EXECUTIVE SESSION; Congressional Record Vol. 160, No. 101
(Senate - June 26, 2014)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S4101-S4112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF CHERYL ANN KRAUSE TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR 
                           THE THIRD CIRCUIT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk reported the nomination of Cheryl Ann Krause, of New 
Jersey, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

[[Page S4102]]

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Cheryl Ann Krause, of New Jersey, to be United States Circuit 
     Judge for the Third Circuit.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Richard J. Durbin, Patty 
           Murray, Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse, Christopher A. 
           Coons, Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown, Tom Harkin, Richard 
           Blumenthal, Benjamin L. Cardin, Angus S. King, Jr., 
           Thomas R. Carper, Debbie Stabenow, Elizabeth Warren, 
           Amy Klobuchar.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we will vote to defeat the 
filibuster against the nomination of Cheryl Krause to serve on the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Her nomination has the strong 
bipartisan support of Pennsylvania Senators, Senator Bob Casey and 
Senator Patrick Toomey. The American Bar Association has unanimously 
given her their highest rating of ``well qualified.'' The Senate 
Judiciary Committee reported her unanimously by voice vote to the full 
Senate this past April, nearly 3 months ago.
  Ms. Krause should already have been confirmed and be at work for the 
American people. Instead, Senate Republicans continue to filibuster 
qualified, uncontroversial nominees who in previous years would have 
been confirmed without any delay. This is deeply unfair to all 
Americans seeking access to justice and to the judicial nominees who, 
like Cheryl Krause, have had distinguished careers in the law. Of the 
54 judicial nominees filibustered this year, 30 have been confirmed 
unanimously, without a single vote against them. These filibusters are 
undeserved, and should stop.
  Ms. Krause has worked in private practice for over a decade, 
including as a partner at Dechert LLP and a shareholder at Hangley, 
Aronchick Segal, & Pudlin. Her work has focused on complex criminal 
defense matters in securities fraud, antitrust, and the Foreign Corrupt 
Practices Act. She has also taught courses on appellate advocacy, cyber 
crime, and judicial decisionmaking at University of Pennsylvania Law 
School and Stanford Law School. Professors from both universities have 
written in strong support for her nomination, and I ask consent that 
these letters be included in the Record.
  From 1997 to 2002, Ms. Krause served as an assistant U.S. attorney in 
the Southern District of New York, where she distinguished herself as 
the lead prosecutor in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. 
Before becoming a prosecutor, she worked as an associate at the 
prestigious firm of Davis, Polk, & Wardwell and as a law clerk at 
Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe LLP. After graduating with honors 
from Stanford Law School, she served as a law clerk to Judge Alex 
Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1993 
to 1994 and to Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court from 
1994 to 1995.
  Her commitment both to the practice of law and to her community in 
Philadelphia has been admirable. In 2011, as part of partnership 
between Dechert LLP and the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, 
Ms. Krause brought a class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania on behalf of over 1,000 autistic students within the 
school district of Pennsylvania challenging the school district's 
transfer of these students from school to school without adequate 
notice to parents. After 2 years of litigation, Ms. Krause was 
successful, and the district court required the school district to 
redevelop its policy. Ms. Krause has also helped to launch the 
Philadelphia Project, a program that provides legal services to 
families of children with disabilities in the school district of 
Philadelphia.
  She is well qualified to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Third Circuit. Her record of accomplishments is unquestionable, as is 
her dedication to the rule of law and the Constitution. I urge my 
colleagues to vote to defeat the filibuster against this excellent 
nominee.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          Stanford Law School,

                                     Stanford, CA, March 10, 2014.
     Subject: Nomination of Cheryl A. Krause to the U.S. Court of 
         Appeals for the Third Circuit

     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chair, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: We write 
     as the three former deans and the current dean of Stanford 
     Law School to express our enthusiastic support for Cheryl A. 
     Krause, who has been nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals 
     for the Ninth Circuit.
       Cheryl Krause graduated at the top of her class at Stanford 
     Law School in 1993. She was first in her class after her 
     first year of law school, and she and her partner were the 
     champions of the school-wide Kirkwood Moot Court Competition. 
     Ms. Krause herself was selected as the best oral advocate in 
     that final round. Following her graduation from law school, 
     she clerked for Judge Kozinski, now the Chief Judge of the 
     U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and for U.S. 
     Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Following her 
     clerkships, she has pursued a wonderfully varied career--as a 
     law teacher, law firm lawyer and partner, and an Assistant 
     United States attorney. She has been repeatedly recognized as 
     one of the finest lawyers in the United States. Along the 
     way, she has somehow found time to perform an enormous amount 
     of pro bono legal representation and has been repeatedly 
     recognized for those contributions as well.
       We write to tell you about Ms. Krause's reputation at 
     Stanford. That reputation can only be captured through a 
     series of adjectives that faculty use to describe their 
     impression of her: exceptional, stellar, admirable, 
     brilliant, incomparable. She is remembered as an academic 
     stand-out in and out of the classroom, a student leader, a 
     superb young lawyer, and a student who, faculty predicted, 
     would always combine a challenging legal practice with pro 
     bono and public service throughout her career.
       Faculty members describe her as ``brilliant,'' ``among the 
     small handful of top students I have ever taught'' ``the best 
     student oral advocate I have ever seen,'' ``truly possessing 
     a judicial temperament,'' and ``ideally qualified 
     temperamentally and intellectually suited'' to be a judge. 
     Ms. Krause's career after law school has fulfilled these 
     impressions and predictions and more. She has forged a 
     remarkable path as a lawyer, and it is one that has prepared 
     her well for a career on the bench.
       We hope that you will give her your most serious 
     consideration. We are optimistic that you will find her 
     record as impressive as that of her former teachers and 
     mentors at Stanford Law School.
           Sincerely,
     Paul Brest,
       Professor Emeritus and former Dean, Stanford Law School.
     Kathleen M. Sullivan,
       Partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, (former Dean, 
     Stanford Law School).
     Larry Kramer,
       President, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, (former 
     Dean, Stanford Law School).
     M. Elizabeth Magill,
       Dean and Richard E. Lang Professor of Law, Stanford Law 
     School.
                                  ____

                                        University of Pennsylvania


                                                   Law School,

                                  Philadelphia, PA, March 7, 2014.
     Re Cheryl Ann Krause.

     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: As faculty 
     members at the University of Pennsylvania Law School who have 
     had the privilege of working with Cheryl Ann Krause, we write 
     to express our enthusiastic support of her nomination to the 
     U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
       Since she was first appointed a Lecturer in Law in 2003, 
     Cheryl has taught Penn Law courses in cybercrime, evidence, 
     and appellate advocacy, and has guest-lectured in three 
     courses taught by other faculty. As a partner at the Dechert 
     firm, Cheryl has been the lead person teaching our Federal 
     Appellate Litigation Externship, in which Penn Law students 
     are assigned to litigation teams at Dechert working on pro 
     bono cases pending before the Third Circuit. In the early 
     2000s, Cheryl was a Barrister member of the University of 
     Pennsylvania Law School American Inn of Court (an 
     organization that seeks to promote ethics and professionalism 
     by bringing together law students, practitioners, and judges 
     for periodic discussions on legal issues), and she 
     participated in presenting three Inn of Court programs on 
     different topics.
       In her teaching and mentoring at the Law School, Cheryl has 
     demonstrated the talents that will make her a first-rate 
     judge. Not

[[Page S4103]]

     only does Cheryl bring to her tasks a powerful analytical 
     capacity, but also she has consistently displayed fair-
     mindedness and intellectual curiosity. Her knack for 
     providing students and young lawyers with rigorous yet 
     constructive feedback signals that she would show respect to 
     the lawyers who appear before the Court while subjecting 
     their contentions to penetrating scrutiny. Cheryl possesses 
     excellent judgment and high integrity, and her interpersonal 
     skills would make her a valued and collegial member of the 
     Court.
       In sum, we believe that Cheryl's legal acumen, temperament, 
     and experience make her a superb candidate for a seat on the 
     U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and we heartily 
     support her nomination.
           Sincerely,
         Stephanos Bibas, Professor of Law and Criminology, 
           Director, Supreme Court Clinic; Jill E. Fisch, Perry 
           Golkin Professor of Law, Co-Director, Institute for Law 
           and Economics; Paul M. George, Associate Dean for 
           Curriculum, Development and Biddle Law Library; Kermit 
           Roosevelt, Professor of Law; Theodore Ruger, Professor 
           of Law, Deputy Dean; Catherine T. Struve, Professor of 
           Law; Christopher S. Yoo, John H. Chestnut Professor of 
           Law, Communication, and Computer & Information Science, 
           Director, Center for Technology, Innovation & 
           Competition; Stephen B. Burbank, David Berger Professor 
           for the Administration of Justice; Michael A. Fitts, 
           Dean and Bernard G. Segal Professor of Law; Seth F. 
           Kreimer, Kenneth W. Gemmill Professor of Law; David 
           Rudovsky, Senior Fellow; Louis S. Rulli, Practice 
           Professor of Law and Clinical Director; Amy L. Wax, 
           Robert Mundheim Professor of Law.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Cheryl Ann Krause, of New Jersey, to be United States 
Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) and 
the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the Senator from Mississippi 
(Mr. Cochran).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 215 Ex.]

                                YEAS--57

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--39

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Begich
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Udall (CO)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 57, the nays are 39. 
The motion is agreed to.
  The Republican whip.


                              Immigration

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to spend a few moments this 
morning talking about realistic solutions to the ongoing crisis along 
American's southern border.
  Obviously, I come from a border State where we have 1,200 miles of 
common border with the nation of Mexico--which, of course, has been the 
gateway now to this humanitarian wave of unaccompanied children coming 
from Central America into the United States. I will talk more about 
that in detail, but I first want to comment on something the majority 
leader said this morning in his opening remarks.
  With what has now become his trademark hyperbole and frequent 
disregard for the facts, the majority leader suggested that the 
Republican platform was: Deport first, find solutions later--or never.
  I find that offensive, and it is certainly not true. I can just 
assume that the majority leader has had other things that have taken 
his attention and he has ignored completely the concrete solutions I 
and others have been promoting, some of which I will talk about here in 
a moment.
  The last thing I would say specifically to this offensive and untrue 
comment of the majority leader this morning is: If you are truly 
concerned about this issue, Senator Reid, you might want to focus on 
Members of your own party. After all, no less than Vice President Joe 
Biden has said of the unaccompanied minors flooding across from the 
U.S.-Mexican border:

       It is necessary to put them back in the hands of a parent 
     in the country from which they came.

  He went on to say:

       Once an individual's case is fully heard, and if he or she 
     does not qualify for asylum, he or she will be removed from 
     the United States and returned home.

  That is Vice President Biden. Perhaps the majority leader should talk 
to him or he could talk to our former Senate colleague Hillary Clinton, 
former Secretary of State, who said this about these unaccompanied 
children:

       [They] should be sent back as soon as it can be determined 
     who the responsible adults in their families are.

  That is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and, in all 
likelihood, the Democratic Party's nominee for the President of the 
United States in 2016. Perhaps the majority leader should talk to her 
or he could talk to the Secretary of Homeland Security under whose 
purview this issue falls most directly, who said that:

       Under current U.S. laws and policies, anyone who is 
     apprehended crossing our border illegally is a priority for 
     deportation, regardless of age.

  Perhaps the majority leader should pick up the phone and talk to him.
  So rather than make offensive, politically motivated allegations, 
perhaps the majority leader should get his facts straight, talk to 
leaders of his own political party, and then work with us on this side 
of the aisle to try to find some realistic solutions.
  As the insurgency rages in Iraq and the border between Syria and Iraq 
has collapsed and attention here in Washington has turned to other 
parts of the globe, I can say, without a doubt, the attention of my 
constituents in Texas is still very much focused on what is happening 
on our southwestern border and this surge of unaccompanied minor 
children who are making a dangerous and treacherous journey from 
Central America through Mexico and ending up on our doorstep.
  First of all, though, when the facts began to unfold the 
administration said that human smuggling operations are responsible for 
creating a misinformation campaign, and that is why we are seeing this 
surge of unaccompanied minors.
  There may actually be an element of truth to that if we think about 
it, because if the human smuggling operations--the drug cartels, 
organizations such as the Zetas and the associated gangs that work with 
them--make money on each and every migrant who passes through these 
corridors of human trafficking and human smuggling, then they probably 
are making money--more money the more people who come. They probably 
make more money with children and women and other migrants whom they 
kidnap and hold for ransom. So there is some element of that.
  But then we have been told by the administration that the surge is 
entirely the result of gang violence and poverty in Central America, 
and that it has nothing to do with President Obama's policies or his 
perceived commitment to our immigration laws, including the enforcement 
that only the executive branch can do.
  A few days ago, however, Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson 
published what he called ``an open letter to the parents of children 
crossing our

[[Page S4104]]

Southwest border,'' in which he implicitly acknowledged that the 
President's immigration policies or the perception that he was less 
than committed to enforcing those policies has indeed become a magnet 
for illegal border crossings.
  Referring to the so-called deferred action program President Obama 
announced in June of 2012--remember the President said, ``I have a pen 
and I have a phone''? Basically saying: I am going to go it alone, I am 
not going to work with Congress anymore? That was a product of the 
mentality and approach by the President.
  But referring to the so-called deferred action program that President 
Obama announced in June of 2012, Secretary Johnson felt compelled in 
this open letter to inform his readers that:

       The U.S. Government's Deferred Action for Childhood 
     Arrivals, also called ``DACA,'' does not apply to a child who 
     crosses the U.S. border illegally today, tomorrow or 
     yesterday.

  It doesn't apply. Secretary Johnson reiterated this point in the very 
next paragraph when he said:

       There is no path to deferred action or citizenship, or one 
     being contemplated by Congress, for a child who crosses our 
     border illegally today.

  If the sole driver of the border crisis was in fact Central American 
violence and poverty, or smuggling organizations, then there is no 
reason to believe that Secretary Johnson needed to clarify the details 
of U.S. immigration policy. After all, if the migrant surge has nothing 
to do with U.S. policy, as the White House initially insisted, then 
clarifying what that policy is won't affect it at all. But it has 
become simply undeniable that President Obama's policies--including his 
unilateral deferred action program, as well as the perception that he 
less than seriously committed to enforcing current law and in fact has 
ordered Secretary Johnson to investigate and recommend a further 
relaxation of his enforcement policies--all of this has played a huge 
role in creating the perception to tens of thousands of unaccompanied 
children that you should risk your life and travel unaccompanied in the 
hands of the cartels to the United States, because there won't be any 
consequences associated with it.

  It is that perception that the President continues to create by his 
silence that is the magnet for this illegal immigration.
  Don't take my word for it. According to an internal Department of 
Homeland Security memo:

       The main reason the subjects chose this particular time to 
     migrate to the United States was to take advantage of the 
     ``new'' U.S. ``Law'' that grants a ``free pass'' or permit . 
     . .

  In other words, they came because of a widespread perception that 
unaccompanied minors and women traveling with children would be allowed 
to stay, even after crossing the border illegally.
  I think there is more to this story. In fact, what we have learned is 
that women traveling with children are frequently given a notice to 
appear once they are processed by the Border Patrol--a notice to appear 
for a hearing in a court that would then determine any claims of asylum 
or then determine whether they can stay in the United States or they 
would have to return to their country of origin. This is called a 
notice to appear.
  Strangely enough, the vast majority of immigrants who get a notice to 
appear never show up. It makes one wonder about the ones who do show 
up, because there is absolutely no followthrough.
  This is what is perceived, has been this ``permission'' or ``free 
pass'' or ``permiso'' in Spanish.
  Meanwhile, a study by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of 
Science and Technology Directorate concluded that the unaccompanied 
minors:

       . . . are aware of the relative lack of consequences they 
     will receive when apprehended at the U.S. border.

  Relative lack of consequences. In other words, nothing happens to 
them. If you make it here, you will be able to stay. That is the 
perception.
  Again, it is puzzling to me that even though the administration's own 
documents show a clear reason for the surge, they initially continue to 
offer the public a shifting narrative.
  There is no doubt that drug- and gang-related violence in Central 
America is bad. It is a matter of tremendous concern for U.S. 
policymakers. It is terrible, it is heartbreaking, and it is something 
I propose we try to address. I had a great conversation, for example, 
on the floor a couple days ago with the senior Senator from California, 
Mrs. Feinstein, who said: Maybe there is something we can do, as we 
have done in the past, in countries such as Colombia, countries such as 
Mexico, and elsewhere, where we have worked with our partners there to 
try to help them restore security and the rule of law. That certainly 
is a conversation I look forward to continuing.
  But the fact is the violence in Central America didn't just begin a 
couple years ago. As a matter of fact, the murder rates in Guatemala 
and El Salvador were higher in 2009 than they were in 2012 and 2013. 
But the massive spike in illegal immigration by unaccompanied minors 
didn't start until 2012--the very same year, not coincidentally, when 
the President announced his unilateral deferred action program, again 
creating the perception that if you came here, you would be able to 
stay. Thus, there is no wonder that people felt as though the 
floodgates had opened, creating the humanitarian crisis and 
overwhelming the capacity of local, State, and Federal authorities to 
deal with all of these children.
  By fiscal year 2013, the number of unaccompanied minors detained on 
our southern border had grown to nearly 25,000--up from 6,500 2 years 
earlier. From 6,500 to 25,000 in 2 years' time.
  According to the New York Times:

       From October to June 15th, 52,000 unaccompanied minors were 
     caught at the American border with Mexico, twice the number 
     for the same period in the previous year.

  There are estimates that could turn out to be 60,000 or more this 
year and could double next year. One begins to wonder: Where does this 
end? How does this end?
  So between the President's refusal to enforce our immigration laws 
and his ever-shifting explanation as to the source of the ongoing 
crisis, it is no wonder that the President has lost so much credibility 
on this issue.
  Indeed, if the President wants to know why he hasn't been able to 
pass immigration reform in the House and the Senate, all he has to do 
is look at the fact that people have lost confidence in his willingness 
to enforce the law.
  I know the senior Senator from New York has suggested: Well, we 
should pass an immigration law and postpone its effective date until 
after President Obama leaves office. I would say that is a shocking 
statement, it seems to me, which has been reiterated by the majority 
leader Senator Reid.
  There is an enormous amount of distrust about the Federal 
Government's commitment to enforce the law. So I don't care what the 
law might ultimately be; if the American people don't believe the 
President and the Attorney General and the executive branch will 
enforce the law, we have lost their confidence entirely, and we will 
never be able to improve and fix our broken immigration system, 
something I am committed to do.
  Given all the different narratives coming out of the White House 
concerning the surge of unaccompanied minors, I think it would be good 
for the President to directly address the issue.
  He has sent Vice President Biden to Central America. That is a 
positive step. I know Secretary Johnson has visited the Rio Grande 
Valley and some of these detention centers for unaccompanied minors. 
That is a positive step. And he has written this open letter to the 
parents of children in Central America discouraging them from sending 
their children on this long, perilous journey from Central America to 
the United States through these drug-smuggling and human-smuggling 
corridors controlled by the Zetas and other cartels.
  Yesterday I submitted a resolution with my friend the junior Senator 
from Florida, Mr. Rubio, that calls on the President to do five things:
  No. 1, it calls on the President to publicly declare that the 
deferred action program he unilaterally announced in June 2012 will not 
apply to the recent waves of children who have been illegally crossing 
our southwestern border.

  That is the same thing that Secretary Johnson and others have been 
saying, but it is different coming from the President of the United 
States. It

[[Page S4105]]

will be covered by the press. It will be communicated to parents in 
Central America: Don't send your children to the United States, making 
them an additional part of this humanitarian crisis, and subject them 
to all the perils I have talked about repeatedly of that treacherous 
trip from Central America to the United States.
  Secondly, this resolution calls on the President to publicly 
discourage parents in Central America and Mexico and elsewhere from 
sending their kids on one of the most dangerous migration journeys in 
the world.
  Third, it calls on the President to fully and faithfully enforce U.S. 
immigration laws.
  I don't know what the facts are, but I do know some of the Members of 
the House of Representatives--Luis Gutieerrez has very recently said 
that if we can't pass immigration reform that suits him, he wants the 
President to take further unilateral action declining to enforce our 
immigration laws. That just contributes to the impression that is 
causing this wave of humanity to come to the United States and creating 
the humanitarian crisis. It doesn't fix it. It makes it worse.
  I hope the President is watching and listening and decides that he 
needs to be the one to make the statement, because only the President 
has the bully pulpit necessary to deal with this.
  Fourth, our resolution calls on the President to ensure that States 
such as Texas--and I see my colleague from Arizona; I would include 
Arizona, California, and other border States--have the resources we 
need to handle the crisis and to guarantee humane treatment of 
unaccompanied migrant children.
  Some of my colleagues from Texas visited the facility in Lackland Air 
Force Base on Monday, including Senator Cruz and others, and they 
reported back conditions which, frankly, are very disturbing.
  Fifth, this resolution calls on the President to work closely with 
Mexico and Central American officials to improve security at Mexico's 
southern border. Mexico has a 500-mile southern border with Guatemala 
which is insecure and porous, through which all of the unaccompanied 
minors from Central America come.
  I realize how controversial and polarizing the whole discussion about 
immigration can be, but I suggest we need to try to work together on a 
bipartisan basis to deal with it. Hopefully, by making this above 
partisan politics and doing our job, we can help resolve this immediate 
crisis, but then we can help regain the public's confidence so they 
will allow us to take the reasonable steps we know we need to take 
moving forward to fix our broken immigration laws.
  I believe passing this resolution would send a powerful message about 
our commitment and the President's commitment to the rule of law, our 
commitment to resolving the current border crisis, and our commitment 
to saving these young children from unimaginably treacherous journeys 
through Mexico which I previously described.
  I urge all of our colleagues to work together with us to send that 
message, and encourage the President to use the bully pulpit to send 
the message I have outlined.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CORNYN. I will.
  Mr. McCAIN. First, I thank him for the resolution.
  On behalf of myself and others, I appreciate the representation of 
the people of Texas who are literally experiencing a crisis on the 
southern border of our States--of the Senator's State as well as mine.
  I note the presence of the Senator from Illinois. There is no greater 
advocate for the DREAMers, the children who were brought here, not 
willfully, and I believe that in our immigration reform bill we address 
that issue in a humane and compassionate fashion.
  But I ask my colleague now: Isn't it terribly inhumane to see these 
children taken from these countries by some of the most unspeakable 
people on Earth--these coyotes? And their trip along the way these 
hundreds of miles is so cruel and inhumane to many of these children 
that it is chilling. These coyotes are terrible people. They commit 
crimes to these people and on these young children. They do terrible 
things. They sometimes ride on the top of a train where the safety is--
obviously, their lives are literally in jeopardy.
  Again, I appreciate the work that has been done on behalf of the 
DREAMers. But shouldn't we care a great deal about these children, even 
if they are not in the United States, for what they are undergoing now? 
And isn't it a humanitarian issue of the highest order, and wouldn't we 
be better served if we told these children and the people who are 
motivating them and making a lot of money bringing them here--wouldn't 
it be better for us to say: Look, anybody who shows up at our border is 
not going to be allowed to stay in this country. But if you go to our 
consulate, if you go to our embassy in the country in which you reside 
and make a case that your life is being threatened, you are being 
persecuted--whatever the conditions are for asylum in our country--then 
those cases can be judged, and then if it is a humanitarian case that 
warrants it, we can bring them into the United States of America.
  But say: If you come to our border, you cross those--how many miles 
is it from the Guatemalan border?
  Mr. CORNYN. It is 1200 miles.
  Mr. McCAIN. Don't subject yourself to a 1,200-mile trip, which is 
hazardous to your life and terrible things can happen to you.
  Why don't we send a message: If you think you deserve asylum, then go 
to the consulate, go to the embassy, and we will have sufficient 
personnel there to take up your case. And if your case is compelling 
and meets our standards for asylum, then we are going to give it to 
you. But whatever you do, don't risk your life and your well-being to 
travel 1,200 miles in the hands of a coyote.
  I would say to the Senator from Texas, sometimes when we say we have 
to have a secure border and the things we need to do, we are viewed 
sometimes as inhumane.

  My question is: What is more inhumane than what is happening to these 
children now? Some of them are only 4, 5, 6 years old. What is more 
inhumane than what is happening to them as we speak?
  Shouldn't the President of the United States do as the Secretary of 
Homeland Security did yesterday and say: You cannot stay in our country 
even if you show up on the border, but you can apply for humanitarian 
asylum in the United States of America?
  Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate the question. I would say there is nobody in 
this Chamber who has been more involved in trying to fix our broken 
immigration laws than the senior Senator from Arizona. And certainly 
the senior Senator from Illinois has been very much involved. Both of 
them are members of the so-called Gang of 8 who were the primary 
authors of the Senate-passed immigration bill.
  But I would point out that not even under that bill would these 
children be covered, because they wouldn't qualify for the so-called 
DREAM Act provisions authored by the senior Senator from Illinois.
  That is the point the Secretary of Homeland Security has been trying 
to make--this is not a green light to anybody and everybody who wants 
to come to the United States.
  For their protection, for the protection and safety of the American 
people, and in the interest of an orderly immigration flow and the rule 
of law, we need people to play by the rules, and it is the perception 
that there are no rules and that if you make it here, you will be able 
to stay regardless of whether you qualify under the law that created 
this flood of humanity. The second thing I would say, the Senator is 
exactly right. I think people underestimate the horror inflicted on 
migrants who are transported from Central America through Mexico up 
into the United States at the hands of transnational criminal 
organizations. The ``coyotes'' as we always called them are the human 
smugglers. They now have to pay the cartels for protection or they 
cannot travel through the corridors up through Mexico and the United 
States. These migrants in the process of being transported here, riding 
on the train the Senator alluded to called The Beast, are prone to 
accidents. They could lose their life, leg or limb, be kidnapped, held 
for ransom. Women will be raped and assaulted. It is horrific.

[[Page S4106]]

  Who in their right mind would subject their family to those sorts of 
horrors only to end up in the United States when our laws do not permit 
their entry into this country? Somehow the President or the Secretary 
of Homeland Security are the only ones who have the bully pulpit who 
can send that message in a way none of us can to convince them we are 
going to enforce our law.
  Mr. McCAIN. The only way we are going to stop this right now is to 
convince these people not to listen to the coyotes who are advertising 
on regular television in these countries and to convince these people 
that trip will not lead to the result of being able to stay in the 
United States of America. Until that happens, they are going to believe 
that if they can get here, they can stay here.
  All of our hearts and sympathies go out to people who live in these 
countries in terrible conditions. We understand why they want to come 
to the United States of America, but they are on a fool's 
errand. Meanwhile, they are putting their very lives at risk by taking 
that arduous journey to Texas from Honduras, Guatemala, or some other 
Central American country.

  I see my friend--and there is no greater advocate for the DREAMers 
than Senator Durbin--on the floor. He was one of the earliest and most 
outspoken on this issue. I hope he will join us in recognizing that the 
only way we can stop this is to make sure people know there is no pot 
of gold at the end of this terrible trip they are on.
  Mr. CORNYN. I say to the senior Senator from Arizona and the senior 
Senator from Illinois--and I will turn the floor over to Senator Durbin 
in a moment--that there are two big problems: This wave of children is 
coming and not allowed to legally stay in the United States and thus 
subject to being returned to their country of origin. Both Vice 
President Biden and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that 
is the law of the land.
  If the President doesn't step up and use his bully pulpit to send 
this message in a way that none of us can because people pay attention 
to him and not as much to us--I think that is a fair statement--then 
this wave is going to continue, and it is going to get worse and worse.
  I ask through the Chair to the senior Senator from Arizona and the 
senior Senator from Illinois--both of whom I know care passionately and 
are committed to fixing our broken immigration laws, although we have 
had our differences--how will the American people let us do this if 
they have lost confidence in the executive branch's willingness to 
enforce the current law? I think it makes it much, much harder.
  In fact, as I alluded to a moment ago, the majority leader and the 
senior Senator from New York said: Let's pass immigration reform but 
delay its implementation until after President Obama leaves office.
  That sounds like an embarrassing proposal.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CORNYN. I will yield in a moment.
  That has to be embarrassing. It shows a lack of confidence in the 
President's commitment to enforce the rule of law. I think it is a 
problem. I think the President can help mitigate that problem and help 
restore the impression that you are not going to get a free pass if you 
make it to our southern border.
  I will gladly turn the floor over to my colleague.
  Mr. DURBIN. Through the Chair, I would like to ask the Senator from 
Texas a question. He said repeatedly that the President is not 
enforcing the existing law. We all acknowledge that there is a 
humanitarian crisis on our border, and I think we agree more than we 
disagree, but I do want to question the Senator's premise. Will the 
Senator from Texas tell me which existing law the President is not 
enforcing that has created this crisis?
  Mr. CORNYN. I say to my friend from Illinois that I tried to make 
clear that the current law bars the entry of these children and people 
across the border because they would not even meet the terms of the 
President's Executive order, that is, if you believe the President's 
Executive order has the effect of law, which I don't.
  There are a couple of issues. It is both the impression that the 
President is not committed to enforcing the law and the fact that now 
when these adults are detained and children are placed with relatives 
in the country, virtually none of them show up for their hearing. So 
the perception--because we don't have a comprehensive system to enforce 
our immigration laws even after people come to our country--and reality 
of how that works tells them that if they make it here, they will never 
have to leave.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
  Mr. CORNYN. Sure.
  Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator know the origin of the law which 
requires that an unaccompanied child be turned over within 72 hours by 
the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Health and 
Human Services, specifically the Office of Refugee Resettlement? Does 
the Senator from Texas know who introduced that bill and who signed it 
into law?
  Mr. CORNYN. I say to the distinguished Senator through the Chair that 
I don't know who introduced the bill, but I do know who signed it into 
law, and that was President George W. Bush.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say through the Presiding Officer that the bill was 
introduced by the Senator's former colleague from Texas, Richard Armey, 
and signed into law by President George W. Bush, which required what is 
currently taking place--that within 72 hours, unaccompanied children 
need to be taken out of the Department of Homeland Security--a law 
enforcement agency--and placed, through the Department of Health and 
Human Services, into some protective situation. The President is 
enforcing a law signed by President Bush and authored by the 
Congressman from Texas, Congressman Army.
  I ask the Senator from Texas through the Chair, on what basis is he 
saying the President is not enforcing the law?
  Mr. CORNYN. I say to the Senator from Illinois, here is how it 
works--I don't think we disagree about the law or the origin of the law 
but how it works in application. These children are now being placed 
with family members who may not be documented. They may have entered 
the country in violation of the immigration law, but because it is 
perceived as a relatively safe place for them to temporarily reside 
pending further court proceedings, they place the children with a 
family member in the United States. Absent a family member, I presume 
they will be placed with a legal guardian or foster family or the like 
while the legal proceedings go forward.
  Here is the practical problem: Once they make it here to the United 
States, if they never return to the court in response to their notice 
to appear, then they are lost forever to the immigration enforcement 
system and they become a part of the great American melting pot, never 
to be heard from or seen again unless they commit some other crime. 
That is how the press reports it in Central America and elsewhere. At 
least that is the report we hear from migrants themselves. They refer 
to it as a permiso, which is a notice to appear. At that point they 
think they are home free and never have to show up for their court 
hearing, and that it is as good as permission to enter the country. I 
believe that is what actually is happening.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would yield for a question.
  Mr. CORNYN. I will.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I understand what he said, the law governing this 
situation is a law that was authored by a Republican Congressman from 
Texas, signed into law by a Republican President, George W. Bush, and 
is currently enforced by this President. And what the Senator from 
Texas is suggesting is that the law in and of itself has at least a 
loophole or an opening that if the person doesn't appear in court--the 
young child or the parent with the child--then they could be lost in 
our system. The Senator from Texas seems to be suggesting we need to 
change the law or at least address the law.
  I have two questions. Will the Senator concede the fact that 
President Obama is enforcing the law as it is written? Secondly, what 
would the Senator do with these children once they show up in the 
United States?
  Let's assume you had a 12-year-old child--which is a case I heard 
last

[[Page S4107]]

night--on top of a freight train for 4 days; finally made it into the 
United States, possibly at the hands of a coyote or smuggler--I make no 
excuse for them--pushed across the river, or Rio Grande, in a raft and 
told to report to the first person in uniform? What would the Senator 
have us do with the child at that point?
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would respond to my friend from 
Illinois and say I would have them enforce the law, which is as the 
Senator has just described. Once the Border Patrol processes the child 
or migrant, then they turn them over to Health and Human Services, 
where they can be placed in humanitarian and hopefully clean conditions 
so their interests can be looked after while their legal case proceeds.
  The problem is not just the fact that there are no consequences once 
these children or others are released on a notice to appear, which is 
never enforced, it is also the perception that people--for example, 
this morning Congressman Luis Gutieerrez said that he was so frustrated 
by our inability to pass immigration reform, that the President needs 
to withhold any deportations or radically, essentially, refuse to 
enforce the law even further.
  America is the most generous country in the world when it comes to 
our legal immigration system. We naturalize about 800,000 people a 
year. It has been up to as many as 1 million people. We are very 
generous. But it is not too much to insist that people do it through 
legal means for their protection and ours.
  The statements the President has been making and the unilateral 
actions he continues to take give the perception he doesn't care what 
Congress says; he is going to go it alone. As a matter of fact, this 
morning the Supreme Court rebuked the President on an illegal recess 
appointment--unconstitutional recess appointment.
  I think it is not just the law as it is written on the books, it is 
also how the law is actually implemented. It is also the further 
perception that the President is going to continue to basically refuse 
to repatriate people who enter the country illegally.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I went to the White House last night. 
The President invited Democratic Members of the Senate, and we met with 
Cabinet and staff members. One of the President's close advisers I met 
with described what she had seen in McCallum, TX, and there were tears 
in her eyes when she told heartbreaking stories of babies, children, 
and infants who are coming to this country. Many of them are in the 
hands of smugglers and coyotes who have gotten money from their parents 
or family to transport them to the border of the United States.
  She told me the story of a 12-year-old boy, whom I mentioned earlier, 
from Guatemala. He was put on the top of a freight train and told to 
hang on for 4 days. For 4 days this 12-year-old boy, scared to death, 
was on top of this freight train as it barreled through Central America 
on its way to the United States. He had with him the name of a relative 
in the United States, and that is it. He was told that as soon as he 
got across the border, look for somebody in a uniform, don't show any 
resistance, and present yourself, which he did. He now sits in a 
facility in Texas.
  This is a horrible humanitarian situation. The numbers that are 
involved here--I will give for the record the numbers that have been 
reported, which are worth noting. Some people may think we are talking 
about hundreds of children. This year, and this year alone, as of June 
15, unaccompanied children apprehended by the Border Patrol: Honduras, 
15,000; Guatemala, 12,000; El Salvador, 11,000; and Mexico, 12,000. 
Almost 80 percent of these kids come from the countries Honduras, El 
Salvador, and Guatemala.
  Why are they coming here? They are coming here for a number of 
reasons: No. 1, there is this criminal network that gets money to 
transport children. They promise the families they will get them to the 
border. God only knows what will happen to those kids on their way. 
Some of them will die, some of the girls will be raped, and their lives 
may never be the same. It is a desperate, awful, tragic situation, and 
there is no getting around the fact that it is occurring.
  Why are the families doing this? Why would you turn a fourth or fifth 
grader in your household loose to make that awful, deadly journey? 
Well, part of the reason is those three countries--Honduras, El 
Salvador, and Guatemala--are virtually lawless. They are three of the 
top five countries in the world when it comes to murder rates. There is 
a fear that the gangs in these countries will kill their kids anyway.
  A young girl from one of these countries said: I ran. I didn't know 
what else to do because I was told one of the members of the gang 
wanted to take me on as a girlfriend. I know what happens to girls who 
become girlfriends. They are raped, killed, and left in a plastic bag 
on the side of the road.
  Sadly, that is the reality of life for those children in some of 
these countries.
  The United States is at the end of this journey and trying to decide 
the humane thing to do when an infant, a toddler, a 10-year-old, or a 
12-year-old, shows up.
  There is no easy answer.
  The one point I wish to make and clarify--and I hope I did it in the 
course of my colloquy with my friend and colleague from Texas--this is 
not a question about whether President Obama has dreamed up a new law 
or is not enforcing an existing law. The President is enforcing the 
existing law in America, and here is what it says: When an 
unaccompanied child shows up on our border and our Border Patrol takes 
this child into custody, within 72 hours--we give them some time 
because it is not easy--we need to put this child in a different place 
outside of a law enforcement agency. Technically, we need to take them 
out of the police station part of the world and put them in some part 
of the world that is best for a child. That is what they are required 
to do under a law introduced by a Republican Texas Congressman, Dick 
Armey, and signed into law by a Republican President, George W. Bush. 
What President Obama is doing is enforcing a law which President Bush 
signed and was supported by Republicans.
  So, please, for a second, can we stop the partisanship on this? Let's 
view this not as a political crisis but a humanitarian crisis, and 
let's acknowledge the obvious. The President has tried in his capacity 
to deal with the immigration issue. He has done more than he wanted to 
do as President. Last night at a gathering the President said: Does 
anyone think I believe Executive orders are the best way to govern 
America? No. It is better to do it by law. But let me tell my 
colleagues why he is forced into Executive orders.
  It was 365 days ago, on the floor of this Senate, that we passed a 
comprehensive immigration reform bill. It was one of my prouder moments 
as a Senator. There were eight of us who wrote the bill and it took us 
months: four Republicans, including John McCain, who was just on the 
floor, my friend Marco Rubio of Florida, Jeff Flake of Arizona, and--I 
am thinking for a second; I blanked on it, but I will think of the 
other one in just a second--Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. So the 
four Republicans, and on our side of the table we had Chuck Schumer of 
New York, myself, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, and Michael Bennet of 
Colorado.
  We went at it for months and we wrote the bill. We brought the bill 
to the floor, and we covered virtually every aspect of our broken 
immigration system, start to finish. It wasn't easy, but we covered it 
all. The bill passed on the floor of the Senate. It got 68 votes. We 
had 14 Republicans joining the Democrats in passing the bill. It was 
supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It was supported by the 
labor unions, the faith community. Grover Norquist, one of the most 
conservative Republicans in our country, supported it publicly and said 
it was a good idea, and we passed it.
  We sent it to the House of Representatives 1 year ago. What has 
happened to comprehensive immigration reform since we sent it 1 year 
ago to the House of Representatives? Nothing. Nothing. They refuse to 
call up the bill for consideration.
  So when Members come to the floor and talk about how broken our 
immigration system is, I agree. Many of us tried to fix it, and we did 
it the way we

[[Page S4108]]

should have--in a bipartisan fashion, give and take, compromise.
  We are sending, under this new bill, more enforcement to the border 
between Texas and Mexico than we have ever seen before. I said somewhat 
jokingly that the people at the border can reach out and touch hands, 
there will be so many of them--figuratively--at our border. That was 
the price the Republicans insisted on: border enforcement. All right. 
What we insisted on was to take the 11 million undocumented in America 
today, and if they have been here for at least 2 years, give them a 
chance. Let them come forward, register with the United States who they 
are, where they live, where they work, who is in their household. Let 
them pay their taxes, let them pay a fine, and let them learn English. 
If they do those things, we will do a criminal background check to make 
sure they are no threat to anyone in this country, and we will watch 
them. We will watch them for 13 years--13 years. Then they have a 
chance at legalization.
  That is what our bill says. They go to the back of the line and they 
wait 13 years while they pay their fines. It is tough. Some of them 
will not make it to the end of the road, but it is there. It gives them 
a chance.
  So when Members come to the floornd criticize our current immigration 
system, I say to them, there was a repair to that system, there was a 
fix to that system. It passed the Senate 1 year ago and Speaker Boehner 
refuses to call it to the floor of the House. I don't know why.
  Well, I do know why: Because it would pass. There would be enough 
Republicans joining Democrats to pass it and we would finally have done 
something on the issue of immigration.
  Now we have before us a resolution by the senior Senator from Texas 
and he suggests we should take it up. The first part of the resolution 
says the President has to make it clear the DACA Executive order does 
not apply to the new people coming across the border. Well, that is a 
fact. Those who are coming across the border today can't qualify to 
become legal in the United States--not under any existing Executive 
order or under the proposed comprehensive immigration reform we passed 
in the Senate. They can't become citizens. The President saying it 
personally? I am sure the President would say it personally because he 
sent the Vice President out to Central America to visit the countries 
and tell the leaders there: There is a mistake if your people believe 
they can stay in this country legally. They cannot.
  Secondly, he said we have to discourage this migration. I am for 
that. Who isn't for that? We need to discourage the exploitation of 
these children and their families and do it in every manner possible. 
So there is nothing in that suggestion that I think isn't already being 
done.
  The third thing is to fully enforce existing law. The point I tried 
to make to the Senator from Texas is the President is fully enforcing 
existing laws. If people want to change the laws, let's have that 
debate, but to argue the President is not enforcing existing laws is 
not correct. He is. Those laws may need to be changed or addressed, but 
he is dealing with them.
  I wish to say a word, if I can, about an issue which has come up on 
the floor and one that is near and dear to my heart. It was 13 years 
ago when I got a call to my Chicago office. There was a Korean-American 
mother who had an 18-year-old daughter who was a musical prodigy. She 
played classical piano in high school and she had been offered a 
scholarship to the Manhattan School of Music. Her family was a poor 
immigrant family and this was the chance of a lifetime. When the mother 
and daughter sat down to fill out the application to go to the 
Manhattan School of Music, there was a question which asked, What is 
your citizenship? She turned to her mother and asked, What do I put 
there? And her mother said, I don't know. We brought you here under a 
visitor's visa when you were 2 years old and we never filed any papers. 
The daughter said, What are we going to do? The mother said, We will 
call Durbin. So they called our office.
  We looked into the law and the law was clear. The law was clear. This 
18-year-old girl under our law had to leave the United States for 10 
years and then apply to come back in. Where was she going to go? Her 
family was here. So the mother said to me, What can we do? I told her, 
Under the law, almost nothing. So that is when I introduced the DREAM 
Act.

  The DREAM Act says if a person is brought here as a child, an infant, 
under the age of 16, and they completed high school and had no criminal 
record of any substance at all, if they served in our military or went 
2 years to college, they had a chance to become an American citizen. 
That was the DREAM Act. I introduced it 13 years ago--13 years ago. It 
has passed the House, but it didn't pass the Senate that year. It has 
passed the Senate as part of comprehensive immigration reform, but it 
hasn't passed the House.
  So several years ago I wrote to the President. I said to the 
President, with 22 other Senators, Would you consider issuing an 
Executive order saying you will not deport these DREAM children, these 
DREAMers--because they are eligible under bills that have passed both 
the House and Senate--give them a suspension of deportation and allow 
them to stay in the United States without fear of being deported? He 
signed the Executive order. So almost 600,000 have stepped forward and 
they have agreed they will submit the information to our government 
and, in turn, they will be spared deportation.
  They are getting on with their lives. They are going to school and 
getting jobs. Amazing things are happening for them. There are great 
stories, and I come to the floor and tell them all the time, but we 
still don't have the final law. We have the President's Executive order 
which gives them a break now, but we still don't have the final law to 
resolve it.
  I wish to tell a story about one of those DREAMers today. This is 
Marie Gonzalez Deel and her parents Marvin and Marina Gonzalez. Marvin 
and Marina brought Marie from Costa Rica to the United States in 1991 
when Maria was 5 years old. They came to the United States legally on 
temporary visas and settled in Jefferson City, MO. A lawyer said to 
them, Put down roots, get a job, and you have a chance to become a 
citizen.
  The Gonzalez family bought a house, paid their taxes, and were active 
members of their church. Marvin was a mail courier for the Missouri 
Governor. Marina taught Spanish at a local school, and Maria was at the 
top of her high school class. They thought they had done everything 
right, but then Maria's family was placed in deportation proceedings. 
The community of Jefferson City was angry that a good family such as 
this who was part of their community was facing deportation. They 
rallied around them.
  I first met Marie in 2005. She was one of the first DREAMers to tell 
her story publicly. Back then it was a pretty courageous thing to do. 
It still is. At my request, the Department of Homeland Security granted 
her a stay of deportation, but 9 years ago Maria's parents were 
deported back to Costa Rica.
  In 2008, Marie graduated from Westminster College in Missouri with a 
degree in political science and business, but her parents couldn't be 
there to see her. They had been deported back to Costa Rica. In 2009, 
Marie married her college sweetheart and planned a second ceremony in 
Costa Rica so her parents could be a part of it. On Thanksgiving, 2010, 
she and her husband flew to Costa Rica. As my colleagues can see from 
this picture, they were elated to see one another for the first time in 
5 years.
  Just a few hours later, Marvin, her father, who had prostate cancer, 
collapsed. He was rushed to the hospital. He passed away later that 
same day--the day this photograph was taken. Luckily, they got to see 
him before he passed away. The family held a funeral the next day and 
carried on with the Costa Rica wedding the following day with an empty 
chair at the head of the table where Marie's father would have been 
seated.
  Today Marie is the proud mother of an 11-month-old baby girl, 
Araceli. In March 2014, Marie became a citizen of the United States. 
Here is what she wrote to me in a letter:

       I was very blessed and thankful to get the opportunity to 
     stay in the United States on a temporary visa to be able to 
     finish my education, get a job, find my soul mate, and 
     eventually become a citizen, though at the cost of not 
     spending that time with my family and feeling alone for so 
     long. My family was torn apart when I was 18 and will never 
     be able to be reunited. My immigration

[[Page S4109]]

     struggle continues until the day I can once again have my mom 
     at my side. I hope other families don't have to endure this 
     pain.

  There are 11 million stories in America, many of them just like this. 
Hard-working men and women, law-abiding families, viable parts of our 
churches and our communities, who had the courage to leave everything 
behind and come to this great Nation. Those of us who are immigrants to 
this country, which includes the Presiding Officer and myself--at least 
my mother--thank our lucky stars we were given this chance. My mother 
was an immigrant to this country and her son is a U.S. Senator from 
Illinois. She was brought here at the age of 2. Her naturalization 
certificate is in my office upstairs. I am very proud of it. It is a 
reminder to me and a reminder to anyone who visits me that this is a 
nation of immigrants. We are a nation that thrives with the diversity 
of our immigration and the energy they bring, the courage they bring, 
leaving everything behind to come to this country. That is the family 
of the Presiding Officer, and that was my family. That is our story, 
but that is America's story. That is who we are.
  Have we reached the point where we cannot even discuss future 
immigration in the House of Representatives? Have we reached a point 
where we cannot even bring the matter to the floor for a vote? Are we 
going to ignore what that means to this family and millions just like 
them, what it means to the thousands of kids presenting themselves at 
the border?
  We are better than that. America is better than that. When we embrace 
our diversity, when we embrace immigration as part of who we are in 
America, we will be stronger for it and not just in the creation of new 
businesses and jobs. These immigrants are some of the hardest working 
people in America. They take the toughest jobs that a lot of Americans 
would not touch, but they know that is what an immigrant does.
  What is their dream? That their babies, their sons and daughters, are 
going to have a better life. Thank goodness that story has been 
repeated over and over and over. That defines who we are in America.
  Now--1 year later--the House of Representatives is about to throw up 
its hands and walk away from even addressing immigration issues. What a 
heartbreaking situation. What an abdication of responsibility.
  I know there is a partisan difference between the House and the 
Senate, but I honestly believe that if the Speaker had the political 
courage to call the comprehensive immigration bill--the bipartisan bill 
that passed the Senate--we would find enough Republican House Members 
who would stand and vote with the Democrats and pass it. Sure, there 
will be critics of the Speaker--he shouldn't have done it--but that is 
what leadership calls for, for the Speaker to have that courage and get 
it done. I hope he will.
  One year is long time to wait--and for these families, years and 
years, some of them with broken dreams that will never be fulfilled, 
families who have been split up and try to survive. But that is our 
responsibility, not just for DREAMers but for our country, to make sure 
we renew this commitment to our diversity and to immigration.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Remembering Howard Baker

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, it is with great sadness that I 
announce the passing of one of the Senate's most towering figures, 
Senator Howard Baker.
  The Senate sends its sincere condolences to the family of Senator 
Baker. In particular, we want to pass along our deep sympathies to his 
wife Nancy Landon Kassebaum Baker. Many of us served alongside Nancy in 
the Senate, and we know this must be a difficult moment for her.
  Senator Baker was a true pathbreaker. He served as Tennessee's first 
popularly elected Republican Senator since Reconstruction. He served as 
America's first Republican majority leader since the time of 
Eisenhower. He served his Nation with distinction as a member of the 
U.S. Navy, as Chief of Staff to President Reagan, and as our country's 
Ambassador to Japan.
  Senator Baker truly earned his nickname, the ``Great Conciliator.'' I 
know he will be remembered with fondness by Members of both political 
parties.
  Again, let me express the Senate's sympathies to the Baker family. He 
will be missed by the Senate and by his country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, as the distinguished Republican leader has 
said, this body--the U.S. Senate--has lost a member of its family, 
Tennessean Howard Baker.
  We know of his long and distinguished career. He served three terms 
in the Senate. He served as minority leader and ended his career as 
majority leader. He was an earnest man and worked with any and all 
Members of this body in passing legislation for the good of America.
  As the Republican leader has mentioned, he worked under the direction 
of President George W. Bush as Ambassador to Japan. He was President 
Reagan's Chief of Staff. He was someone who could do everything.
  He was well liked by Democrats and Republicans. He was a fine man. I 
did not know him as well as my colleague the Republican leader or of 
course the two sitting Tennessee Senators.
  He enjoyed an illustrious career in public service and it was 
accomplished, everyone said, by his hard work. He loved foreign affairs 
and did a great job. He was motivated by his heartfelt desire to do 
good in the world. Our thoughts go to his family and his wife, whom I 
had the good fortune to serve with.
  I do say this: The two fine men who now serve in the Senate from 
Tennessee, I am confident, learned a lot from Howard Baker because the 
senior Senator from Tennessee is also a person who wants to try to work 
things out. The junior Senator from Tennessee and I have had many 
conversations. I believe he also wants to be someone who works things 
out.
  So my sympathy goes to Senator Baker's family and friends, especially 
the two Senators from Tennessee, who I am sure are heartbroken as a 
result of the loss of their mentor, friend, one of the great people to 
come out of Tennessee, and there have been plenty.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I wish to speak very briefly this 
afternoon to acknowledge a hero. I come to the floor just after the 
announcement has been made about a leader in the Senate, Senator Baker. 
While I did not have the privilege of serving at the same time as he, 
my father did. They were close friends, not only Senator Baker but 
Senator Kassebaum. My heart, my thoughts go out to the family. The 
contributions clearly from Senator Baker on so many different levels 
are so greatly appreciated.


               Tribute to Master Sergeant Roger D. Sparks

  Madam President, I would like to spend just about 5 minutes this 
afternoon speaking of another hero, and this is a man who has 
demonstrated above and beyond his commitment, his service to the United 
States. I would like to speak about MSgt Roger D. Sparks.

       It is my duty as a Pararescueman to save lives and to aid 
     the injured. I will be prepared at all times to perform my 
     assigned duties quickly and efficiently, placing these duties 
     before personal desires and comforts. The things I do, that 
     others may live.

  ``The things I do, that others may live''--this is the solemn oath by 
which all pararescue airmen pledge their allegiance and dedicate their 
service to our country. It is the sacred creed of a most honorable 
profession.
  Alaskans are extremely proud of the exceptionally heroic achievements 
of the Combat Search and Rescue Airmen assigned to the 176th Wing in 
the Alaska Air National Guard. These airmen embody the core values of 
the Air

[[Page S4110]]

Force--integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all they 
do--and are undoubtedly the best our country has to offer.
  The National Guard Bureau recently confirmed that the rescue 
squadrons of the 176th Wing comprise the busiest Combat Search and 
Rescue unit in the entire U.S. Air Force. This of course brings great 
pride to us as Alaskans. These brave men and women risk their lives 
every day so others may live, and I am honored to thank them for their 
service and recognize the extraordinary bravery of one of their own.
  I am pleased to honor one of these heroic pararescue airmen, 
specifically a parajumper--or a PJ--one MSgt Roger D. Sparks from the 
212th Rescue Squadron out of Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. In the 
near future, the Air Force will award Sergeant Sparks with the Silver 
Star Medal for gallantry in combat during a daring, lifesaving rescue 
in the face of extreme danger in Afghanistan on November 14, 2010.
  On that day, Sergeant Sparks--pictured here; the gentleman in the 
background; there he is with his pararescue team--responded to cries of 
help from an Army platoon pinned down on all sides by a fierce and 
coordinated Taliban assault.
  What started as a relatively routine rescue mission--and routine by 
their standards is still extremely heroic by any normal standard--this 
rescue mission quickly broke down into a dire situation that claimed 
the lives of five U.S. soldiers but could have been an absolutely 
catastrophic loss of life had it not been for the bravery and selfless 
actions of Sergeant Sparks and his team.
  At the time of this rescue, the PJ team had been providing dedicated 
medical evacuation support for the 101st Airborne unit during Operation 
Bulldog Bite. This was a coalition offensive which was aimed at driving 
the enemy out of the Watapur Valley in the Kunar Province of 
Afghanistan near its eastern border with Pakistan.
  Throughout the 5-day operation, the team rescued 49 casualties and 
executed 30 hoist operations, most of which were done while they were 
exposed to enemy fire. The most significant of all these missions 
though took place on November 14.
  To paraphrase the account from Sergeant Sparks' team commander, Capt. 
Koa Bailey, what began as a relatively routine rescue operation for two 
wounded and one deceased soldier quickly turned into anything but 
routine. As the rescue team approached the battle zone and took on 
fire, they quickly realized the situation was rapidly deteriorating for 
the U.S. soldiers on the ground.
  According to Captain Bailey, a different operator came on the radio, 
indicating that the first operator was hit. You could hear the fear in 
the guy's voice. While we were listening it went from two to six 
wounded. So with complete disregard for their own safety, Captain 
Bailey and Sergeant Sparks were lowered into the battle amidst a hail 
of enemy fire.
  It was later determined that the hoist line used to lower them into 
combat was actually even struck by several rounds. As soon as their 
boots hit the ground, a rocket-propelled grenade exploded less than 20 
feet away, knocking both airmen to the ground. Quickly gathering 
themselves, Sergeant Sparks and Captain Bailey took charge of the 
beleaguered platoon who were trapped in a furious, chaotic fight.
  Sergeant Sparks and Captain Bailey were on their own to handle the 
situation the best they could, with extremely limited first aid 
equipment and no ground artillery support. Over the next 5 hours, as 
bombs hammered enemy positions and bullets spattered against the rocks, 
Sergeant Sparks abandoned cover to locate, consolidate, and treat the 
wounded.
  According to his team commander, Sergeant Sparks selflessly exposed 
himself to destructive enemy fire, in order to save American lives, 
competently handling the treatment of nine patients during the worst 
possible mass casualty situation.
  Taken from the narrative:

       When Sergeant Sparks exhausted his medical supplies, he 
     improvised using belts, T-shirts or boot strings in a 
     desperate attempt to keep his patients alive. After 
     assembling all the casualties in a central location, Sergeant 
     Sparks gathered body armor and positioned it around the 
     helpless soldiers to protect and shield them from enemy fire. 
     Repeatedly returning to the most critically wounded, Sergeant 
     Sparks performed vital medical procedures in a deliberate 
     process to ensure that each of the solders received continued 
     care and attention until airlift arrived.
       He feverishly triaged chest wounds, punctured lungs, 
     shattered hips, fist-sized blast holes, eviscerated stomachs, 
     and arterial bleeders with extremely limited medical supplies 
     and only the light of the moon piercing the darkness of the 
     remote mountaintop. Upon return of evacuation aircraft, 
     Sergeant Sparks directed the hoisting of the most critically 
     injured and briefed the crews on each casualty's injuries and 
     medical requirements, choosing to remain behind until the 
     last man departed.

  Sergeant Spark's quick and composed actions ensured nine solders 
received medical care as quickly as possible amidst constant enemy fire 
and despite extremely limited resources. Sergeant Sparks' leadership 
and courageous actions saved lives and allowed the remainder of the 
infantry platoon to continue with their assigned mission. His 
extraordinary efforts under direct fire and in immediate danger to his 
own life resulted in saving four American lives and one host nation 
civilian as well as returning four soldiers killed in action to their 
families.
  Tragically, the fierce battle ultimately claimed the lives of five 
solders that day. All told, only eight soldiers of the platoon involved 
in the 6-hour battle were left with no visible wounds. However, if it 
were not for the courage and selfless action of Sergeant Sparks, 
Captain Bailey, and the entire rescue team, the loss of life would have 
been much higher.
  I would like to take this opportunity to honor Sergeant Sparks' brave 
teammates, who also disregarded their own personal safety throughout 
their support of Operation Bulldog Bite so that others might live. 
These men are: SSgt Aaron Parcha, SSgt Jimmy Settle, SSgt Ted 
Sierocinski, TSgt Brandon Hill, MSgt Brandon Stuemke, SMSgt Christopher 
``Doug'' Widener, Capt. Marcus Maris, and Capt. Koaalii Bailey.
  There were many heroes on that day, including these pararescuemen and 
the soldiers that were engaged in battle. But I am particularly honored 
to congratulate MSgt Roger Sparks on the award of the Silver Star and 
thank him and his family for their dedicated and selfless service to 
our Nation.
  As with all the members of the 176th Wing, I am absolutely in awe of 
his achievement, eternally grateful for his service, and sincerely 
proud to have him serving in the great State of Alaska.
  I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of Master Sergeant 
Sparks' Silver Star Medal citation be printed in the Record.


 CITATION TO ACCOMPANY THE AWARD OF THE SILVER STAR TO ROGER D. SPARKS

       Master Sergeant Roger D. Sparks distinguished himself by 
     gallantry in connection with military operations against an 
     armed enemy of the United States as a Pararescue Jumper 
     assigned to the 212th Rescue Squadron in the Watapur Valley, 
     Afghanistan on 14 November 2010. On that date, Sergeant 
     Sparks responded to a call in support of Operation BULLDOG 
     BITE and the Army's 101st Airborne Division. While in the 
     air, circling the objective, the ground situation grew 
     extremely hostile and the number of casualties increased from 
     two to six. As a result of the increased fighting in the 
     area, Sergeant Sparks' team took the lead position for the 
     evacuation mission. With limited information regarding the 
     ground situation, Sergeant Sparks and Captain Bailey began 
     their 40 foot descent from the helicopter via a hoist to the 
     ground and immediately began taking enemy fire. Bullets flew 
     by the two pararescuers and the lowering cable was hit three 
     times while they dangled in the air. They yelled for rapid 
     descent and the flight engineer lowered them to the ground 
     with enemy rounds flying all around. Upon reaching the 
     ground, the pair was assaulted with a rocket propelled 
     grenade. Exploding just 20 feet away, the blast knocked them 
     both off their feet. As the gunner engaged the enemy with 
     danger close rounds, Sergeant Sparks ran approximately 70 
     yards uphill, to take cover. As he approached the tree, it 
     was blown to pieces by another enemy fired rocket propelled 
     grenade. Still under intense enemy fire, with bombs hammering 
     danger close enemy positions, Sergeant Sparks abandoned cover 
     to provide aid to the wounded. Despite continued enemy fire 
     and with no concern for his personal safety, Sergeant Sparks 
     immediately performed lifesaving measures for nine wounded 
     Soldiers. He feverishly triaged chest wounds, punctured 
     lungs, shattered hips, fist sized blast holes, eviscerated 
     stomachs, and arterial bleeders with limited medical supplies 
     and only the light of the moon. Upon return of evacuation 
     aircraft, Sergeant Sparks directed evacuation of the injured 
     while briefing crews on each casualty's injuries and

[[Page S4111]]

     medical needs; choosing to remain behind until the last man 
     departed. His extraordinary efforts under direct, immediate 
     danger to his own life resulted in saving four American 
     lives, one Host Nation civilian and returning four Soldiers 
     killed in action to their families. By his gallantry and 
     devotion to duty, Sergeant Sparks has reflected great credit 
     upon himself and the United States Air Force.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                        Remembering Howard Baker

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to speak about the missing 
girls from Nigeria who on the 73rd day are still held in captivity. But 
before I do, as a Senator I would like to express my sorrow to hear 
about the passing of one of the great Senators, Howard Baker of 
Tennessee.
  Many Senators will come to the floor to extol what a great Senator he 
was, what a great leader he was. I also want to take a moment to 
express my sympathy to his widow, another Senator, Senator Nancy 
Kassebaum. When I came to the Senate, there was only one other woman, 
and that was Senator Nancy Kassebaum, then representing the great State 
of Kansas. She was a great friend to me. We served on the HELP 
Committee. We worked together over many years. Then Senator Kassebaum 
retired.
  She thought she was going back to Kansas, but she found herself in 
the arms of Howard Baker. We watched a love story unfold that was so 
endearing to many of us. Senator Ted Kennedy and I were invited to the 
wedding of Howard Baker and Nancy Kassebaum. After the vows there was a 
beautiful reception and they played the music. Howard and Nancy twirled 
and whirled around the floor. Then they turned to the crowd. Ted 
Kennedy and I rushed out. I grabbed Howard, he grabbed Nancy, and we 
did the bipartisan boogie through the night.
  Those were the days that one remembers. That is the kind of spirit 
the Senate had. That is the kind of spirit that Senator Howard Baker 
had--that you could argue, you could debate, and so on, but deep down 
the Senate should be the saucer that cools irrational passions of the 
time. He was a great leader. He created this atmosphere of being able 
to come together and solve problems. So whether it was on the Senate 
floor or whether it was on the dance floor, he really spoke about the 
need for bipartisanship. Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker is exactly the 
same way.
  So remembering with such fondness, we want to express our condolences 
about him and certainly to her as just one woman to another.


                        Nigerian School Children

  I also come to the floor today to talk about another sadness, the 
sadness about the fact that the Nigerian school girls who were abducted 
by Boko Haram continue to be held in captivity. I come to the floor to 
say that just because it is not in the headline does not mean that 
these girls are not still in danger for what has happened to them.
  We need to continue to speak up and speak out. That is not to 
minimize Iraq. That is not to minimize Iran. This is not to minimize 
all of the other problems facing the world. But we all had Web sites 
and hashtags and so on saying: Bring our girls back home. I am here 
today saying to Boko Haram: We have not forgotten. We are proud that 
our President sent 80 troops to Chad to assist in the effort to locate 
these kidnapped girls.
  We understand that there continues to be the search effort. We do not 
want it to be a recovery effort. We need it to be a rescue effort. 
These girls were kidnapped. It is despicable. It is unacceptable. They 
are threatening to sell these girls into trafficking. Now after holding 
them for 73 days, I have no idea what they have had to endure.
  It goes on. They are continuing to kidnap children. They are 
kidnapping girls, some as young as 3 and 4. That was the other day. 
They are also kidnapping little boys. What kind of organization is 
this? Now, in response to the violence there, I know we, the women of 
the Senate, signed a letter to President Obama asking for international 
sanctions against Boko Haram, and that they be added to the U.N. Al 
Qaeda sanctions list. The United Nations actually acted. They actually 
acted promptly. So now they are on the terrorist list. We need to take 
all of the appropriate actions that support the sanctions that go with 
it.
  I am hopeful we can find these girls. But we cannot stop our advocacy 
for them, for close to 100 girls, and now for the new children that 
have been kidnapped--boys as well as girls.
  We need to be able to take all necessary international steps that are 
legal to be able to rescue them and bring them home. Now this terrible, 
terrible situation has also generated the conversation about the 
education of children around the world, particularly girls. For some 
reason, there are those around the world who do not want to see girls 
get a basic education. Malala, who wrote her book about it, took a 
bullet wound in her brain because she wanted to go to school, because 
she wanted to learn to read. As she said: One child, one book at a 
time, we can change the world.
  We have put money in the Federal checkbook in foreign ops to really 
help with the education of the children around the world. Right now 
there are 62 million girls throughout the world who are not in school. 
They are not in school for two reasons. They are not in school because 
of the lack of capacity, like books and teachers, and they are not in 
school because of the bigotry against them.
  We need to do something. I know that we are moving towards a vote. I 
say to Boko Haram: Let these girls go. Let's bring them back home. I 
say for those who are searching for them: Do not lose heart. We have 
got to deal with that. But we also have to come to grips with the fact 
that we cannot let millions of girls around the world not have access 
to education. Education is as important as water. We need water to 
live. You need education to make a life for yourself.
  We look forward to working with our colleagues across the aisle. We 
hope to move the foreign ops bill that has money in the Federal 
checkbook to do this. When we return from the break I will have more to 
say. I hope it will be: Thank God we found them and we brought them 
back to their mothers and fathers.
  Millions of these girls who fight for their right to attend school 
are risking their lives. Facing harassment, threats, and even violence 
to get an education and have the opportunity to thrive and succeed.
  Additionally girls who are in school often do not have access to 
adequate supplies needed to do their work, lack basic bathroom 
facilities, and that provide them security and safety.
  They lack trained teachers and adequate learning environments.
  This is unacceptable. We must make a real effort to address this far-
reaching global crisis.
  This kidnapping of the Nigerian school girls also illustrates the 
horrifying reality of human trafficking.
  Over 20 million people throughout the world are victims of human 
trafficking.
  This is something that we cannot accept.
  The U.S. Government is committed to addressing this problem.
  I am happy that the State Department has announced that USAID will be 
launching a new program called ``Let Girls Learn''.
  ``Let Girls Learn'' provides $231.6 million for new programs to 
support primary and secondary education and safe learning:
  In Nigeria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Jordan, and Guatemala.
  Making sure that girls receive an education needs to be a priority 
for all of us.
  When girls are educated their families and communities are better 
off.
  Girls who receive basic education are three times less likely to 
contract HIV.
  Education helps women increase their income, allowing them to better 
support their families and contribute to their nation's economy and 
overall success.
  The United States must continue to be a leader in the fight to make 
sure girls across the world are able to receive an education in a safe 
environment.
  I also call on all nations to make this a priority and to put their 
words of support into action, and for governments around the world to 
make every effort to ensure that children can receive an education in a 
safe environment.
  Education is a basic human right that should not be deprived 
regardless of where you live or where you come from.

[[Page S4112]]

  Making sure that all boys and girls have access to basic education is 
something I have always fought for and something I will continue to 
fight for.

                          ____________________