the American Legion Senior World Series Championship Game against a very talented team from Midland, MI. While every member of the Brookers played exceptionally well, Sean Breen was named the 2014 World Series Tournament Most Valuable Player while also receiving the 2014 George W. Rulon Player of the Year Award, the 2014 Louisville Slugger Batting Championship, and sharing the 2014 Rawlings Big Stick Award with teammate Anthony Harrold.

I would also like to applaud the parents, coaches, and volunteers that work tirelessly to ensure athletes like the 18 members of the Brooklawn Brookers have a place to grow and achieve in sports and in life. It is through the commitment of the entire community that our youth will develop into champions, both on and off the field. I commend the Brooklawn Brookers American Legion Post 72 Baseball Team, as well as the people of the State of New Jersey who supported them throughout the season, for winning the 2014 American Legion Senior World Series.

Mr. President, I came to the floor in the first instance to support Senator Boxer's unanimous consent request on the U.S.-Israel strategic partnership, which, as she has pointed out, has-- in this institution we do not very often get 81 Members to agree that there is a course of action we want to take. She and Senator Blunt have acquired 81 cosponsors--including me and a majority of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--to do exactly that.

Given the current situation in the region, I think the legislation sends the right message at the right time. Israel clearly has a right to self-defense. No country should stand by while thousands of rockets are being launched at it and a terrorist organization next door digs tunnels to funnel fighters into its country to kill its citizens. That is what is happening.

Part of the effort of this legislation, the U.S.-Israel cooperation-- well, one example is an antimissile system called Iron Dome, which is an example of what our two countries can do together--save lives through technological advancement and defense cooperation. I think these are incredibly important opportunities.

Beyond that, given the advances in shared achievement that have resulted from this U.S.-Israel partnership, this bill authorizes the President to further enhance cooperation in the fields of water, energy, homeland security, agriculture, and alternative-fuel technology.

But the U.S.-Israel partnership extends far beyond our excellent security partnership. Senator Boxer's legislation does just that. It authorizes increased, enhanced, and enriched cooperation that reflects the critical importance of our bilateral relationship. It goes into Israel's energy security.

Not long ago Israel was completely dependent on energy imports, but given recent discoveries they may soon be energy independent. But they need help. Thanks in part to work by Senator Landrieu, this bill would help provide the technical know-how on how to regulate a responsible natural gas extraction industry, how to charge and collect royalties, and how to plan for distribution and export networks. In other words, this bill can help make Israel an energy provider for the region and for Europe, greatly enhancing Israel's energy security and forming important economic ties with its neighbors.

There are a lot of reasons for the Senate to pass this legislation and particularly to do so now.

Let me address the process question. The ranking member did ask me late yesterday to have a markup. When we talk about process, we called for a markup in short order, without the regular timeframe, but also with what was, for me, an understanding that there were going to be no amendments. It was going to be an up-or-down vote on the legislation. If I had understood there were going to be amendments offered, then we would have had to have

a timeframe to know what amendments they were going to be so Members could consider what those amendments are and could judge them--not at the spur of the moment when we sat down and convened a meeting but so they could make an informed judgment.

Because it was a truncated process, which I was trying to accommodate the ranking member on, and because I felt we were going to go through basically an up-or-down vote, I called for the meeting. But then, unbeknownst to us, all of a sudden we were told there were going to be a series of amendments--amendments which were not even filed and for which there was no timeframe and therefore would come at a moment's notice when the meeting was convened and with no one having had the opportunity to understand the nature, substance, or consequences of those amendments. In my mind, that is not regular order.

So maybe there was a misunderstanding, but because there was a clear understanding, from my perspective, to do it in an irregular fashion-- very short notice, with no amendment filing deadlines--but in order to accommodate the concern that legislation should not come but through the committee and onto the floor, I agreed to a special session, a special business meeting. Unfortunately, I do not know whether there is a misunderstanding of agreements here, but that is the nature under which I agreed.

When I found out there were going to be all types of amendments, including amendments that are extraneous to the subject matter, I decided we could not do that in good order and in reasonable conscience, so we pulled down the business meeting.

Let me say that I understand we have two concurrent resolutions pending before the Senate on the use of human shields by Hamas and supporting Israel's security. I support the substance of both of those Republican resolutions. However, I am not willing to allow them to move and provide lipservice to Israel's security when Members of the same party are preventing us from taking real action to support Israel's security by objecting to this bill, even though I do not question my distinguished colleague, who has worked incredibly well with me over the last year and a half, about what his concerns are about process. But we can't have Members want to offer all types of amendments, including extraneous amendments to this bill, and then say ``But we are asking the chairman to release the resolutions on human shields''-- which I in substance support--``from the committee,'' but when we can really do something for Israel, which is to pass this legislation, to say ``No, we cannot go through this process because it is not regular order.'' It is also not regular order to allow resolutions not to come through the committee as well. I hope that maybe in the timeframe there might be a way to consult with Members on both sides of the aisle to see if there can be a resolution.

I do not judge anybody's purposes. But let me make it clear for the record that, yes, we did have a special business meeting. It was out of the regular order as to how we would call such a meeting and the procedures we would have for such a meeting. But it was done in good faith in order to accommodate the ultimate goal, which is passing an incredible piece of legislation at an incredibly important period of time.

I see my colleague wants to say something. I have something else to say that is not related.

I will yield.

If I may through the Chair--I appreciate that.

Let me just say we were told there were amendments for the purposes of votes. Maybe that did not end up being the ultimate intention of some; others may have wanted votes. But I will say to the distinguished ranking member that if there are colleagues who want to express a reservation but are not seeking a vote, they would have the opportunity to come to the floor. I am sure we could carve out some time under which we could talk about what those reservations are. They would be fully on the record, and we might find a pathway forward to being able to cast a vote on this bill. But I will leave that for my colleague and his conversations with his colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle.

I would say to my dear friend and distinguished ranking member that I know how he feels about his integrity and the process. I respect that. Only because the stakes are so high are the passions so strong with what is going on with Israel right now. So I would urge my distinguished ranking member to maybe have that informal survey with members and see if there is a way in which reservations could be expressed, and we might be able to move this legislation on the floor.

I have worked with the Senator other times and on other issues and we have worked with each other, and I hope this might be a moment in which we could actually achieve that as well. I have nothing but the greatest admiration for the Senator's work and cooperation.

Supplemental Appropriations

I wish to move to another equally important topic and in part respond to my colleague from Texas. That is the question of the supplemental and the comments made that we are unwilling to do what the House has been incapable of doing so far--at least the last time I checked. I do not know if something has happened since I came to the floor, but the House has been incapable of even sending what they viewed as their supplemental.

I do not know exactly why we would be blamed for not voting on something the House has not even passed, No. 1.

Yes, there are many of us who will oppose what the House is sending because, No. 1, it doesn't even provide the resources necessary for an emergency--an emergency of unforeseen dimension: a refugee crisis and a humanitarian crisis that needs to be dealt with.

When we look at the proposals that are contemplated in the House, not only do they not fund appropriately to meet the challenge, they misappropriate how they are going to do funding to meet this crisis.

I don't know that we need to militarize the border, because no one is threatening the border so far as the consequences of any violence. I don't know that a National Guardsman with a rifle is necessary against an 8-year-old. I really don't. We heard our colleague from Texas say: Well, these children are actually submitting themselves to the Border Patrol, not trying to flee them.

So part of what the House of Representatives wants is to spend millions of dollars for the National Guard. I would rather spend it on the Border Patrol, not the National Guard. We don't need to militarize our border.

I would like to make sure that when a child does come over, having fled 2,000 miles because they were raped or a child was told by the gang to join us or die or a child who saw their father or mother killed before them and thought they would be the next one--that if that happens to be the case for that child, that they would have the opportunity to make their case, and they can't do that in 72 hours.

I was at the same meeting earlier today with the President, which was really about national security. But the Senator from Texas raised this question--and it is a legitimate question to raise--and I didn't hear the same response in the context that the Senator from Texas characterized that response.

The President said there has to be due process; but yet we need to find a way to try to accelerate that process but within the context of due process, and not to strip away the law that was passed in a bipartisan process and signed by a Republican President because he understood, as did the Congress at the time, that if you flee 2,000 miles and actually get here, it must be a lot more than an economic refugee. It must be because you have a credible fear of the loss of your life or your safety. That is what is at stake here.

Now, it boggles my mind that we cannot get a successful vote. I don't know if we will or we won't, but I get a sense from what I hear from my Republican colleagues that they won't cast a positive vote for the type of supplemental that would give the resources to meet the challenge. To do what? To put more people on the border in terms of Border Patrol. To do what? To create more immigration judges, to create more prosecutors.

What are they going to all do, coddle the child? No. They are going to be enforcing the border--the border in States where some of my colleagues seem to be the biggest opponents of the supplemental. I don't get it.

Now, I have never voted for a supplemental that is enforcement only, but I am ready to do it because this is an emergency. I understand the gravity of the situation, both on the human side as well as the national security question. But I can't fathom, for the life of me, the views that say: No, let's vote against the money and create a crisis which basically is going to leave us in a situation in which, if we do not pass the supplemental prior to leaving on this recess, monies for the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Health and Human Services for these purposes will run out. The crisis won't have been abated, but the situation will continue to exist and the monies will have run out, which means what the President said: Well, I am going to have to reallocate resources from within those Departments for other purposes; which means that other national security, homeland security, and other health issues are not going to have the resources to meet the challenges they are presently meeting. That is not in the collective interests of the country.

So I am strongly going to support a supplemental that I would have never voted for because of the emergent nature of what we have. But at the same time we can't be about putting the National Guard at the border. It can't be about militarizing the border when there is no military threat, and it cannot be about stripping a law that was passed in a strong bipartisan vote and signed by a Republican President because they understood the nature of the potential challenge and they understood the very essence of a child fleeing 2,000 miles and having a shot--only a shot, no guarantee--that they in fact make their case.

That would send a message across the globe, as we are telling other countries in the world--in Africa; in Jordan, where we tell them to handle the Syrian refugees; in Turkey, where we tell them to handle the Syrian refugees; in the Dominican Republic, when there was the hurricane and we said let the Haitians come on over--we can't handle the humanitarian needs of children who have a credible sense and a credible case about fear for their life. Not every child will have that case, and those will be deported. But not every child should be automatically denied either.

I appreciate my colleague's point. I would say America certainly has the capacity to give the legal opportunity for those children to make the case that they have asylum. And when we fail to do so, I think we undermine our own principles. We undermine our own history, we undermine our own legal obligation under existing law, and we also undermine our standing in the world when we ask others to take in refugees but we say in our case that we cannot.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in support of all of the career Foreign Service officers whose nominations have been held up in the Chamber until there is a crisis somewhere in the world, until there is a Presidential or Vice Presidential trip to some part of the world that suddenly demands our attention, and then miraculously holds are lifted and nominees are approved.

On a Thursday, Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 crashed in eastern Ukraine. On the following Monday, the Senate confirmed Michael Lawson as the U.S. Ambassador to the International Civil Aviation Organization. He had been pending before the Senate. His first day on the job, his first time meeting his colleagues, he was forced to grapple with this crisis.

In the last week or 10 days, two more plane crashes have occurred in Taiwan and in Mali, an Algerian plane. Random events around the world cannot determine when the Senate acts on nominees. We cannot continue to follow a policy of confirmation by crisis. It took the President to travel to Saudi Arabia--an important ally--and the Vice President to travel to Chile for the Senate to confirm the nominees to those countries. In the case of Chile, Ambassador Hammer was taken to his new office in Santiago for his first day on the job on Air Force Two because the Senate approved his nomination just before the Vice President was to visit Chile. It should not require flying on Air Force Two to get to your posting for your first day of work as a U.S. Ambassador. Take the case of our Ambassador to Qatar. She waited for months, and then Bergdahl was exchanged for five Guantanamo detainees released to Qatar, and suddenly she was approved. It almost required the President to be ``wheels up'' on Air Force One on his way to Riyadh before we confirmed an Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

I repeat, the criteria for confirming nominees should not be determined by a sudden just-breaking crisis, with the urgent need to fill a vacant post. Confirmation-by-crisis is not a strategy. It is not in the national security interests of the United States.

Now the Foreign Relations Committee has moved judiciously--in some cases with record-setting speed--to confirm nominees. In the face of obstructionism on the floor of the Senate, the committee has proven that bipartisanship is not only possible but it can thrive when American national security interests are put first.

It is my view that we must lift up our Ambassadors and their families, not put them down. These individuals are serving our Nation. Their families are sacrificing for our Nation. They deserve better. Our career Foreign Service officers serve Democratic and Republican Presidents. They should not, must not be treated as political pawns.

We cannot continue to allow the pulpits where we preach American values to remain vacant. No Nation can listen to us if we are not present to speak for ourselves. American leadership can only occur if American leaders are present on the international stage.

The Senate standoff that has left so many career Foreign Service nominees in political and personal limbo is damaging our credibility, undermining our national security, and it has to end now.

I rise today for the career ambassadors who have not gotten the decency of a vote in the Senate, career ambassadors who are waiting, along with their families, for months, some more than a year, to take their posts. They are trapped on the Executive Calendar, unable to assume their appointed posts because the leadership on the Republican side has chosen to hold them hostage as a political tool. They have consciously chosen a strategy to do nothing, pass nothing, approve nothing, and leave key diplomatic posts unfilled for months, threatening national security and our ability to conduct foreign policy.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominees: Calendar No. 524, Adam M. Scheinman to be Special Representative of the President for Nuclear Nonproliferation, with the rank of Ambassador; Calendar No. 533, Karen Stanton to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Timor-Leste; Calendar No. 536, Eric Schultz to be Ambassador to the Republic of Zambia; Calendar No. 540, Donald Lu to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Albania; Calendar No. 542, Amy Hyatt to be Ambassador to the Republic of Palau; Calendar No. 544, John Hoover to be the Ambassador to the Republic of Sierra Leone; Calendar No. 546, Matthew Harrington to be the Ambassador to the Kingdom of Lesotho; Calendar No. 548, Thomas Daughton to be the Ambassador to Namibia; Calendar No. 637, Arnold Chacon to be Director General of the Foreign Service; Calendar No. 696, Luis Moreno to be Ambassador to Jamaica; Calendar No. 699, Maureen

Cormack to be the Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina; Calendar No. 707, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, an Assistant Secretary of State of African Affairs, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the African Development Foundation; Calendar No. 898, Ted Osius to be Ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam; Calendar No. 902, Gentry O. Smith to be Director of the Office of Foreign Missions and have the rank of Ambassador during his tenure; Calendar No. 927, Leslie Bassett to be Ambassador to Paraguay; Calendar No. 953, George Albert Krol to be Ambassador to the Republic of Kazakhstan; Calendar No. 954, Marcia Stephens Bloom Bernicat to be Ambassador to the People's Republic of Bangladesh; Calendar No. 955, James D. Pettit to be Ambassador to the Republic of Moldova; Calendar No. 956, John R. Bass to be Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey; Calendar No. 957, Allan P. Mustard to be Ambassador to Turkmenistan; Calendar No. 958, Todd Robinson to be Ambassador to the Republic of Guatemala; Calendar No. 961, Erica J. Barks Ruggles to be Ambassador to the Republic of Rwanda; Calendar No. 962, Brent Robert Hartley to be Ambassador to the Republic of Slovenia; Calendar No. 966, Michele Jeanne Sison to be the Deputy Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, with the rank and status of Ambassador, and the Deputy Representative of the United States of America to the Security Council of the United Nations; finally, Calendar No. 967, Michele Jeanne Sison to be Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations, during her tenure of service as the Deputy Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations.

I appreciate that.

Further, that their nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Madam President, I don't know about nuclear options, but I do know about national security.

When we have objections to some career ambassadors--I am not even talking about other nominees who are equally as important to places in the world where we face a challenge. But when I extract those out of the list that are also pending before the Senate in critical places in the world and just say, my God, if a career ambassador--someone who serves under Democratic and Republican administrations and has committed their life to the service of our country in the foreign service--cannot get to their places, I don't understand.

I don't understand how we can actually object to places like Guatemala where we are having the crisis that we just debated right now. Wouldn't it be great to have a U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala to direct the Guatemalan Government as to our concerns about how children are coming here? Wouldn't it be great to have the Ambassador to Turkey at a time when we have all of these challenges in the region, where Turkey has a huge number of Syrian refugees. And we say we object to those? Or Vietnam, where we are looking at a 123 nuclear agreement and where we are concerned about what China is doing in the South China Sea as it ultimately challenges Vietnam in international waters for drilling purposes? And the list goes on and on.

So let me at least try some. If I can't do them as a bloc, let's see if we can get somebody confirmed here at the end of the day to critical positions.

So let me ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider this following nomination: Calendar No. 968, John Tefft to be Ambassador to Russia, a career ambassador.

Now, imagine if we cannot send a United States Ambassador to Russia in the midst of the enormous challenges.

So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider nomination Calendar No. 968, John Tefft, Ambassador to Russia; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that there be no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to that nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, this is not a procedure the majority set up. The procedure that is being set up is one where career nominees and critical nominees are being held on the floor as a procedure that the Republicans have decided to do.

Let me try once again. Let's see whether there is a more important place than Russia.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Mark Lippert to be Ambassador to South Korea, Calendar No. 893; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be made in order to that nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative business.

It is true it is a political appointment, but to the Republic of South Korea. At a time when we are facing challenges in the South China Sea, where there is a dispute between China and Korea, where we have critical interests, where we are dealing with North Korea, we can't have an Ambassador to South Korea?

Let me just say that I could go through a list of critical countries. And it is pretty amazing to me. I have some of my colleagues who have come to the floor to talk about national security. Well, national security isn't only about having a trigger and a gun. National security is also about having an ambassador in a country to ultimately press our case and our concerns as it relates to our bilateral relationship with that country.

So places like Russia, which was objected to, places like South Korea, places like Guatemala, where we are having the crisis, and a whole bunch of African countries that were in the career list--we are going to have the African leader come here next Monday and Tuesday, but we are not going to have ambassadors to a whole bunch of their countries--career ambassadors to a whole bunch of their countries. That is not in the national interests and security of the United States.

I hope that after having waited quite some time in order to finally get to this point where I felt the necessity to come to the floor and ask for unanimous consent, that instead of the trickle that we occasionally get because there is a crisis and therefore there is a response to the crisis, that

we can avoid responding by crisis and having people in places that maybe would help us to ensure that the crisis doesn't take place.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I would be happy to yield.

The gentleman who is nominated, a career nominee to be the Ambassador to Guatemala is Todd D. Robinson.

I say to my distinguished colleague from Delaware that I already included the Ambassador to Guatemala in my list and there was objection. If the Senator from Wyoming, who I believe is not doing this in his own course but on behalf of his leadership, has an indication that he would accept that, I would be happy to do it; otherwise, I think we would further not be able to achieve it.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 958, Todd D. Robinson to be the Ambassador to Guatemala; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table; that no intervening action or debate or further motions be in order to that nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, I will close on this. Look, the reality is that if each of these ambassadors was going to be brought up and had to go through cloture and go through the whole process of time or the debate time that would be attributed to each one of them, we would spend the rest of this congressional session doing exactly that. That would not help our national security interests in terms of getting these people in place.

I want to get these people in place. I have limited the requests to countries that have career individuals and to countries that also are critical for our national security. I just hope that, in the national interest of the United States, we can come to a better position at some other time.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

I will be very brief. I want to join Senator Rubio, if I can have 2 minutes as well, before going to Senator Merkley.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the modified request is agreed to.

The Senator from Wyoming.