Mazie Hirono

Ms. HIRONO

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jessica Cleary, a Navy fellow in my office, be granted privileges of the floor through the end of the calendar year.

Ms. HIRONO

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I rise today to enable my colleagues to become aware of the tragic circumstances that led to the untimely death of 5-year-old Talia Williams and an amendment I have submitted that seeks to close the loophole that allowed Talia to slip through our child abuse safety net. In 2005, Talia Williams moved to Hawaii to live with her father, Naeem Williams, and his wife, Talia's stepmother, Delilah Williams. Mr. Williams was in the military, stationed at Schofield Barracks. Mr. Williams' defense attorney argued that Mr. Williams was ill-equipped to care for his daughter. That may be true, but what we know for a fact is that Talia Williams suffered 7 months of near constant abuse at the hands of her father and stepmother. This torture ended on July 16, 2005, when Mr. Williams hit Talia so hard it left his fist imprinted on her chest and killed her. Mr. Williams was convicted of murdering his daughter last year, and he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Her stepmother, Delilah Williams, was given a reduced sentence of 20 years in prison for providing testimony against her husband. Tarshia Williams, Talia's mother, sued the military in 2010 for the death of her daughter. Her case was settled earlier this year, with the Department of Defense agreeing to a $2 million settlement for not doing enough to save Talia Williams. In the course of those two proceedings, it became clear that Talia Williams could have been saved if one thing occurred--reporting the abuse to Hawaii's Child Welfare Services branch or CPS. Through a memorandum of understanding--MOU--with the State of Hawaii, the Department of Defense established a system in which Hawaii's Child Welfare Services would be ``the agency primarily responsible for intake, investigation, and the provision of protective services as deemed necessary to abused children within the State of Hawaii,'' including the children of military families both on and off base. Under statute and reiterated in the MOU, only Hawaii's State agencies have the authority--not the military--to take emergency custody and order foster care placement for children without the consent of a parent. But this could only happen if officials in Hawaii knew about the abuse. In Talia's case, a number of people were aware of her maltreatment. Yet no report was received by the report point of contact, who was the person on base mandated to report to Hawaii's Child Protective Services. The court in Tarshia Williams' civil suit found that military law enforcement, the doctors who treated Talia, and at least one or two family counselors had reason to suspect that violence was occurring in the Williams home. At least one person on base directly reported to the family advocacy program her concerns for Talia's well-being. No action was taken. Talia remained in the home while time and again law enforcement personnel and others were called to investigate or received reports of abuse. Not enough was done to remove her from her home. This lack of action was and is unacceptable. No one followed up on Talia's case to the degree we all should expect. Information about the abuse she lived through never reached the Army provost, who, under the MOU with the State of Hawaii, was the single person required to alert Child Welfare Services. And Talia died. This loophole, which puts us in a position of hoping and trusting that information of abuse makes it to the reporting point of contact, must be addressed. My amendment would fix this problem by establishing a legal requirement that any federally mandated reporter with credible evidence or suspicion of child abuse notify both the DOD's Family Advocacy Program and the appropriate State's child welfare department. This amendment would eliminate the bottleneck of having only one reporting point of contact. Instead, mandatory reporters--which include teachers, doctors, law enforcement, and others--must directly report such evidence or suspicion both up the chain of command and also over to the appropriate State authorities. I am hopeful that by requiring such dual reporting, no military-connected children will remain in abusive homes because information never made it to the right person. There were many mistakes made in Talia's case. Some of those mistakes are of the type that no law might rectify--a reluctance of people to get involved in the affairs of others, the reluctance to implicate abuse, perhaps fear of repercussions or out of respect for a member's service and personal affability. However, in a case such as Talia's, more should have been done and could have been done if only the right people were made aware of the situation. I hope we do not continue to ignore this one glaring reporting loophole, leaving in place a hole in our safety net wide enough to miss the torture and untimely death of a child like Talia. I recognize that time on the Defense authorization is short. I am sure the Department of Defense shares my concerns on this issue. I look forward to working with the Department and my colleagues to close this reporting loophole.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I would like to take a few minutes to shift gears to another issue of great importance. This issue is more hopeful. On June 15, 2012, President Obama enacted DACA--or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals--granting deferred action to DREAMers all across the country. Three years later, almost 700,000 hard-working young people are proof that deferred action works. DACA has changed the lives of countless students who were brought to our country as undocumented children through no fault of their own. The President's action has been truly transformative for many young people in Hawaii. Let me tell you about three such young people. Gabriela emigrated from Brazil with her family at the age of 15. Despite a 3.8 GPA in high school, she found herself unable to go to college because she lacked required documentation. After receiving DACA, Gabriela enrolled in a community college, paying instate tuition, and is receiving her associate's degree in the spring of 2015 and transferring to the University of Hawaii to earn her bachelor's degree. Receiving DACA was a life-changing moment for Gabriela because it enabled her to do everyday things that she was never able to do before, such as getting a driver's license, opening a bank account, renting her own apartment. It also enabled her to get an education, start a career, and live up to her full potential. Sam was born in Tonga and brought to Hawaii when he was only 4 years old. His parents petitioned for residency for the whole family. But as a result of a slow and ineffective immigration system, Sam was over 18 years old by the time their petition became current. As a result, 18- year-old Sam was put into deportation proceedings and came very close to being torn away from his family and deported to a country he no longer remembered. Thankfully, the President announced the DACA Program and Sam was granted a stay of deportation and allowed to remain with his family. Today, Sam works as a music director at his church and is currently saving money to return to school and seek his dream of higher education. Shingai is a DREAMer from Zimbabwe, who immigrated to the United States when he was 12. He did not find out he was undocumented until he graduated from high school and decided to apply for college. Shingai was a star football athlete and won a full football scholarship to go to college. Unfortunately, with stardom came immediate attention. Due to his undocumented status, he was forced to quit his dream and protect himself and his family from the public eye. Shingai knew the importance of education, so he pursued his degree a few classes at a time. This semester, he is finally set to graduate and earn a bachelor's in political science from Hawaii Pacific University. Receiving DACA has enabled Shingai to come out of the shadows and share his story in order to raise awareness and empower immigrant youth in Hawaii. These DREAMers no longer have the fear of deportation and family separation hanging over their heads each and every day. DACA recipients are now free to live their lives, to seek an education and work as teachers, engineers, enter our armed services, become business owners. DACA is life-changing for these young people, but it also has helped all Americans. Forty-nine percent of DREAMers who were granted DACA were able to open their first bank account, 33 percent were able to obtain a credit card, 60 percent have been able to gain new jobs, contributing to our tax base and our economy. Experts estimate that all deferred action recipients will add $230 billion to our gross domestic product in the next decade. Quite simply, DACA works. The American public stands with our DREAMers and immigrant families and smart policies like DACA. Over 70 percent of Americans reject the mass deportation approach favored by some and instead support the President's Executive action. However, DACA is only a temporary solution to address one part of our broken immigration system. It is not a substitute for comprehensive immigration reform. It has been roughly 2 years since the Senate passed an immigration reform bill with strong bipartisan support. After House Republicans refused to act on comprehensive immigration reform, President Obama built on the success of DACA to use his well-established Executive authority to expand the DACA Program and create a new program for the parents of children born as U.S. citizens. I strongly support the President's action. Both of these programs could be up and running, helping families and individuals, millions of them, but for a lawsuit filed by some Republican Governors opposed to immigration reform. We must continue fighting to provide relief for millions of parents who should be signing up for DAPA right now, paying their fees and applying for work permits, additional young people who qualify for DACA as well as millions of other hard-working families facing deportation every single day in our country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to support amendment No. 1521, which would limit the use of overseas contingency operations, or OCO, funds. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment, which was filed by the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Jack Reed. I wish to start by thanking Senator McCain and Senator Reed for their leadership in producing the underlining bill. Drafting the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, is no small task, and I support many important provisions included in the bill. As Ranking Member of the Seapower Subcommittee, I worked with Chairman Wicker to include provisions that will strengthen and support our Navy and Marine Corps. Every Defense bill presents challenges and tradeoffs. There are competing priorities and compromises. For 52 consecutive years, both Chambers have debated the details and come up with a product that supports and enhances our national security. However, this year's bill presents more than just a difference over details. The overall framework of this bill is a problem. Before us is a bill that presents a serious question about our national values--a question that the Reed amendment would help to answer. Earlier this year, the Republicans pushed through a budget resolution. That resolution clearly set forth the framework that Chairman McCain had to work within. That framework basically said: We are not going to address sequestration in a meaningful way. Instead, we are only going to provide sequester relief for the defense budget. I note that this budget resolution passed the Senate without a single Democratic vote. I ask my colleagues to join me in objecting to an approach that bifurcates sequester relief as though our country's national security lies only with the Department of Defense, because that is what this NDAA bill does. How? The bill before us takes $38 billion out of the base budget at the Department of Defense and moves it into the OCO budget. The OCO budget is not subject to Budget Control Act caps. The reason for this is that OCO funds are intended to support the unknown unknowns that arise during our security operations abroad. Using the OCO account to fund noncontingency items is irresponsible. It is a 1-year fix, and it adds to our budget deficit. It is not fair to our commanders on the ground, who have told us that we need to fix sequester permanently so they can prepare for the long term. Using the OCO account to shield the DOD from sequester has been called a gimmick by many. I am for a strong national defense. However, the foundation of our military strength is the strength of our economy. It is the strength of our communities. It is the strength of our future. Failing to fix sequestration for both defense and nondefense will undermine the strength of our national defense. Again, our national security is not just tied to our military strength. There are other national security initiatives that are not funded by the Department of Defense. For example, we have the State Department, the FBI, Homeland Security, the Coast Guard, and other law enforcement agencies and programs that are all important components of our national security. None of these programs is funded by the Department of Defense. In addition, the Department of Defense has said that fewer than one in four Americans in the eligible age range are qualified to enlist in the Armed Services. This is due to a variety of reasons, including health, obesity, fitness, mental aptitude, et cetera. Cutting funding to nutrition programs, education initiatives, preventative health measures, and fitness programs will result in even fewer individuals qualifying for our Armed Services. By not fixing both the military and domestic sides of the budget, we are undermining the foundation of our security and our future. America is one country, and the decisions we make in Congress should reflect that reality. We need to eliminate the sequester because these across-the-board cuts hurt our middle-class families, our small businesses, our military, and our national security. We need to eliminate the sequester--period. To continue to be bound by mindless, across-the-board cuts to both our defense and domestic budgets--cuts that were never supposed to become reality--is pure folly. Congress should come together in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation to fix sequester. This proposal by Senator Reed just fences the $38 billion in OCO funds until Congress comes together to do just that. It doesn't take the funding out of the budget. But it does prevent spending it before relief from Budget Control Act cuts are achieved on both the defense and domestic sides. I urge my colleagues to support the Reed amendment to provide for a responsible defense budget. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following speakers in morning business be limited to speak for up to 5 minutes each: Myself, Senators Gillibrand, Manchin, and Markey.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, before I briefly outline my amendments, I need to say a few words about the budget before us. The vision outlined in the budget before us is truly a disaster for the middle class and our economy. This budget lays out priorities that would undermine the gains that millions have made in getting affordable health insurance. It would undermine the ability of millions of students to get a college education. It puts tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of giving even a modest wage boost to those who are working hard to get ahead. This budget would give big corporations the opportunity to write their own rules while reducing the opportunity for the disabled veterans and children to live a decent life. Democrats have tried to improve this budget. We tried to eliminate the sequester in a fair way. Republicans said no. We tried to make sure our commitments to those on Social Security and Medicare remain ironclad. The Republicans said no. We tried to close a few loopholes to invest in our communities and create jobs. The Republicans said no. We tried to give students the opportunity to get an affordable college education. The Republicans said no. Given all these problems, I cannot support this budget. This budget favors the wealthy and special interests on the backs of middle-class families, seniors, and students in Hawaii and across the Nation, but I want to offer two ideas that I hope can improve this budget just a little bit. Amendment No. 877 would restore year-round Pell grants without increasing the deficit. Many college students juggle work and family schedules. To balance these commitments they need to attend college year-round. But Pell grants can only be used in two semesters, currently. My amendment would allow students to access Pell grants year-round, as they could from 2008 to 2011. This has been a bipartisan idea in the past. In fact, Senator Collins just now offered her similar amendment, amendment No. 810, that I also support. We should adopt this commonsense, bipartisan policy. I thank Senator Collins for her work in enabling students to complete their college education in a way that would allow them to do so without disruptions and additional costs. I look forward to working with her as we move forward on this bipartisan-supported idea. The second amendment I am offering, amendment No. 878, is very simple as well. The budget resolution allows for energy legislation, provided it is paid for only with cuts. It also lays out what I think is a very limited view of our Nation's energy priorities, particularly the heavy focus on fossil fuel development. My amendment would provide a broader, more forward-looking view of our Nation's energy priorities. My amendment allows for energy legislation that reduces our dependence on foreign oil, increases energy efficiency and renewable energy deployment and innovation, and addresses carbon pollution. Hawaii relies on imported oil for energy. The U.S. military recognizes that overreliance on fossil fuel is a national security risk. We have to recognize our future can't be based on fossil fuels. Hawaii and other States are leading the way in transitioning to a clean energy economy. My amendment would ensure that Congress's priorities are more in line with where Hawaii and our Nation are heading in the future. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these two amendments. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I did raise an objection to the change, although I appreciate the fact that the Senator made that change. I rise to oppose amendment No. 360 which would roll back critical antitrafficking and humanitarian protections for children from Central America. Last summer I led a congressional delegation to the Rio Grande Valley border to view the humanitarian crisis of unaccompanied children from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Clearly, concrete cells at Border Patrol stations are no place for children, which is where they likely would be under the expedited deportation proceedings allowed under this amendment. These young children are fleeing danger and violence in their own home countries. It is also no answer to require these children to seek asylum in their home countries while being exposed to the very violence they are trying to escape in the first place. This is the portion of the amendment the Senator has eliminated. It still doesn't leave out the part about expedited deportation. So let's keep the current law in place that--

Ms. HIRONO. We voted for this law unanimously, signed by President Bush. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up two of my amendments en bloc: Hirono amendments Nos. 877 and 878.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my friend from California, Senator Boxer. I rise today to speak against attempts to turn this bill--the Justice for Trafficking Victims Act--into a political football. While there are many issues that may divide this Congress--and certainly the issue of choice for women is one of them--human trafficking should not be one of those divisive issues. This bill started off as a bipartisan bill, but along the way a provision was added to the bill that brings me to the floor today in opposition to that provision. Not only do I oppose the substance of that provision, but I very much object to how the provision was added to the bill unbeknownst to the sponsors of this bill such as myself. Buried in this bill is a provision that allows government to dictate a woman's health care options, and this provision would limit choices for women who have been victimized by human trafficking. Women are often forced to endure rape and violence on a daily basis. That is what human trafficking is. This is an unprecedented and, I have to say, appalling expansion of government's role in women's health care decisions. The provision is anti-women and anti-victim. This body should be working to help these victims of trafficking violence, not playing politics with their lives. But that is not what we are seeing today. The truth is there are some in this body who have time and again put their own ideological agenda and need to score political points ahead of consensus-driven legislation. We have seen this before. A few weeks ago Congress came close to shutting down the Department of Homeland Security--the third largest Department in the Federal Government--because a few Members wanted to hold funding national security priorities hostage to score points against the President's immigration actions. We saw it during the shutdown. We saw it during the debate over the Shaheen-Portman energy bill. We saw it during Congress's drawn-out debate over the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, yet another issue that should be free of partisan politics. This body shouldn't let ideological grandstanding on divisive issues stall and kill bipartisan legislation that will make a difference for people--particularly for the most vulnerable people in this country, victims of trafficking. This bill is no exception. A bill on human trafficking should not be a method of expanding the government's powers to dictate women's personal choices, women's health care decisions. I join my colleagues in urging the Senate to stop using this legislation and others like it to advance an ideological agenda, and help the women, men, and children who are being trafficked across this country. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking Senator Mikulski for her leadership on this issue as well as on so many other important issues. I rise today with many of my fellow women Senators from both parties in drawing awareness to the terrible crime of human trafficking, and not just drawing awareness, but to call upon all of us to take action to stop this crime. According to the International Labour Organization, there are an estimated 21 million victims of trafficking globally, something that Senator Mikulski has already mentioned. That is 21 million people. That is more than the total population of 48 States, including Hawaii, who are trafficked every single year. Only Texas and California have more than 21 million people. The most recent estimates available show that between 14,500 and 17,500 people were trafficked into the United States in 2005. That is why I am working to enhance our ability to protect human trafficking victims seeking refuge in our country. Right now, many families are torn apart at the border because current law requires adult men to be transferred to a border location hundreds of miles away from where they were intercepted. Meanwhile, their families, who are often with them, are sent back across the border at the place where they were intercepted with no money and no idea of where their husbands or fathers were taken. The situation leaves women and children vulnerable to trafficking, sexual violence, and other dangers. I have also sought to place independent child welfare professionals at Border Patrol stations to provide basic humanitarian assistance to unaccompanied children held in our border stations. This would ensure appropriate screening of children to identify victims of persecution or trafficking. It also would ensure that children are not held for longer than necessary in U.S. Custom and Border Protection facilities. At the peak of our attention to the crisis of unaccompanied minors last year, nearly 50,000 children arrived at our Nation's southern border. Much of our attention in this body was paid to dealing with these children once they reached our border. These children from noncontiguous border countries not only deserve protection but are required by U.S. law to receive certain protections. But what about the children who might not have reached the relative safety of our border stations? Who knows how many fell victim to traffickers? How many were diverted to other places with even less protection than what they might have received in the United States? Throughout the past year, we have heard stories about children and young women who never made it to the Texas border. We know that criminals have taken advantage of this crisis in Central America by enticing families and children who are looking for a way to escape extreme violence. When I visited the Rio Grande Valley last year, I heard heartbreaking stories from advocates who all too often saw children and young women fall victim to trafficking. Advocates even saw instances where vulnerable girls were preyed upon by criminal traffickers even after they were released from U.S. Government custody. We must continue working together to protect these young people who are seeking a better life away from the violence of their country. Domestic trafficking is also an issue. Last year I met with the Hawaii Juvenile Justice State Advisory Council and learned of their important work with police, prosecutors, and other personnel to better identify minors who have been trafficked into prostitution rings. These minors are victims. They are not criminals. Like Hawaii, other States are turning their attention to stopping domestic trafficking. There are a number of Senate bipartisan bills on domestic trafficking, as mentioned. For example, I joined Senator Klobuchar on her bill, the Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act. I also joined Senator Leahy in his Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act to better assist these vulnerable youth in receiving the services they need to return to some sense of normalcy in their lives. We are working in both the international and domestic arenas to better address, combat, and eliminate human trafficking. This is an issue that crosses country borders. It is certainly an issue that crosses partisan lines. We can find common ground to get something meaningful done in Congress. I see that I am joined by my colleague from North Dakota. I also saw my colleague from New Hampshire. I yield my time for the Senator from New Hampshire.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise to oppose S.J. Res. 8, a misguided resolution that targets workers' right to organize and hurts working families in Hawaii and around the country. Union election rules haven't been updated since the 1970s. The National Labor Relations Board--or NLRB--is trying to bring union election rules into the 21st century, but today's Senate resolution will block the NLRB's commonsense updates. The right to organize is a crucial part of our democracy. Unions have helped build the middle class in Hawaii and nationwide. It is disappointing that instead of working to create jobs or help the middle class get ahead, today we are debating whether to make it harder to join a union. Workers wishing to join a union already face many barriers. For example, companies have significant opportunities to make their case to employees about why they should oppose a union. Meanwhile, unions are not allowed to visit the worksite to make their case for joining a union, and they do not have access to modern contact information such as emails and cell phone numbers--unbelievable as that may sound--to contact workers. In addition, companies can delay union elections with what amounts to frivolous litigation and appeal after appeal. Nationwide, in contested cases workers already have to wait an average of 4 months to vote whether to join a union. While most employers in Hawaii want to support their workers, there have been those rare cases of companies exploiting the current system to prevent workers from having a voice in the workplace. Let me share a situation that happened in Hawaii where workers had not been given a raise in 6 years. They asked a local union for help in organizing their union. In the runup to the union elections, the workers were forced to attend one-on-one or group meetings on work time where their management could convince workers to vote against the union. This company hired a private security firm and posted security guards outside the voting area during the vote. Workers felt intimidated. The company appealed election results and NLRB rulings over and over again, adding delay after delay and revote after revote. In July 2005, 40 months after a petition was first filed to hold an election, the NLRB finally certified a union for the workers. Still, the company continued to offer appeal after appeal of the election results and even fired 31 union supporters in 2007. Finally, at the end of 2012, 10 years later, the certified union reached its first union contract. Remember, I noted that where most workplaces are organized, things are done in 4 months. That is not always the case. The NLRB's updated union election rules would help reduce this kind of intimidation and delay, which happens all too often, and would allow organizers to contact workers by email and cell phone. It is pretty astounding that we had to have a rule change in order to make this kind of commonsense change available to organizers--which, by the way, this resolution which I ask my colleagues to vote against disallows. The rule will make it easier for small businesses to follow labor election laws. Currently, big corporations can use expensive lawyers to litigate and prevent union elections, while small businesses don't have those kinds of resources. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these modest, commonsense updates to NLRB rules and voting no on the resolution. Let's stand with working men and women in this country and support the middle class. I want to end with a quote from one of our labor organizers and leaders in Hawaii, Hawaii Laborers' business manager Peter Ganaban. In a recent piece in Pacific Business News, Mr. Ganaban explained that ``Hawaii's union climate is an extension of our local culture of helping each other and caring for our communities.'' Allowing workers a fair choice and a fair chance to join a union is the least we can do for our workers in the middle class. I yield my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to pass a clean appropriations bill that funds the Department of Homeland Security, DHS. Listening to my friend the Senator from Utah, it is very clear that the Republicans' position on this bill that is before us today is totally dependent on their assertion that the President's recent actions on immigration are illegal. Democrats do not concur with that. In fact, I thought illegality of any actions should be determined by courts of law. What the President did recently is no different from like Presidential actions taken by Presidents Reagan and Bush, I might add. So we must fund DHS and resist the temptation to govern though manufactured crises and political games. Our national security is at stake. Surely my colleagues remember when DHS was created in direct response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Just 11 days after 9/ 11, DHS started to take shape. President George W. Bush named Gov. Tom Ridge to lead an office to oversee and coordinate a comprehensive and national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism and respond to any future attacks. DHS's mission is to protect our homeland, as its name makes perfectly clear. DHS is responsible for border security and immigration enforcement. It is tasked with keeping our airports safe through TSA, with emergency management response through FEMA, and protecting our coasts through the Coast Guard. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I know how important the work DHS does is in keeping our Nation safe. Let's take a step back and remember why DHS was created in the first place and what their mission is. Why should we play politics with the Department that exists to protect America? DHS's funding runs out at the end of this month. The clock is ticking. The nearly 200,000 who work for DHS do not want us spending valuable time scoring political points; they want the certainty that their important work will be funded by Congress. If the Department is not funded by the end of the month, we probably will once again resort to passing a continuing resolution to keep the Department going. A continuing resolution is only a stopgap; it is a waste of time and money. DHS Secretary Johnson said: Operating in a stop-and-go cycle of continuing resolutions is like trying to drive a car across the country on no more than 5 gallons of gas at a time and without knowing the distance to the next gas station. Of the nearly 200,000 DHS employees across the country, 2,000 are based in Hawaii. Nobody will get paid if DHS gets shut down. Some will be furloughed, while many others will be forced, as essential employees, to continue showing up for work without pay. We count on the Coast Guard, the TSA, Customs, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services--which are all part of the DHS--to be on the job every day. Some of my Republican colleagues insist that before we fund the critical work of Homeland Security, we must first undo the President's commonsense immigration actions that helped millions of families across the country. The House bill before us holds DHS funding hostage to make political points against the President. This is a manufactured standoff. The House bill attacks undocumented persons who have American-born children. Those are U.S. citizen children. The President's actions enabled these families to step out of the shadows, pass background checks, pay their taxes, and work in the open without the daily threat of deportation. The House bill attacks DREAMers, the students who have been helped through the DACA problem for nearly 3 years. Just yesterday President Obama met with six DREAMers in the Oval Office who represent some of the very best our country has to offer. The House bill says to these DREAMers: You, too, like the parents of U.S.-born children, should live under the daily threat of deportation. There are 600,000 DREAMers in the DACA Program throughout the country. The House bill reverses longstanding enforcement priorities and directives that DHS has implemented. These directives tell immigration enforcement officers to focus on the bad guys rather than on the moms, the dads, and other contributing members of our communities. The House bill, in removing all administrative discretion on who should be deported, in effect says that all 12 million undocumented persons in our country can be deported. This is totally unrealistic and unnecessary. I stand with my colleagues who are ready and willing to come together to pass bipartisan immigration reform. We did that last Congress with 68 bipartisan votes. As Republican Senator Heller said recently, the House bill that is before us ``only includes language that complicates the process of finding a solution when it comes to immigration reform.'' This House bill emphasizes a policy of mass deportation that would harm our economy, costing trillions in economic loss, not to mention the devastating impact on the people. Economists have told us that comprehensive immigration reform will provide an enormous boost to our economy, helping all workers across the country. The House bill does not reform our system. The House bill does not help millions of students and families come out of the shadows. It does not provide more resources to our hard-working Border Patrol agents. It does not help those who have been stuck in our visa backlog for decades. Rather than debating comprehensive immigration reform, the House has once again ducked the issue, this time holding DHS hostage so that a small minority of their colleagues can have their way. This is like ``Groundhog Day''--a repeat scenario that brings us continuing resolutions to keep government going in a stop-and-go fashion and indeed a scenario that brought us the government shutdown in 2013. We do not have to keep repeating failed scenarios. Let's bring a clean DHS funding bill to the floor. Let's get that done and then move on to a debate on comprehensive immigration reform that is long overdue. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today on the important issue of funding the Department of Homeland Security and to urge my colleagues to come together and pass a clean appropriations bill with regard to this agency. The Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, is charged with border security and immigration enforcement. DHS's role extends far beyond immigration. The agency is also responsible for aviation security, emergency management and response, counterterrorism, and cyber security. Democrats and Republicans have long worked together to make sure our hard-working Federal officers on the border, in our airports, and at our ports can continue their critical work that keeps us safe. Now the Republican-controlled House would irresponsibly risk shutting down the Department of Homeland Security to score political points over the President's immigration actions. Today I object to the effort to shut down DHS over the President's immigration Executive action because it is not only an irresponsible strategy from a security point of view, but it comes with a real cost in the everyday lives of students and parents. Funding for the Department of Homeland Security is set to expire February 27. The President has been clear that he will veto any policy riders that undo his Executive action and harm millions of students and their families. The House Republican bill forces us to choose between shutting down the Department of Homeland Security or deporting children and families. This is an untenable choice. Looking at the votes in the House, it is clear some Members of Congress would on the one hand say our immigration focus should be on securing our border, while on the other hand they risk turning off the lights at Border Patrol stations because they disagree with the President's immigration policies. Last year I led a congressional delegation to McAllen, TX, and to Lackland Air Force Base to see the humanitarian crisis on the border firsthand. My colleagues and I were heartbroken after seeing children as young as 7 years old in Customs and Border Protection facilities. But what we also saw were hard-working border agents doing the best they could under difficult circumstances in an already stressed immigration system. These agents should know that we in Washington are going to give them the resources they need to do their jobs, not irresponsibly shut down the Department of Homeland Security, for whom they work. Instead of threatening to shut down the government's primary homeland security agency, we should be working together to once again pass bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. Republicans and Democrats agree our immigration system is broken. With his Executive action President Obama took a step to bring millions across the country out of the shadows and keep U.S. citizens and their families together. Congressional action that puts families first is needed if we are to permanently fix our immigration system. The President's Executive action helps millions of people across America by allowing certain students and families to register, work legally, and pay their taxes. His action is rooted in the reality that our immigration enforcement officers need to exercise discretion on whom to go after with limited resources and in a broken immigration system. Those who oppose the President's action, which is reflected in the House Republican bill, say that the President and enforcement officers must act with absolutely no discretion. This position contemplates and, in fact, supports the removal of nearly 12 million undocumented people from our country. This is paramount to a policy of mass deportation. If mass deportation were enacted, DHS would need an exponential increase in funding and resources. Billions in increased spending without any permanent fixes or reforms is not a viable option. Even if we somehow have the resources to enact the policy of mass deportation, doing so would devastate our economy, removing millions of hard-working people who would no longer be working, running businesses, buying our goods and products. That would lead to over $2.5 trillion of economic loss to our country in just a decade. Mass deportation is not a serious solution for immigration reform. It simply is not possible for DHS to remove every undocumented person from this country. Passing the House bill would just make life even harder for these people, many of whom are already some of the hardest working people in our Nation. As I mentioned, there are nearly 12 million undocumented people living in communities across America. Many have been living here for years or decades. They are parents, they are small business owners, and they are our neighbors and our children's classmates at school. They are people such as Bianca, a woman who lives in Hawaii with her family. After moving to the United States on a visa over a decade ago, Bianca met her husband. They moved to the place where they had always dreamed of living--Hawaii, naturally--and began a family there. Bianca's work visa and her husband's work visa were temporary, and like many immigrant families they faced a tough decision to remain after their visas expired and to continue building a life here in America. Bianca and her husband started with nothing. Today they have two small businesses on Oahu and four American children--children born in the United States. Their businesses employ American citizens. They pay their taxes, and they work hard to provide for their families and be engaged in the community. Because of the President's order, Bianca and her family no longer live in fear every single day of being torn from the life they have built in Hawaii. The House Republicans' mass deportation policy is a serious proposal in only one respect. It would result in serious, negative consequences for our economy, our government, and millions of families in our country. In contrast, prioritizing deporting felons, not families and students, is simply common sense, and that is what the President's Executive order does. Now is the time when we should be working together on commonsense and comprehensive immigration reform that the vast majority of Americans support. Comprehensive immigration reform is supported by 70 percent of the American people. In the past Congress, nearly 70 percent of the Senate supported our bipartisan immigration bill. Our bipartisan bill was a compromise. It strengthened border security, modernized our system, addressed visa backlogs, and allowed millions of undocumented people to step out of the shadows, get in line, and work toward becoming American citizens. Comprehensive immigration reform would have spurred economic growth in our country by over $100 billion per year while helping to bring down the deficit. The only thing that kept this bipartisan reform bill from becoming law was the fact that Speaker Boehner refused to give the bill an up- or-down vote in the House. Recklessly shutting down the Department of Homeland Security will not fix our broken immigration system. Undoing the President's Executive action will not fix our broken immigration system. We must work together, and we must fund the Department of Homeland Security so that they can continue to protect our country, and we must come together to pass commonsense reform that Americans support. Both sides of the aisle agree that we are a nation of immigrants and our immigration system is broken. We don't need to shut down the Department of Homeland Security or round up and deport millions of families and individuals. We can start that process with a clean DHS funding bill, and I urge my Republican colleagues to bring one to the floor quickly. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. HIRONO

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

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to an amendment offered by Senator McCain pertaining to the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, popularly referred to as the Jones Act. I will, of course, start by saying that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain, has a distinguished record of support for our men and women in the military and cares deeply about our national security, but on this amendment I respectfully disagree with our chairman. I wish to take a few minutes this morning to remind my colleagues why the Jones Act is an essential component of our national security policy and shipbuilding is a foundational component of American manufacturing. The Jones Act requires that our maritime vessels engaged in shipping goods between U.S. ports must meet three requirements: They must be built in the United States, at least 75-percent owned by U.S. citizens, and operated by U.S. citizens. The Jones Act helps to shore up our national security by providing reliable sealift in times of war. It ensures our ongoing viability as an ocean power by protecting American shipbuilders. As a result, the Jones Act provides solid, well-paying jobs for nearly half a million Americans from Virginia to Hawaii. In short, the Jones Act promotes national security and American job creation. Therefore, I am unclear why some of my colleagues are opposed to this commonsense law. I don't say this simply as a Member from an island State where we depend on the reliability offered by American shippers for fresh food, energy, and other everyday goods, but I say this as a Senator who cares deeply about supporting our strong and growing middle class and creating American jobs. First, shipbuilding is a major job-creating industry. According to the Maritime Administration, there were 107,000 people directly employed by roughly 300 shipyards across 26 States in 2013. Additionally, shipyards indirectly employed nearly 400,000 people across the country. This amendment would specifically knock out the Jones Act provision that requires that U.S.-flagged ships be built in the United States, jeopardizing good-paying, middle-class jobs. To me, that is reason enough to oppose this amendment. Secondly, this is not the time to create the instability this amendment would directly cause. After struggling through tough times, America's shipbuilding industry is coming back. Both this Congress and the administration have long stressed the need for creating and keeping manufacturing jobs here at home in the United States. According to the Navy League, there are 15 tanker ships being built here in the United States right now and slated to join our U.S. flag fleet. These ships don't create quick-turnaround jobs but hundreds of thousands of well- paying, long-term manufacturing jobs. If these ships are not built here in U.S. shipyards by U.S. workers, where will they be built? Where will these jobs go? China? Other Asian countries? Europe? The shipbuilding industry in our country is rebounding. Repealing the Jones Act is a step in the wrong direction. Instead of dismantling a policy that supports American jobs, Congress should be focused on doing more to promote and grow American jobs and American manufacturing. Repealing the Jones Act's requirement to build ships here in the United States will unquestionably cost U.S. jobs and weaken our position as a manufacturing leader. Those are two strikes against the amendment. The third and final strike is the fact that the amendment would undermine our national homeland security. The Jones Act's requirements--along with American shipbuilding and the maritime industries they underpin--provide American-built ships and crews for use by the Department of Defense in times of need. It is easy to see why the Navy and Coast Guard strongly oppose repeal of the Jones Act and all of its components. The Defense Department has concluded: We believe that the ability of the nation to build and maintain a U.S. flag fleet is in the national interest, and we also believe it is in the interest of the DOD for U.S. shipbuilders to maintain a construction capability for commercial vessels. Therefore, there are three strikes against this amendment. If adopted, the amendment would dismantle the Jones Act, costing American jobs, hurting American manufacturing, and undermining our national security. I ask my colleagues to stand with me--and I certainly ask the chair of the Armed Services Committee to change his mind on this amendment--and nearly half a million middle-class Americans and vote against this amendment if it is brought up for a vote. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the many accomplishments of my friend, Senator Mary Landrieu, my colleague from Louisiana, during her 18 years here in the U.S. Senate. Senator Landrieu was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996. Prior to serving in the Senate, she had already served the people of her State for 16 years--first as a State legislator, and later as a State treasurer. Altogether Senator Landrieu's service to the people of Louisiana has spanned nearly 34 years of commitment to the people of Louisiana. Mary served her constituents with utter conviction, dedication, and persistence--qualities that her colleagues in the U.S. Senate use to describe her. However, Senator Landrieu's dedication can be described in other ways as well. In her farewell remarks last week, Senator Landrieu discussed how faith and family helped drive her. She draws tremendous strength from her faith, and also her large and supportive family--a family that knows a thing or two about the ups and downs of politics. Her father, Moon Landrieu, served as a judge, State representative, New Orleans city councilman and Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Her brother, Mitch Landrieu, was Louisiana's Lieutenant Governor, and both her father and brother have served as mayors of New Orleans--her father during an era of renewal, and her brother during an era of rebuilding. Mary has clearly stepped up to the plate during the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and the horrendous BP oil spill. Those are the kinds of challenges that none of us expect when we enter public life--but they are the challenges which show our communities what we are made of. Senator Landrieu rose to both challenges. She has worked as hard as any Senator has ever worked to see that her constituents were taken care of. She has pushed hard on Federal agencies to help rebuild, and passed legislation to help with Gulf restoration. She has also fought to see that flood insurance rates remain affordable--not just for those in Louisiana, but across the country. Her efforts have earned the respect of everyone she has worked with, and she earned the opportunity to serve as Chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee as well as the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee. I know that the issues she championed on these two committees were important to her constituents and I admire her advocacy for jobs in her State and more opportunities for small businesses. Of course, Senator Landrieu's work extended beyond these two committees. For years, she worked on adoption, education, conservation, and other issues that were near and dear to her heart. All of us will miss Mary's drive, tenacity, and willingness to work with others to get things done. She will continue to be a tough and relentless fighter for Louisiana no matter what her next challenge will be. Aloha, Mary, a hui hou, ``until we meet again.''

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Senator Levin as his distinguished Senate career comes to a close at the end of the 113th Congress. Senator Levin has proudly represented the people of Michigan in the Senate for 36 years. The desire to help others has been in Senator Levin's makeup long before coming to Washington. In fact, one might say it is in his DNA. He comes from a family with a distinguished record of public service. I served with his brother Sander in the House of Representatives, another truly distinguished Member of Congress. Their father served on the Michigan Corrections Commission. His uncle served as a chief judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and his cousin was a Michigan Supreme Court Judge. Given this public service pedigree, it is no surprise that he got started in politics at an early age. He was elected class President at Detroit's Central High School. After Swarthmore College and Harvard Law School, he served as an assistant attorney general and general counsel of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission. In 1969 he was elected to the Detroit City Council and in 1978 joined the Senate. Senator Levin has served on the Armed Services Committee for as long as he has been in the Senate. His Armed Services Committee tenure has provided him the opportunity to work with 11 Secretaries of Defense, helping to ensure that our Armed Forces were ready and able to meet the national security challenges facing our Nation. He has long been a champion of the men and women of our military and their families. From visiting deployed troops far from home, to ensuring much needed training, equipment, and pay increases, and improving the delivery of benefits and services they have earned, Carl Levin has been there for our troops. Senator Levin is also a problemsolver. In order to improve the way the Pentagon buys its weapons and to get the most out of the taxpayer dollars the government is entrusted to spend, he has worked hard to improve acquisition practices throughout his career. In this arena, he led the way in passing the Competition in Contracting Act and the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act. I was fortunate to serve on the Armed Services Committee during my first 2 years in the Senate. I have been able to observe Chairman Levin firsthand as he led the committee with a steady hand in a very bipartisan manner. I have been proud to be part of two National Defense Authorization Acts--including the one this body passed last week, which bears his name--which preserve our readiness and provides for the well- being of our men and women of the armed services and their families. Senator Levin also chairs the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, where he has led investigations in many critical areas, including the 2008 financial crisis, energy and food market speculation, abusive offshore tax havens, and unfair practices within the credit card industry. His investigations have led to many reforms and laws to fix these problems. In 2012, the National Journal wrote that ``the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is one of the few institutions in Congress that's still working. Carl Levin is a big reason why.'' The Senate is losing one of its giants--a voice of reason, integrity, and fairness. Michigan's working families are losing a lifelong advocate for their best interests who has really made a difference. Carl, thank you for your service to our country. I wish you, Barbara, and your entire family all the best as you move to the next chapter of your journey. Aloha Carl, a hui hou, ``until we meet again.'' Tom Harkin Mr. President, I wish to recognize the accomplishments of the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Tom Harkin, who is retiring this year. Senator Harkin has served in the House and Senate for nearly 40 years. During those 40 years he has been a consistent and inspirational voice for the idea that America should be a place where everyone can succeed. Tom's life experiences shaped who he fought for and why. His mother died when he was 10. His father never got beyond the sixth grade and suffered from black lung disease. He grew up in a tiny town in Iowa. He saw what the New Deal, Social Security, and Medicare did for his family and he saw government as a force that could lift people up and give them hope. Last week, during his farewell remarks to this body, he said something that the progressives among us should take to heart. He said: `` . . . I believe government must not be just an observant bystander to life. It must be a force for good, for lifting people up, for giving hope to the hopeless.'' Under Tom Harkin's watch, government certainly has not been a bystander. One of his proudest accomplishments was gaining passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Tom stood with people with disabilities, one of the largest minorities in the United States, to enact historic legislation that changed the lives of millions of people. I was proud to cosponsor and support the 2008 Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. His commitment to creating and expanding opportunities for those with disabilities is a hallmark of his career. Senator Harkin will also be remembered for his tireless leadership as the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. As chairman he worked to promote health care and education, fairness for workers, equal rights, and, above all, the American dream. He worked to fund those priorities for years on the Appropriations Committee. These are some of Tom's signature issues. But equally important has been his work fighting injustice and human rights violations across the globe. As a young Congressional staffer he travelled to Vietnam and uncovered torture on Con San Island, off of Vietnam. There people were being held in ``tiger cages''--5 foot by 9 foot cells dug into the ground where three to five people were held captive. While he lost his staff job over the pictures he took, he shed light on atrocities that too many others had either ignored or covered up. Tom's values and the results he has been able to achieve have made him a powerful moral and progressive voice for decades. Some of us were drawn to Tom during his Presidential run in 1992. I was. As a Hawaii State legislator, I supported the Senator from Iowa long before I ever had the privilege of serving with him in the Senate. In fact, when his bid for the presidency ended, some of us continued to support him, making buttons with a slogan I coined: ``Harkin for the Heck of It!'' Tom Harkin has done much to help build the ladders of opportunity that he so firmly believes is a big part of what government should do. His work inspires us to continue pushing to see that every individual in our country has an opportunity to improve his or her life for the better. Last week in his farewell remarks, Tom noted that while he is retiring from the Senate, he is not retiring from ``the fight.'' He also gave those of us who are still here a list of unfinished business to continue the fight. First, we have to do more to address income inequality and restack the deck so that working people have confidence that their government works on their behalf. Second, we have to work on addressing climate change. Third, we have to do more to give employment opportunities to the disabled, and finally, we have to pass the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. These are all big fights. But it speaks to Tom's passion for public service and improving access to opportunity that in his farewell remarks, he would give us a list of unfinished business. I will miss him in the Senate. I am confident that Tom Harkin will be a prominent voice in American society for years to come. Aloha Tom, a hui hou, or ``until we meet again.'' Jay Rockefeller Mr. President, I also wish to pay tribute to a man who has dedicated nearly 50 years to public service. That is our retiring colleague Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. Jay Rockefeller's lifetime of service was shaped by his experience as a VISTA worker in a rural coal town in West Virginia. Jay told me that this experience was life changing, coming as he did from a very privileged background. Working day-to-day in that community, learning the hopes and fears and anxieties of the people, and seeing their struggles led to his lifelong commitment to improving the lot of working people everywhere. In his farewell remarks to the Senate, Senator Rockefeller said that the Senate must be a ``place in which we embrace the commitment to be deliberative, passionate, and unrelenting.'' Senator Rockefeller embodied these qualities while serving the people of West Virginia. He has been a deliberative, passionate, and unrelenting champion, especially for those whose circumstances in life are the hardest. His work on health care has impacted Americans in every corner of the United States, from the mountains of West Virginia, to my State of Hawaii. He was instrumental in the efforts to establish the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, which provides care to more than 8 million children across the Nation. More than 30,000 of those children who currently receive coverage for necessary primary and preventive health care are those children in my State of Hawaii. From his Medicare Drug Savings Act to his Rebuilding America's Schools Act, Jay Rockefeller has truly been a champion for those who needed a hand up in life. We are all aware of Jay's efforts to enhance our national security while also holding our Nation to the highest standards possible as a chairman and member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. His commitment to keeping America safe is met only by his commitment to ensure that our Nation's veterans get the care and benefits that they have earned and deserve. I have been privileged to serve with Jay on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. Senator Rockefeller reminds us that to those upon whom fortune has smiled, there is no greater calling than to dedicate ourselves to fight hard for those struggling, for those hard working, and for those who put us here. As Senators I hope that we heed Jay's words and in the coming Congress we work together on a bipartisan basis to collaborate and compromise on behalf of America's workers and families. On a personal note, Jay and I had one of the best conversations recently on the Senate floor where we discovered that we were two pretty private people, some would even describe as introverts, who picked a most public of arenas, politics, to do our life's work of making a difference in the lives of those we are privileged to represent. Thank you for your service, Senator Rockefeller. It has been an honor being your colleague and serving with you. Aloha Jay, a hui hou, or ``until we meet again.'' Tim Johnson Mr. President, I wish to recognize the contributions of Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota, who is retiring at the end of this year. Senator Johnson has served South Dakota in the House and the Senate for nearly 28 years. He was elected to the House in 1986 and was elected to the Senate in 1996. During those 28 years, Senator Johnson has been an advocate for bipartisanship to get results in Congress. In fact, bipartisanship could be considered one of the campaign platforms that first got him elected to Congress. As he related in his farewell remarks on this floor last week, when he first ran for the House of Representatives, he told the people of South Dakota that neither party had all the answers, that both parties had good ideas, and that both parties had men and women of good will. ``My job, as I understood it, would be to work in a bipartisan manner, listening to all parties and reaching a good fit--also known as compromise.'' Twenty-eight years later, it is clear that he not only understood his job well then, but his efforts to compromise have paid big dividends for South Dakota. Over the years he has worked on a number of issues, from the farm bill, to highway funding, to flood relief and to protect South Dakota's Ellsworth Air Force Base. No one Senator can deliver results on their own, but by working across the aisle, Tim has not only done well for his constituents but has gained a good reputation here in the Senate. He has served in leadership positions on the Senate banking committee, which he currently chairs, as well as the Senate Appropriations, Energy and Natural Resources, and Indian Affairs Committees. On each of these committees, Senator Johnson has championed issues that are important to the people of his State but has always done so with an eye toward fairness--listening to all parties, promoting compromise, and doing what is right for working people across the country. For these reasons, Senator Johnson is well-respected and has earned the good will of the Senate. When he was faced with the challenge of a lifetime--a brain hemorrhage in 2006--he was supported by a Senate community that set aside partisanship and political calculations. Everyone wanted to see him recover. When he returned to the Senate after months of recovery, he was welcomed by the whole community. Tim continues to be a profile in courage. His legacy is one of compromise and collaboration--two attributes that are critical to the functioning of this body and two attributes which we would do well to remember. We will all miss Senator Johnson in the Senate. Aloha to him, his wife Barbara, his three children, and his six grandchildren, and a hui hou, ``until we meet again.''

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Sarah Saldana to serve as Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE. Before I proceed, I would like to thank the good Senator from Ohio for his tributary remarks regarding Jay Rockefeller, an uncommon man of the people. Prior to supporting Ms. Saldana's nomination in the Judiciary Committee, I did have a chance to meet with her. Growing up in a large family near our southern border in Corpus Christi, TX, Ms. Saldana managed to overcome hardship and become the first Latina U.S. Attorney in Texas history. Sarah Saldana is fully qualified to serve as ICE's Director. She is a senior Federal law enforcement official for a border State district that spans almost 100,000 miles. Ms. Saldana has been on the ground in Texas and fully understands the complexities and challenges we face with our immigration system. Republicans and Democrats agree that our immigration system is broken. Until recently, we also agreed, Republicans and Democrats alike, that Sarah Saldana needed to be confirmed as the Director of ICE. However, now Republicans are playing politics with this nomination to a critical homeland security agency. ICE is responsible for important law enforcement issues that make us all safer and has been without a permanent Director for over a year. ICE's 19,000 people are responsible for enforcement of our immigration laws, for drug interdiction, for fighting child exploitation, and for keeping us safe from national security threats. The Senate needs to do its job and let Sarah Saldana get to work as the permanent Director of ICE. I understand that some of my colleagues on the Republican side now oppose Sarah Saldana because of the President's Executive order on immigration. President Obama's Executive action allows millions of fathers, mothers, and students to step out of the shadows, pass background checks, work legally, and pay their taxes. The President's action is rooted in the reality that our immigration system is broken and that we need to exercise prosecutorial discretion on who to go after with our limited resources. As Director of ICE, it is Ms. Saldana's responsibility to focus on homeland security resources on deporting felons and other criminals who have crossed our borders. It is simply not possible for the Federal Government to remove all 11 million undocumented persons in this country. That is another point on which most Republicans and Democrats agree. We have to prioritize the resources we have. That is what the President's order does. It prioritizes deporting felons, not families. Let me repeat that: Deporting felons, that is all we need to do, not breaking apart families. President Obama's action is grounded on precedent and Executive powers. Every single President since Eisenhower has used Executive action to provide discretionary relief from deportation. Nonetheless, the President's critics have relentlessly attacked the legitimacy of his action. Some of my colleagues have emphasized that we must enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders in their opposition to Ms. Saldana. Ironically, my Republican colleagues are opposing the nomination of the Director of an agency responsible for these very things: securing our border and enforcing our immigration laws. Some Republicans do not even want to fund the Department of Homeland Security at all. Those who are concerned about immigration enforcement and border security should ask themselves: How does opposing Sarah Saldana's nomination and putting DHS funding in question make our borders more secure? How do these actions ensure effective enforcement of our laws? They do not. If you want to truly and permanently address our broken immigration system, we need Congress to work together to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which the American people overwhelmingly support. It has been over a year since comprehensive immigration reform was passed on the Senate floor. Congress must continue working to pass commonsense, humane reform that puts families first. As the President himself has said, Executive action does not replace congressional action. To those in Congress concerned with what he has done, we need to step up. We need to pass comprehensive reform. But in the meantime, we need to confirm Sarah Saldana so she can get on with the job at ICE. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on her nomination. Order of Procedure I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now recess until 2:15 p.m.; that following the 2:30 p.m. votes, the clerk report Executive Calendar No. 1150, the Blinken nomination, and the time until 5 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. I thank the Senator for yielding. Murthy Nomination I rise today to speak in strong support of the nomination of Dr. Vivek Murthy for Surgeon General of the United States. In these brief remarks I will explain why I think he is a highly qualified nominee, why his age should not be a limiting factor at all, and finally why we need a Surgeon General now. Dr. Murthy has been waiting for a vote on this nomination for months. I am glad that today the time has come to give him that vote. I met with Dr. Murthy a little while ago and found him to be one of the most interesting and likeable people I have met--and that is saying a lot. He has accomplished much already and has a deep commitment to giving back through his work. I found him to be a breath of fresh air. I was particularly impressed by his work at a company he founded where he identified inefficiencies in clinical drug trials and came up with a solution. His innovative ideas will help medical treatments move to market faster. In other words, he wanted to get drugs faster to the people who needed them. We often speak with admiration of Americans who are technologically proficient, and it is rare to find someone who is not only tech savvy, but is able to take that skill and combine it with the kind of medical training, creative mind, and ability to identify and solve real-world problems. In Dr. Murthy, we have that someone. While there are some who feel Dr. Murthy is too young and inexperienced to be Surgeon General, anyone who has met and talked with him as I have would, I believe, come away impressed. Dr. Murthy is not yet 40, but certainly his age has not prevented him from accomplishing many things. He is someone who has done much to solve public health challenges in his years as a physician, and well before that. He has leadership experience through his work starting and running a public health advocacy organization and this includes founding a technology company. He has a strong medical background and experience that demonstrates his ability to take complex health information and translate it for others--exactly what we need in a Surgeon General. If anything, we should be doing all we can to get young, bright, committed people such as Dr. Murthy into public service. Recently, this Nation found itself worried about Ebola. Misinformation and fear were palpable in our communities. We did not have a permanent Surgeon General to coordinate the information tsunami that descended on the American people from government and scientists. And without a Surgeon General, it has been a struggle to ensure that accurate, timely information about Ebola was disseminated to the public. Today it is Ebola. We don't know what public health crisis will come next. We need a Surgeon General who will roll up his sleeves, survey the evidence, and take action. Dr. Vivek Murthy has demonstrated he will be that kind of Surgeon General because he does not shy away from asking tough questions, listening, and then developing solutions that are driven by evidence. His listening skills and his ability to engage and communicate with a broad spectrum of people, combined with his medical and business background--he also has a master's degree in business--will make him an extremely effective Surgeon General. Think about this: We have a nominee who is not only a well-trained physician but also has business management skills and the ability to engage stakeholders--be they medical professionals, faith-based organizations, or the public at large. He can start conversations and effect real change to improve the health of our communities, particularly in his priority areas of obesity and mental health. Again, I found in Dr. Murthy a combination of an ability to be very creative, with the very important ability to listen; because although he has both a medical and business background, he doesn't think he knows more than everybody else. So this listening ability is very important, with the ability to solve real-world problems. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Dr. Murthy for U.S. Surgeon General. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO. Aloha.