[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 28, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S553-S555]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be here today to 
speak to my colleagues about funding for the Department of Homeland 
Security and to be followed by one of my most valued colleagues, 
Senator Menendez, whose leadership on this issue has been 
extraordinarily important. I am also pleased to work with him on a 
letter he sent yesterday to the President concerning Iran sanctions, 
where his statesmanship-like path to a reasonable solution on this very 
complex and crucial issue will be enormously important to the future.
  The Department of Homeland Security is one of the most significant 
departments in the U.S. Government. It has a mandate that is as complex 
and crucial as any in keeping American citizens and communities and 
capabilities safe and secure in a dangerous, complex, and threatening 
world.
  In my family, when I was growing up, we had a saying: Don't cut off 
your nose to spite your face. Unfortunately, that path is exactly what 
some of my colleagues are choosing to follow in threatening to stop 
funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
  We are reminded of the importance of this Department not only as 
terrorism raises its ugly head repeatedly abroad but also as perhaps 
more benign threats exist at home--the most recent of them, the 
snowstorm that hit the Northeast within the past couple of days. The 
Department of Homeland Security is not only engaged in a fight against 
terrorism, not only engaged in keeping America safe from threats abroad 
but is engaged in a wide variety of other tasks that have to do with 
the Nation's security. That is the key word in its title--``security.''

  Americans fear more deeply than ever before that their security is 
threatened--economic security by stagnating incomes, foreign security 
as the world becomes more volatile and unpredictable and more 
threatening, and domestic security as threats abroad metastasize within 
our own borders.
  Many people equate the concept of security at home or homeland 
security with protection against extreme violence from abroad, violent 
extremism spawning from abroad and in fact stopping those threats. 
Finding the wrongdoers and stopping them is one of the major tasks the 
Department of Homeland Security has, but it has a myriad of additional 
responsibilities that include aiding the victims of natural disasters 
and extreme weather, citizenship and immigration, routinely handling 
matters that involve legitimate applications for visas for entry into 
the United States, and it fights the scourge of human trafficking. I am 
privileged to have a Caucus on Human Trafficking with my colleague 
Senator Rob Portman. So I know it forms a diverse collection of 
responsibilities that are crucial to security.
  In fact, the Department of Homeland Security's responsibilities are 
comprehensive--so much so that it is simply unacceptable to play 
politics with its crucial mission. It is irresponsible to hold its 
funding hostage in a dangerous game of fiscal chicken and threaten 
daily activities that are vital to America's present and future 
security.

[[Page S554]]

  That is why we are here, because some of my friends across the aisle 
believe stopping the President from exercising discretion on certain 
immigration issues affecting specific individuals in this country is 
worth hamstringing and undercutting the entire Department of Homeland 
Security and forcing an enormous amount of its vital work to grind to a 
halt. That is the game of chicken we have. The President is expected to 
relent if the Department of Homeland Security is stopped from 
functioning, but it is a game that has no place in this Chamber or in 
this government.
  We can agree or disagree with the President, and I disagree with the 
Department of Homeland Security on certain of its policies; for 
example, on detaining children which it has done routinely on a 
grandiose scale. I have included an amendment in the measure for 
immigration reform that passed the Senate. It would stop it from 
detaining children--a practice I consider shameful and unacceptable--
and I have a long list of other changes I would like to see made in DHS 
policies. But the way to effectuate those changes in my view is not to 
withhold funding to stop DHS in its tracks of providing security for 
the American people, it is to amend the laws to persuade our colleagues 
to undertake the legislative process and to appeal ultimately to the 
court of public opinion which can render a verdict far more powerful 
than the tactics involved here. Chipping away at the President's 
authority by not only undercutting him but stopping one of his 
departments is reprehensible. So I urge my colleagues to cease this 
tactic.
  The President needs discretion. In fact, I know as a prosecutor, as a 
former attorney general, and as a one-time U.S. attorney for 
Connecticut that discretion is essential. There is no way any authority 
can prosecute every crime. So prosecutors need to select cases based on 
severity of offense and most important the danger to the public because 
ultimately protecting the public is what security requires. That is 
true as well for the Department of Homeland Security.
  The President has exercised his discretion in a way I find laudable. 
The exigencies of the present immigration system require the exercise 
of discretion. The President has done it in a way that is responsible 
and upholds his duties as Commander in Chief. But even if I disagree 
with the President on that exercise of discretion with respect to 
immigration, I would never use this tactic of withholding funding for 
an entire department, affecting all of its activities and implicating 
and undercutting security in so dangerous a way.
  My hope is we will debate immigration policy, that we will approve an 
immigration reform bill, that it will be on a bipartisan basis just as 
it was during the last session, that there will be a lot of good-faith 
disagreement on the floor of this Chamber about those policies and 
about the President's actions but that we will keep the lights on at 
the Department of Homeland Security, that we will shine the light on 
threats to our security that need to be exposed and pursued, that we 
will further the security of this Nation and protect the public by 
making sure the DHS funding as a clean bill is approved right away and 
that we move forward to make sure DHS continues its vital service to 
the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as we approach the near end--I think--of 
the votes and legislation on the Keystone Pipeline--I know we are 
having a series of votes later today--I know what is likely to be next 
up is the question of Department of Homeland Security funding. I hope 
we can come collectively together to fund the Department of Homeland 
Security, the Department that keeps us safe in an unsafe world, the 
Department we created after September 11 to bring together disparate 
government agencies, all charged with keeping our cities, our ports, 
our airports, our railways, highways, bridges, and neighborhoods safe 
from the threat of global terrorism. I particularly understand that as 
a Member of this body who represents, according to the FBI, the most 
dangerous 2 miles in America, the chemical coastway, airports, seaports 
along the Hudson waterfront. This is the Department that funds 
emergency management in our communities. It protects the President. It 
is engaged in all domestic counterterrorism efforts.
  But what are we doing instead? We are being asked, as one of the new 
Republican majority's first acts of this Congress, to shut down the 
Department of Homeland Security. Why? Because some of our friends on 
the other side are willing to take a gamble and put politics ahead of 
national security, a thinly veiled political stunt in response to the 
lawful actions of the President of the United States to do something to 
fix our broken immigration system. Their message is pretty simple: 
repeal the President's lawful Executive actions on immigration or shut 
down the Department of Homeland Security. Make no mistake, that is the 
textbook definition of pure politics: not caring what its impact might 
be, not caring whom it might hurt, not caring about the families whom 
it will tear apart, and the fact that it will put our Nation's security 
at risk.
  I have been in this Chamber and in the other Chamber for over 20 
years, and I don't think I have ever seen such a cavalier political 
recklessness played with our national security. Why? To prevent the 
President from taking lawful action to help DREAMers and immigrant 
families to come out of the shadows after they pass a criminal 
background check, register with the government, and get right with the 
law in exchange for being allowed to temporarily stay in the country 
and obtain a work permit.
  The bottom line is clear: Republicans are doing all of this just to 
prevent a clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill from being 
sent to the President, a critical funding bill that the President has 
rightfully promised to veto should it include their anti-immigration 
amendments, a veto which Congress will not override. It is a fool's 
political errand that is neither good policy nor particularly humane.
  Our friends on the other side have accepted these anti-immigrant 
poison pill amendments, knowing full well they will sink the Department 
of Homeland Security funding bill because they have allowed extremists, 
such as Steve King, to dictate the party's strategy on immigration.
  Let's not continuously go down this dark path of partisanship instead 
of funding national security programs to keep our families and our 
communities safe. In my view it is shamefully and woefully 
irresponsible for Republicans to hold up funding for operations that 
protect every American against terrorism in the wake of what happened 
in France and against cyber attacks at a time when North Korea just 
carried out a dramatic attack against a major American corporation.
  This is not a time to hold up funding to help the Department of 
Homeland Security investigate cyber crime that could cripple America's 
electronic infrastructure or when the world is a tinderbox of jihadists 
and would-be homegrown terrorists willing to die for a perceived 
version of Islam.
  If Republican colleagues want to seriously consider this ill-
conceived approach, they will be forcing a shutdown of the Department 
of Homeland Security--a shutdown of our national security 
infrastructure to pursue their agenda of mass deportations that will 
tear families apart, an agenda that embraces a system that doesn't 
distinguish between deporting a working mother with U.S. citizen 
children and a convicted felon.
  Instead, I urge my friends on the other side to join us and pass a 
balanced and comprehensive bill. Let's talk. Let's sit down again and 
find common ground, as we did in the last Congress where this Senate 
came together on a bipartisan basis with over 67 votes to send a bill 
to the House of Representatives that dealt with our broken immigration 
system, provided for our national security, promoted our national 
economy, and at the same time made sure our legacy and history as a 
nation of immigrants was preserved. The answer is not holding up 
national security funding at a critical time, not turning our backs on 
the

[[Page S555]]

hard-working men and women at the Department of Homeland Security in 
law enforcement who are protecting our borders, our airports, and our 
coastlines. It is not about trying to score political points by 
conflating national security and immigration reform, which will only 
make it harder to address security issues at home and almost impossible 
to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform.
  Let's look at what my Republican colleagues are so opposed to. They 
are opposed to new DHS directives that include a rigorous application 
process that will ironically help eliminate national security threats. 
They seem to be opposed to the fact that applicants will have to come 
forward and register with the government. They will have to pass 
criminal background checks before they can receive a temporary reprieve 
from deportation and a work permit. No violent criminals, gang members, 
or terrorists will be able to take advantage of the program. They seem 
to be opposed to allowing immigrants who are not a public safety or 
national security threat to come forward and request deferred action, 
meaning there will be fewer people living in the shadows, beyond the 
reach of law enforcement.
  These directives identify moms and dads who have a U.S. citizen or a 
legal permanent resident son or daughter and take them out of the 
deportation queue. They also take DREAMers out of the deportation 
queue.
  The House amendment to the Department of Homeland Security funding 
bill would effectively end the new Deferred Action for Parental 
Accountability Program and the expanded DACA Program for DREAMers. They 
would also defund every other aspect of the President's November 20 
Executive action that would promote border security, public safety, 
military service, legal immigration, citizenship, immigration 
integration, entrepreneurship, civil immigration enforcement 
priorities, including the prioritization of individuals with convicted 
felonies and gang activity and terrorist ties for deportation.
  I will repeat that. It includes a prioritization. I would think the 
Senate would want to support a prioritization of individuals who are 
here illegally and are convicted felons and part of gang activities or 
who have terrorist ties for deportation and any future similar 
Executive actions.
  The only directive our Republican colleagues found acceptable, which 
is interesting--in my mind, you say: Well, none of it can happen by 
Executive action. But it seems that the only thing that did happen by 
Executive action that our colleagues found acceptable pertains to pay 
increases for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, which I 
believe they certainly deserve.
  These amendments would break apart more families and destroy 
communities by ensuring that we continue to deport the parents of U.S. 
citizen and lawful permanent resident children. One of the most mean-
spirited amendments would prohibit the use of Federal funds or 
resources to consider or adjudicate any new, renewed, or previously 
denied application for deferred action for childhood arrivals.
  Let's call this amendment what it is: It is an amendment to deport 
DREAMers and targets all of those young people who came forward and 
signed up in good faith. I will give an example of whom these 
amendments attack.
  I wish to remind my colleagues of who the DREAMers are. DREAMers are 
young people who came to this country through no choice of their own. 
The only flag they have ever pledged allegiance to is that of the 
United States of America. The only national anthem they know is the 
``Star-Spangled Banner.'' Their country is this country.
  I was fortunate to speak with people like the Morales-Cano family 2 
weeks ago in New Jersey. They are a family of six, including 13-year-
old, U.S.-born Rebecca Morales. Their lives have drastically improved 
thanks to the program Republicans are hoping to dismantle. If the 
Republicans are successful, Rebecca would be left alone in the United 
States without her parents or sisters--an American citizen left alone, 
perhaps in foster care, because Republicans don't care about 
prioritizing the deportation of convicted criminals over her mom, dad, 
and sisters.
  The story of the Morales-Cano family is a clear example of thousands 
of deep-rooted families who have waited too long in the shadows for 
immigration reform.
  Three years ago, after attending a deferred action for childhood 
arrivals workshop that my office organized in New Jersey, all three of 
Rebecca's older sisters--Ingrid, Evelyn, and Lesly--were given an 
opportunity to begin a new chapter of their lives after qualifying for 
the President's 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, 
joining thousands of others who had been granted relief.
  Today, look at what this family is doing Ingrid cares for New 
Jerseyans' health at her job at the Ocean Medical Center. Evelyn moved 
to Illinois to attend the West Coast Bible College and Seminary. Lesly 
was able to enroll in Brookdale Community College to pursue her dream 
of becoming a nurse. Ingrid, Evelyn, and Lesly represent the hundreds 
of thousands of young individuals who, because of the deferred action 
for childhood arrivals, can actively contribute to our economy without 
fear of losing everything they have worked to gain.
  Romeo Morales and Mrs. Magda Cano de Morales did not qualify for 
deportation deferrals under DACA and have continued to live with the 
constant fear of having their family abruptly separated. But thanks to 
the deferred action for parents program, recently announced by 
President Obama, both parents will likely qualify to come out of the 
shadows, register with the government, pass a background check, and 
join their daughters in their pursuit of the American dream--unless, of 
course, the Republicans get their way.
  We cannot let that happen, and I will do everything to ensure that we 
will not let that happen. These are the real faces of our broken 
immigration system. There are many families like the Morales-Cano 
family who have been and remain an economic resource we cannot afford 
to waste. They are hard-working families who simply want to be full 
participants in American life, full contributors to the American 
family, and they want to remain united as a family. We should want them 
to remain united.
  I have listened to so many speeches here about family values. Well, 
the core of a family value is a family being able to stay together, 
integrated and helping each other and driving each other to success and 
supporting each other. Ripping families apart is not a family value.
  We must see through the smoke and mirrors and do what is right for 
America. Let's stop playing political games. Let's defeat these poison-
pill amendments and pass a clean Department of Homeland Security 
funding bill. Let's not play politics with national security. Let's 
remember the people behind the policies. Let's remember the Morales-
Cano family and the fate of Rebecca if we allow these amendments to 
pass.
  With that, I yield the floor and 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. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________