[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S760-S761]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the subject of our debate today is that it 
is wholly inappropriate that at this moment in time some in Congress 
are deciding that they are going to hold hostage Homeland Security 
funding unless they get 100 percent of what they want.
  I think immigration reform is a terribly important issue. I was proud 
to join in one of the broadest, bipartisan votes in the past few years 
to pass bipartisan immigration reform. I was disappointed when our 
friends in the House didn't take up that legislation and pass it.
  Subsequent to that failure to act on the part of the House, the 
President has acted--and I believe there are even folks here watching 
these proceedings now who are beneficiaries of those Executive actions, 
some of the DREAMers.
  Now if this body wants to redebate immigration, that is a fair topic, 
a fair subject. And I, for one, would welcome that full-throated debate 
again. But it should not--it should not--be tied to a critical part of 
national homeland security funding.

  The remarkable thing is this is actually an area where both parties 
came to agreement on the size of the budget and the program 
prioritization. There was an agreement. But instead, extraneous items 
were added that now some are saying if we don't get these items we are 
willing to roll the dice or potentially shut down the most essential 
parts of our government at a time of enormous international and 
potentially domestic challenge.
  All of us, obviously, can come and speak about the unspeakable 
tragedies we saw reported coming out of the Middle East. We see as well 
challenges that ISIL presents potentially--not just in that region but 
to the homeland and in terms of trying to encourage homegrown 
terrorists. The notion there would be Members of this body or any body 
who would say it is okay to cut off funding to DHS at this moment in 
time is remarkable.
  The American people--as someone who just went through a refreshing 
reminder of what they are looking for through my last election 
process--do

[[Page S761]]

not want us to legislate in this way. They want us to get things done. 
They want us to actually find common ground. And on homeland security 
we have made the hard choices on where the dollars ought to come from 
and where they ought to be prioritized.
  But if the loudest voices get their way and hold this funding 
hostage, not only would it make our country more vulnerable to 
terrorist threats but a DHS shutdown would jeopardize our national 
security by disrupting other important programs, such as grants to 
train local law enforcement and to protect our communities. And as many 
as 240,000 people responsible for frontline security--more than 80 
percent of DHS employees--will still have to show up to work--they just 
won't get paid for it. Many of them in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
  This is a threat to the homeland, it is a threat to our law 
enforcement, it is a threat in terms of our ability to respond to 
crises with FEMA, and there is threat even without those potential 
tragedies of the normal course of an American citizen as they pass 
through airports and other venues. Ultimately, for an agency that has 
been under some strain, these 240,000 people who are working hard to 
protect our homeland have to provide for their families.
  This is not the way this body should operate. I want to commend the 
majority for trying to say we will bring back an open process. But the 
notion that we will have a repeat of what we saw when we self-inflicted 
damage upon this whole economy when we shut down the government a few 
years ago because of an unwillingness of a few to compromise--if that 
is repeated now around homeland security, it would be a dreadful 
mistake.

                          ____________________