[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 18 (Tuesday, February 3, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S720-S724]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, as we begin this debate on funding for 
the Department of Homeland Security, we face some fundamental 
questions: Are we going to prioritize the safety and security of the 
American people? Or are we going to put the country at risk because of 
an ideological disagreement?
  That is the choice I believe we face with this bill. We can either 
pass a clean bill that makes critical investments in our Nation's 
security or we can put this country at risk by playing politics with 
the funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
  We all know these are dangerous times that we live in. Every day, new 
threats emerge that endanger our citizens at home and our allies 
abroad. The Department of Homeland Security's role in protecting our 
country from these threats cannot be overstated, and its funding should 
not be controversial.
  Right now, the U.S. law enforcement community is on high alert for 
terror threats after attacks in Sydney, Australia, and Ottawa, Canada, 
and in Paris. Just 2 weeks ago, an Ohio man was arrested when 
authorities discovered he was plotting to blow up the U.S. Capitol in 
an ISIS-inspired plan. I believe, as the Presiding Officer understands, 
the man was from Ohio.
  ISIS has thousands of foreign fighters, including Americans, among 
their ranks who seek to return to their home countries to do harm--not 
to mention the barbarity of ISIS today in killing the Jordanian pilot 
whom they had in their custody.
  These are very real threats--a clear and present danger to the 
homeland--and because they are so real, we need our counterterrorism 
intelligence community operating at full strength. We need the entire 
Department of Homeland Security fully engaged in keeping our Nation 
safe.
  Last week, President Bush's two Homeland Security Secretaries, Tom 
Ridge and Michael Chertoff, joined former DHS Secretary Janet 
Napolitano in a letter to Congress. The three of them wrote:

       The national security role that the Department of Homeland 
     Security plays . . . is critical to ensuring that our nation 
     is safe from harm. . . . It is imperative that we ensure that 
     DHS is ready, willing, and able to protect the American 
     people . . . we urge you not to risk funding for the 
     operations that protect every American and pass a clean DHS 
     funding bill.

  All three former Secretaries--two of whom served under a Republican 
President and one under a Democratic President--are warning us that the 
safety and security of our Nation are at risk if we hold up funding for 
Homeland Security operations.
  Anything short of passing a clean funding bill will endanger 
important security operations and could very well put our citizens at 
risk. But because of the anti-immigration riders that have been 
attached by House Republicans, the bill we are about to vote on cannot 
become law. Senate Democrats are not going to support it. The President 
has already said he will veto it. And, furthermore, according to the 
nonpartisan

[[Page S721]]

Congressional Budget Office, the bill also adds $7.5 billion to the 
deficit.
  Last week, Senator Mikulski and I introduced a clean bill that is 
modeled after the bicameral, bipartisan agreement that was negotiated 
last December by Senator Mikulski, who was then chair of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, and Congressman Hal Rogers, then chair of the 
House Appropriations Committee. The bipartisan bill negotiated by 
Senator Mikulski and Congressman Rogers is a good bill. It is in line 
with the Murray-Ryan budget deal. It will help keep our Nation safe and 
secure, funding key counterterrorism, intelligence, and law enforcement 
activities, and will also strengthen the protections on our borders.
  So our position on this issue is clear: Congress needs to pass a 
clean, full-year funding bill without any controversial immigration 
riders that are not going to be able to gain support, that the 
President has already said he is going to veto. It is that simple. 
There is too much at stake for the security of our Nation to play 
politics with this bill.
  Before I conclude, I would note again that the House-passed 
Department of Homeland Security funding bill includes several 
immigration-related provisions that draw budget points of order against 
the bill. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the 
immigration-related provisions would increase the deficit by $7.5 
billion over 10 years. In addition, the bill includes language relating 
to the budgetary treatment of these provisions. The result is multiple 
points of order that would not apply to the bill if the immigration 
provisions had not been added.
  Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: Does a budget point of 
order lie against H.R. 240 pursuant to section 311(a)(2)(B) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised that the point of order 
lies.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Does a budget point of order lie against the bill 
pursuant to section 311(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised that the point of order 
does lie.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. And does a budget point of order lie against the bill 
pursuant to section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised again that the budget 
point of order does lie.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to highlight the importance of 
voting yes to proceed to the Department of Homeland Security 
appropriations bill for 2015, H.R. 240. This bill, which has passed the 
House, is necessary to protect our borders, fight terrorism, and defend 
communities under threat from natural disasters. The list of national 
security-related programs this bill provides resources for is long, but 
before I speak to those programs in greater detail, I will reinforce 
the importance of proceeding to this DHS appropriations bill.
  DHS's funding expires on February 27. To my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle who do not want to proceed to this bill, I would just 
point out, we need to take up this DHS appropriations funding bill and 
debate it--to let the Senate do its work.
  We just passed a Keystone bill after the consideration of more than 
40 amendments. At the end of the day, we were able to produce a bill 
that garnered 62 votes. I urge my colleagues to let the Senate do its 
business. Vote yes on cloture on the motion to proceed.
  Now I would like to walk through some of the things this bill funds. 
I want to remind my colleagues how critical these DHS operations are to 
the economic prosperity, public safety, and security of the American 
people.
  The bill provides $39.67 billion in net discretionary appropriations 
plus $6.4 billion in disaster funding.
  Let's take a look at some of the critical security functions this 
bill provides.
  The bill provides $10.7 billion for Customs and Border Protection--an 
increase of $119 million over fiscal year 2014. It supports record 
levels of personnel, tactical infrastructure, technology, and air and 
marine assets, including 21,370 Border Patrol agents; 23,775 Customs 
and Border Protection officers; miles of fencing and border roads; 
fixed and mobile surveillance and detection technology; aircraft and 
vessels outfitted with the latest sensor technology, as well as 
unmanned aerial systems; reused technology from the Department of 
Defense, such as tethered aerostat radar systems.
  The bill also includes funding for a biometric exit pilot program in 
airports in 2015, as well as improvements to the Department's biometric 
system to support exit implementation in the future.
  The bill provides $5.96 billion for Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, ICE--an increase of $689 million over fiscal year 2014, 
which is a 13-percent increase.
  It holds the administration's feet to the fire by maintaining a 
record 34,000 adult detention beds.
  It responds to the recent flood of families coming across our border 
by significantly increasing family detention beds from 96 to 3,828.
  It provides increases for the criminal alien program and for fugitive 
operations, both of which are critical to identifying, apprehending, 
and removing the criminals that the administration claims are a 
priority.
  The bill provides increases for Homeland Security Investigations to 
combat human trafficking, cyber crime, child exploitation, and drug 
smuggling.
  It also includes $50 million for the Visa Security Program and 
supports enforcement to address visa overstays.
  In addition, the bill provides strong support for the Secret Service, 
an organization that requires reform and congressional oversight, given 
recent incidents, with $81 million above fiscal year 2014.
  In addition to funding increases associated with preparations for the 
2016 campaign season, the bill provides $25 million to begin addressing 
security needs at the White House complex.
  Recognizing the need for a state-of-the-art biosafety level 4 
research facility to prepare for and respond to animal-borne and other 
biologic threats, this bill provides the funding necessary to construct 
the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility.
  The bill provides more than $10 billion for the Coast Guard. It 
continues our commitment to recapitalization of the Coast Guard fleet, 
including funding the 8th National Security Cutter. And it takes a 
serious step to address nearer term heavy ice breaker needs with $8 
million for preserving the Polar Sea.
  The bill supports our cyber security efforts as a nation, both 
protecting government systems and working with the private sector to 
share threat information and protective measures.
  Since homeland security is a national effort, the bill continues 
funding for grant programs to State and local firefighters, emergency 
managers, and law enforcement--$467 million for State homeland security 
grants, including $55 million for Operation Stonegarden related to 
border security; $800 million for the Urban Area Security Initiative, 
port security grants, and transit security grants; $680 million for 
fire assistance grants; $350 million for Emergency Management Program 
grants.
  For research and development efforts, funding is provided consistent 
with fiscal year 2014 levels. The Science and Technology Directorate 
supports research and development at our national labs, with our 
university partners, and in the private sector to meet homeland 
security needs.
  The bill also provides for aviation security screening operations by 
the TSA, law enforcement training needs by the Federal Law Enforcement 
Training Center, and E-Verify, which supports businesses across the 
United States in hiring legal workers.
  Finally, the bill provides the requested almost $7 billion for the 
Disaster Relief Fund to assist with recovery costs for communities hit 
by natural disasters.
  What the bill does not fund is the President's Executive actions. The 
House bill includes several amendments that are targeted at reversing 
the President's actions and articulating priorities for immigration 
enforcement.

[[Page S722]]

  The President's actions overstepped his authority. His actions put 
illegal immigrants ahead of legal immigrants who are hoping to be a 
part of the American dream, who are following and respecting the 
Nation's laws.
  The immigration system is broken, but it cannot be fixed through 
Executive actions that exceed the President's authority. Instead, it 
should be accomplished through legislative reforms that start with 
border security, do not provide amnesty, and respect the rule of law.
  I leave my colleagues with this thought: We need to support these 
vital national security programs. Vote yes on cloture on the motion to 
proceed to this bill, and let's get to work.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. HOEVEN. I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I certainly appreciate Senator Hoeven, who chairs the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, for laying out the 
case for the importance of the funding for critical security agencies 
in this bill--for the Coast Guard, for Customs and Border Patrol, for 
efforts to address security at our border, for cyber security.
  As the Senator pointed out, there is a lot of very important funding 
in this bill to address homeland security. I wonder if the Senator 
agrees with me that we should support the funding of this bill and that 
if we are going to have a debate about the President's Executive 
actions, it should be a separate debate on immigration rather than 
putting at risk the funding in this bill to protect our Nation.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would like to respond to my colleague 
from the State of New Hampshire. I thank her for her work on our 
Appropriations Committee on the Department of Homeland Security and--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will yield.
  All time for debate has expired.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, she and I will be continuing to work 
together on this and other important issues, but the reality is that we 
need to proceed to this bill so that we can get the funding in place.
  Let's proceed to the bill. Let's have the debate. Let's have 
amendments. Let's do the work of the Senate on this important 
legislation. That is why we need a ``yes'' on this cloture motion to 
proceed--so we can get on this funding bill and go to work, have 
debate, have amendments, and do the work of the Senate on funding DHS, 
which is very important for our country.


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to H.R. 240, making appropriations for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2015.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Richard Burr, Jerry Moran, 
           John Thune, Johnny Isakson, Marco Rubio, Roy Blunt, Pat 
           Roberts, Deb Fischer, John Boozman, David Vitter, Tim 
           Scott, Roger F. Wicker, Richard C. Shelby, Michael B. 
           Enzi, Rand Paul.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 240, an act making appropriations for the 
Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2015, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 51 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--48

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 
48. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday President Obama, as part of the 
rollout of his blueprint budget that calls for more than $2 trillion in 
new taxes and adds more than $8 trillion to our national debt over the 
next 10 years, visited the Department of Homeland Security to urge the 
House of Representatives to pass a funding bill for that Department.
  It struck me as somewhat odd that the President would go to the 
Department of Homeland Security and ask the House to pass a bill to 
fund the Department of Homeland Security since they have already done 
it. They passed a $40 billion funding bill to fund the Department of 
Homeland Security. It seems to me the President--rather than giving a 
speech at the Department of Homeland Security--needs to be talking to 
Members of his own political party. If the President wants Congress to 
pass a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, then he 
needs to talk to our friends in the minority in the Senate who just 
blocked consideration of a $40 billion Department of Homeland Security 
funding bill.
  I know what they will say. They will say: We don't like parts of the 
bill. But the only way to finish a bill is to start a bill, and today 
they voted to refuse to start that process.
  Why in the world is it that the Senate Democrats will not even allow 
this particular legislation to be debated and amended? One of the 
reasons is that they probably don't want to revisit the President's own 
repeated assertions--22 different times--when he said he didn't believe 
he had the legal authority to issue the Executive action he issued in 
November of 2014. Twenty-two times he said: I don't have the authority.
  In 2013, when the President was speaking at an immigration event, he 
was interrupted by a heckler who urged him to stop deportations by 
Executive fiat. In response, the President said:

       If in fact I could solve all these problems without passing 
     laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we're also a nation 
     of laws--that's part of our tradition.

  Thus spoke the President of the United States on 1 of those 22 
different occasions.
  Maybe our colleagues in the minority don't want to debate this bill 
because they don't want to have to answer questions from their 
constituents about those 22 different occasions when the President 
said, ``I don't have the authority,'' and explain how they now agree 
with him and that somehow he miraculously got that authority absent an 
act of Congress.
  I can think of another reason our friends on the Democratic side are 
reluctant to allow us to even begin debate on this legislation. I have 
had the honor of participating in naturalization ceremonies all across 
my State. I

[[Page S723]]

have witnessed men and women who were born in other countries, came to 
the United States of America, raised their right hand and swore 
allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. They may have come from Mexico, 
India, Vietnam or from any one of a number of other countries, but they 
decided, notwithstanding from where they came, they wanted to be an 
American.
  Those naturalization ceremonies are almost like birthdays--a 
celebration of one's birth--because in a way it is a birthday. It is a 
day when they become proud Americans.
  As Americans we believe in the benefits of legal immigration because 
in many cases it was our parents, grandparents or great-grandparents 
who came here from another country in search of the American dream--a 
better place to live, work, and raise a family.
  Sadly, the President of the United States has made it clear his 
administration is willing to take the people who played by the rules 
and applied for immigration and legal status to become an American 
citizen and kick them to the back of the line. This President has 
kicked the people who played by the rules to the back of the line, and 
he has moved people who did not play by the rules to the front of the 
line. That is fundamentally unfair. It also sends a terrible message 
that we are going to reward people who break the law and we are going 
to punish people who follow and comply with the law.

  So maybe our colleagues across the aisle don't really want to talk 
about that, and that is the reason they voted not to proceed to even 
begin to debate this important Department of Homeland Security 
appropriations bill--again, a bill that was passed by the House that 
would fund, to the tune of roughly $40 billion, the functions of the 
Department of Homeland Security. Yet our friends in the minority have 
said: We don't even want to talk about it. I can tell my colleagues 
what they don't want to talk about. They don't want to talk about the 
President's unconstitutional Executive action which he issued or 
announced last November.
  Here are some interesting quotes from some of our colleagues in the 
minority. The senior Senator from West Virginia said: I wish he 
wouldn't do it. He was talking about the President's stated intention 
to issue his Executive action.
  The senior Senator from Missouri, a member of the minority party, 
said: I have to be honest. How this is coming about makes me 
uncomfortable.
  Then there is the junior Senator from Indiana who said: I am as 
frustrated as anyone in Congress that it is not doing its job, but the 
President shouldn't make such significant policy changes on his own.
  Then there is the junior Senator from North Dakota, a member of the 
minority party, who said: It could poison any hope of compromise or 
bipartisanship in the new Senate before it has even started. That is 
what a Democrat from North Dakota said about the President's stated 
intention to issue his Executive action.
  The senior Senator from Minnesota said: I have concerns.
  Then there is Senator King from Maine who said: And I also frankly am 
concerned about the constitutional separation of powers.
  The Senator from Maine isn't the only one because 26 different States 
have filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Texas challenging the 
constitutionality of the President's Executive action, and the Federal 
district judge could rule at any time on that.
  Then there is the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will my colleague from Texas yield for a 
question?
  Mr. CORNYN. I will not yield at this time, Mr. President. I will be 
glad to yield at the conclusion of my remarks if the Senator still has 
a question.
  Then there is the Senator from Montana who said: I would prefer that 
the Congress act, yes.
  Then there is the Senator from Delaware who said: What I would say to 
Congress, I am going to give you a little bit of time in the new 
Congress, and I expect you to do something.
  So that is eight Members of the minority party who said they are more 
than a little uncomfortable about what the President has done. Yet 
today the Members of the minority party have voted in lockstep to deny 
a debate, any opportunity to discuss how to fund the Department of 
Homeland Security, how to rein in a reckless President who has 
overreached his constitutional authority.
  Here are some other provisions that are actually in the House bill 
that perhaps some of the Members of the minority are a little bit 
nervous to talk about, much less vote on.
  The House has offered as part of their bill a rider which defunds 
Executive actions treating domestic violence, sexual abuse, and child 
exploitation offenders as secondary priorities for removal. In other 
words, the President's Executive action took people who have actually 
committed crimes--not just entered the country illegally but committed 
other crimes--and made them nonpriority in terms of removal.
  Then, of course, there is the provision of the House bill that says 
we don't want to disadvantage legal immigrants and people who played by 
the rules because the House recognized that is exactly what the 
President's Executive action did. It kicked the people who played by 
the rules to the back of the line and the people who did not to the 
front of the line. But our friends in the minority obviously don't want 
to talk about that either.
  Millions of foreign-born immigrants have become successful, patriotic 
American citizens. We are richer as a country because of the 
contributions they have made to our great land.
  The fundamental choice we have is, are we going to have controlled 
immigration or uncontrolled immigration? The President and apparently 
his political party have embraced uncontrolled, illegal immigration as 
their cause.
  We, on the other hand, have said we believe in the benefits to our 
great country of legal immigration and assimilation because that is who 
we are. All of us have a family story somewhere back in our history. 
Mine goes back to the 19th century following a potato crop famine in 
Ireland that caused my forebears to immigrate to Canada and then to the 
United States. Everybody has a story like that.
  But it is a sad and important realization that the President, through 
his Executive action, is disrespecting the very individuals who have 
played by the rules and whom we celebrate as great, patriotic 
Americans. But apparently our friends in the minority don't even want 
to talk about it, so that is why they stopped this funding bill--$40 
billion to fund the Department of Homeland Security--and refused to 
even talk about it, much less debate it. They are going to come out 
here on the floor, I trust, and click through the days and say: Well, 
we only have 3 weeks until the Department runs out of money. It is like 
the old story about the teenager who murders his own parents, and then 
he goes to court and pleads for mercy because--he says: Judge, I am an 
orphan. That is what our friends in the minority have done.
  This is a crisis of their own making. In fact, we don't want a 
crisis. We want to eliminate government by crises. That is why the 
House has passed the responsible piece of legislation they have. That 
is why we ought to take it up today. If they don't like it--I know 
there are Members on our side who disagree with certain portions of 
it--then we ought to debate it and we ought to vote. Any way we look at 
it, the Senate ought to at least have the debate on this legislation.
  Last week our colleague from Illinois, the assistant minority leader, 
came to the floor and praised the new majority leader, Senator 
McConnell, for his leadership during the first few weeks of the new 
Republican majority here in the Senate. He said:

       I hope that in our role in the minority, we can work with 
     you to achieve at least debate on the floor if not some 
     significant legislation.

  That was a nice moment. But then the very next day, on a call with 
reporters, my colleague from Illinois pledged to filibuster the House-
passed Department of Homeland Security funding bill and refused to even 
allow a debate--a threat they made good on today.
  So my request to our colleagues on the Democratic side is simple: 
Honor the promise the senior Senator from Illinois made last week to 
have an open and fair debate and not just shut it down and create 
government by crisis and add to the very dysfunction the voters 
repudiated on November 4.

[[Page S724]]

  I am glad to yield to the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague. I just have a few more questions, 
and then I will say my piece.
  First, I ask my colleague, is it his party that is in the majority in 
this body?
  Mr. CORNYN. Absolutely.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Indeed they are--sad, from our point of view.
  Mr. CORNYN. We are delighted to be.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Isn't it true that the majority has the ability to put 
any bill they want on the floor just about at any time? They can rule 
XIV. They can go through committee. There are many procedural ways to 
get a bill on the floor; is that right?
  Mr. CORNYN. Again, Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New 
York knows well the answer to that is yes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. My final question is this: Since we have a Department of 
Homeland Security that needs funding and the issue of immigration is a 
controversial issue--one on which we relish a debate--wouldn't it be 
possible for the majority to pass a Department of Homeland Security 
bill without extraneous and controversial amendments, send that back to 
the House, and then move immediately to debate the immigration proposal 
that was added to the bill by the House or any other immigration 
proposal they wish to bring forward? I am not saying they will do it; I 
am just asking my dear friend, isn't that possible procedurally for the 
majority to do?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, responding to my friend from New York, I 
would say theoretically the answer to his question is yes. As a 
practical matter, we know the House has passed a particular piece of 
legislation that we would like to take up. It is what it is. It is the 
hand we have been dealt. That is the base bill to operate from. There 
are, of course, procedures to change it.
  Senator McConnell, the majority leader of the Senate, has said he 
believes there should be an open amendment process, and I trust our 
friends across the aisle would have a chance to offer an amendment and 
get a vote. If they have the votes, they are going to win.

                          ____________________