[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 20 (Thursday, February 5, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S803-S810]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to H.R. 240.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 5, H.R. 240, a bill 
     making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other 
     purposes.


                Measure Placed On The Calendar--H.R. 596

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the 
desk that is due for a second reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill by title for the 
second time.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 596) to repeal the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the 
     Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and for 
     other purposes.

  Mr. McCONNELL. In order to place the bill on the calendar under the 
provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection having been heard, the bill will be 
placed on the calendar.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday Democrats voted once again to 
protect politicians by blocking Homeland Security funding. I do not 
understand why they would want to block the Senate from even debating a 
bill to fund Homeland Security. It really does not make sense. You 
would think our Democratic friends would at least want to give the 
Senate an opportunity to make improvements to the bill, if they want to 
make such improvements. Why would our friends want to stand tall for 
the ability of politicians to do things President Obama himself has 
described as ``unwise and unfair''? Why would our friends go to the mat 
to protect the political class from the consequences of ``overreach'' 
that President Obama himself has referred to as ``ignoring the law''?
  Well, here is the good news. There is a way forward. There is a way 
to end this Democratic filibuster. All it requires is a little common 
sense and a little Democratic courage. Remember, several Democrats 
previously indicated unease with the idea of overreaching in ways 
President Obama has seemed to imply would ``violate the law.'' So now 
is the time to back up those words. Now is the time for our friends on 
the other side of good conscience to vote with us to break this party's 
filibuster of Homeland Security funding and help us protect American 
democracy.
  I ask unanimous consent that the motion to proceed to H.R. 240 be 
agreed to and that it be in order for the managers or their designees 
to offer amendments in alternating fashion, with the majority manager 
or his designee being recognized to offer the first amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?


                   Recognition Of The Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there is 
bipartisan objection to the request by the majority leader. It is worth 
our spending a minute or two hearing what Republicans Senators have had 
to say in the last few hours.
  John McCain, the senior Senator from Arizona: Is that the definition 
of insanity, voting on the same bill over and over again?
  Jim Inhofe: I think three is enough. There is a division within the 
conference on this.
  Jeff Flake of Arizona: We can go through the motions, sure, but I 
don't think we are fooling anybody.
  Another Republican Senator: I wish we could take no for an answer and 
figure out the next step.
  Well, what has happened in the last 30 hours? We knew 30 hours ago 
about ISIS. We have watched their brutality, killing thousands and 
thousands of innocent people, going back, I guess, in memory to the 
days we thought would never exist again: Tamerlane killing thousands 
and thousands of people those many centuries ago, Genghis

[[Page S804]]

Khan killing thousands and thousands of innocent people. ISIS has been 
doing this, but they have also added some things that we have watched 
not because we wanted to but because they forced us to: beheadings. 
Somebody kneels down in front of them, and they cut off their head with 
a knife. They film that and send it around the world for us to watch.
  But what happened 30 hours ago? The brutality we thought had reached 
its pinnacle got worse. What ISIS did approximately 30 hours ago is put 
a Jordanian pilot in a cage--a cage--dump flammable liquid over that 
cage, and then film that man being burned alive for 22 minutes. We have 
been forced to watch that. Yes, ISIS is awful. The worst. Uncivilized. 
But that is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with that. Now 
Republicans forced an entirely unnecessary debate.
  All the papers--not only the Nevada papers, but pick up the New York 
Times, pick up the Washington Post, and you will see a picture of a 
young woman from Nevada. Her name is Blanca Gamez. A young woman now, 
she came to the United States as a baby--a baby. Because of the 
direction taken by the President of the United States, this young woman 
and hundreds of thousands of others who dreamed of being able to lead a 
different life are now leading a different life. Blanca has gotten two 
college degrees. She is going to law school next year. She works. She 
pays taxes. Why in the world are Republicans afraid of Blanca Gamez? 
Why?
  It has been said by Martin Heinrich and by Claire McCaskill that it 
appears Republicans in the Senate are more afraid of the DREAMers than 
they are of ISIS. Well, I know the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Homeland Security, as it relates to appropriations, came to the floor 
yesterday and talked about regular order. I say to my friend that 
regular order in the Senate has a number of different connotations. One 
of them is clear, so clear, and that is why John McCain spoke out, Jeff 
Flake, Jim Inhofe, and others spoke out, because in the Senate we need 
to fund our different subcommittees on appropriations. We have done 
that, except Homeland Security.
  We have these terrorist acts all over the world taking place right 
now. We saw it in Canada. We saw it in Australia, all over the European 
Union, in Paris. All over. We have had so many frightening things 
happen. We in the United States of America are in a position where we 
are not going to fund Homeland Security because of Blanca Gamez.
  We would love to debate immigration. We have done it here on the 
Senate floor before. It was a wonderful bipartisan debate. We are 
willing to do it again.
  I am going to offer a consent request. I am going to object to my 
friend's consent request. That is on the record. I am going to make my 
own consent request. I am going to make a consent request that seems to 
me to be pretty good.
  I ask unanimous consent that following the enactment of the text of 
S. 272, which is the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for this 
year, 2015, at a time to be determined by Senator McConnell, after 
consultation with me, but no later than Monday, March 16, the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of the Border Security, Economic 
Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, as passed by the Senate 
by a vote of 68 to 32 on June 27, 2013, the text of which is at the 
desk. That is my consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an objection to the request of the 
majority leader.
  Is there an objection to the request of the Democratic leader?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, just a 
correction to my good friend the majority leader. There is no 
Republican opposition to the consent request that the Democratic leader 
objected to. It is clear on our side. It would allow us to have a fair 
amendment process. If there are differences with the House, regular 
order has a remedy. It is called going to conference. None of this is 
possible while the Democrats continue filibustering even getting on the 
bill. So therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me again state words I did not make up. 
John McCain--he is actually paraphrasing what Albert Einstein said: The 
definition of insanity is someone who keeps doing the same thing over 
and over again and expecting different results.
  That is what John McCain said. Is that the definition of insanity--
voting on the same bill over and over again and expecting a different 
result?
  Jim Inhofe: I think three is enough.
  Jeff Flake: We can go through the motions, sure, but I don't think we 
are fooling anybody.
  Another Republican said: I wish we could take no for an answer.
  There is bipartisan support to move forward on a freestanding bill 
that sends Homeland Security funding directly to the President. We want 
to do that. That is what should be done. That is regular order.
  If the Presiding Officer and the rest of the Republicans want to come 
and debate immigration, we are willing to do that. That is what my 
consent request calls for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as my good friend the Democratic leader 
reminded me for 8 years, the majority leader always gets the last word. 
So let me say again that the consent request that I offered, to which 
the Democratic leader objected, was unanimously approved on our side. 
What it would do would be to set up an order for amendments, rotating 
from side to side, which is exactly the open amendment process the 
Democratic leader seems to feel somehow we are preventing. That is 
exactly what I offered. I am not going to propound it again, but I will 
just lay out what it said: to offer amendments in an alternating 
fashion, with the majority manager or his designee being recognized to 
offer the first amendment. We would go back and forth and back and 
forth. So that is about as open as I can imagine. And there were no 
objections to it on the Republican side. Regardless of how Members who 
are being quoted by the Democratic leader may have observed the overall 
process for going forward, there is no objection over here to having 
amendments on both sides, alternating from one side to another.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. The American people are crying out that we defend our 
homeland. They are doing it around the rest of the world, why shouldn't 
we? That is what this is all about.
  If they want to debate immigration, go ahead and debate immigration 
but not on the back of Homeland Security, leaving it totally naked and 
not giving us the ability to do what needs to be done to protect our 
homeland.
  Mr. McCONNELL. There is a bipartisan desire to fund the Department of 
Homeland Security, and I am sure we will resolve this sometime in the 
next few weeks.
  I yield the floor.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time 
is reserved.
  Under the previous order, the time until 11:30 a.m. will be equally 
divided in the usual form.
  The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Calendar of Business has been put on 
the desk of Senators. The Calendar of Business makes reference on page 
12 to S. 272.
  That is a bill that has been introduced by Senator Shaheen of New 
Hampshire, who is on the floor and is the ranking member of the 
Appropriations subcommittee responsible for the Department of Homeland 
Security, as well as Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, who is the 
ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee.
  On page 128 is the answer to our dilemma. This solves our problem.
  S. 272 is a bill that is going to fund the Department of Homeland 
Security for the remainder of this year. This Department that we count 
on every minute of every day to protect America will receive all the 
funds they need and they will receive them almost immediately because 
there is no debate between the House and the Senate about how much to 
send the Department. The debate comes down to all the other extraneous 
matters which

[[Page S805]]

the House Republicans added to this bill.
  So if we are looking for a solution to the problem, I thank the 
Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Maryland. We have page 
12, S 272.
  What the Senate heard just a few moments ago from our Democratic 
leader is something none of us will ever get out of our minds. 
Imagine--imagine--this Jordanian pilot captured by ISIS, put in a cage, 
covered with flammable fluids, liquids. They started a fire and burned 
him to death.
  The King of Jordan was visiting the Capitol when that horrible news 
came out and rushed back to be with his countrymen. He has now vowed 
that Jordan, which has played a judicial role in trying to find peace 
in the Middle East, is now dedicated to stopping ISIS even more.
  So if ISIS thought they were going to break the resolve of the King 
of Jordan and the Jordanian people, exactly the opposite occurred. If 
ISIS is resolute in their barbarity, we need to be resolute in 
protecting our country. To think that we are caught up in this 
political debate over immigration, the President's actions, and not 
funding the Department of Homeland Security is disgraceful.
  The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security came to our 
lunch just 1 or 2 days ago and he said: Trying to operate this 
Department, the Department of Homeland Security, with this temporary 
funding is like trying to drive a car with a gas tank that only holds 5 
gallons and you don't know where the next gas station is going to be.
  That is what he is up against. So the Department of Homeland Security 
is unable to fund critical, necessary investments.
  So what is the issue? What is the political issue that is so 
important to the Republicans that they would stop the funding for the 
Department of Homeland Security? Well, I will say what the lead issue 
is. The lead issue is DREAMers.
  Fourteen years ago I introduced the DREAM Act that said if you were 
brought to America as a child--a toddler, an infant, a small child by 
your family--and they didn't file the papers so you could be legal in 
America, and you knew grew up in this country and had no serious 
problems in your background, graduated from high school and wanted to 
be part of America, we would give you a chance. You would get a chance 
at the dream. Oh, you have to go on to school beyond high school or 
enlist in our military, and we will put you on the path to legal 
status. We couldn't pass that despite 14 years of efforts. It would 
pass in the Senate, not in the House, and so forth.
  Finally, President Obama stepped up 2\1/2\ years ago and said: OK. 
There are about 2 million young people in America--just like this--
brought to the country when they were kids, and now they want a chance 
to work here, to live here, and to even go to school here without fear 
of deportation.
  He created something called DACA. The DACA Program allowed them to 
register, pay their fees, and be protected from deportation--600,000 
signed up, 35,000 in the State of Illinois.
  They signed up so they could get protection from deportation. The 
House Republicans and the Republicans in the Senate have insisted we 
deport these young people. I wish to give the story of one of these 
young people very quickly because I know there are other Senators 
seeking recognition.
  This is Everardo Arias. He was brought to the United States from 
Mexico in 1997 at the age of 7. He grew up in Costa Mesa, CA. He was an 
outstanding student in school. He dreamed of being a doctor. It was not 
until he applied to college that he realized his immigration status 
made that next to impossible. He was accepted at the University of 
California, Riverside, but because he was undocumented he didn't 
qualify for a penny of Federal assistance to get through school.
  When he was a sophomore, he met with a counselor to ask him: How am I 
going to get to medical school? The counselor told him: You can't go to 
medical school. You are undocumented in the United States of America.
  He didn't give up. He did not give up. In 2012 he graduated from the 
University of California, Riverside, with a chemistry major and 
research honors. Then a miracle occurred. President Obama issued an 
Executive order called DACA and Everardo Arias was given a chance to 
sign up for protection with this Presidential order and he did.
  After he received this DACA protection, Everardo worked for 1 year as 
a mentor for at-risk kids in his own hometown of Costa Mesa. The 
following year, through AmeriCorps, Everardo worked as a health 
educator with seven local clinics, volunteering and working through 
AmeriCorps with some of the poorest people in his community.
  During his year as a health educator, he decided now, with the 
protection of DACA, to apply to go to medical school. Everardo Arias is 
in his first year at Loyola University in Chicago, Stritch School of 
Medicine. He is one of seven protected by DACA who had a chance to go 
to school, but there is a catch. Loyola University said: You can go to 
medical school here, but for every year you are in medical school, you 
have to promise to give 1 year of your professional life working with 
the poorest people in my home State of Illinois, in small towns and 
rural areas as well as big cities, and he agreed to it.
  He has a giving, caring heart. He agreed to it, to finish medical 
school, and to give the years of service necessary to the poorest 
people in my State.
  Why do the Republicans want to deport Everardo Arias. Why do they 
want to take this outstanding individual who has struggled and 
succeeded in life, who knows no other country but America, and deport 
him to Mexico?
  Will we be a better nation if this young man is not a doctor? Will we 
be a better country if he is not given a chance to give back?
  This is what he wrote to me in a letter about this DACA Program which 
the Republicans want to abolish. Everardo wrote:

       DACA changed my life. It opened the door to the future 
     ahead of me. If it weren't for DACA I would not be here and I 
     probably would not have pursued medicine. I'm blessed to have 
     the opportunity to do what I love to do and to give back to 
     the country that has given me so much.

  We are a nation of immigrants. Immigrants have come to this country 
and made it what it is. We should never forget that. This is the latest 
generation of immigrants who want to give back to America and make us a 
stronger nation. Why the Republicans are opposed to giving them that 
opportunity, I cannot understand. They clearly have not met these young 
men and women. If they did, their feelings would change.
  So let's debate. Let's have the debate on DACA but not at the expense 
of the appropriations for this Department.
  Page 12 of the Senate Calendar, S. 272, offered by Senator Shaheen 
and Senator Mikulski is our answer, a clean bill to fund America to 
protect against terrorism and, as the Democratic leader suggested, then 
start the debate on immigration. That is the right thing to do for our 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in light of the eloquent remarks from the 
assistant Democratic leader who is my friend, I hope he will listen 
carefully to the proposal I am about to outline.
  In just over 3 weeks the law that funds the Department of Homeland 
Security will expire, jeopardizing the Department's ability to carry 
out its critical mission. Legislation to provide funding to the 
Department throughout the remainder of this fiscal year has passed the 
House and is awaiting action in the Senate, but progress has stalled. 
The Democrats have blocked it from even being considered because it is 
not a clean bill.
  On my side of the aisle House Republicans have insisted that 
provisions remain in the bill directing the administration to spend no 
funds implementing a series of Presidential orders issued over the past 
few years.
  The Senate has held two votes this week to try to begin debate on 
this bill, both of which have failed on near-party lines. Thus, we have 
reached an impasse.
  In an attempt to find a path forward, yesterday I filed an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute that would accomplish three goals. First, 
it would ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is fully 
funded to perform its vital mission to protect our

[[Page S806]]

people. Second, it would allow the Senate to go on record in strong 
opposition to the President's extraordinarily broad immigration 
Executive order issued last November. Third, it would protect the 
DREAMers whom Senator Durbin just talked about.
  I wish to go back to the November Executive order. This particular 
Executive order represents a misuse of the President's authority that 
threatens to undermine the separation of powers doctrine in our 
Constitution. As the President himself has said more than 20 times, he 
does not have the authority to expand the law in this manner. He made 
the exact point in remarks of July 2011 when he said:

       I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. . . . Now, 
     I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the 
     laws on my own. . . . But that's not how our system works. 
     That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our 
     Constitution is written.

  The President was exactly right when he stated that reality. The 
substitute I proposed would block the sweeping 2014 Executive order, 
but it does not overturn the more limited Executive orders from past 
years.
  Specifically, my amendment would not undo the 2012 deferred action 
program that allowed DREAMers, young people brought to the United 
States by their parents years ago, to receive legal status as long as 
they meet certain requirements.
  The House bill includes a controversial amendment, which I do not 
support, that would invalidate this 2012 program retroactively.
  My substitute accomplishes my third goal of protecting these children 
who have grown up here, who speak English, have clean criminal records, 
and often know no other country. They did not make the choice to come 
to America. That decision was made by their parent or parents.
  My substitute amendment, therefore, is straightforward. First, the 
amendment mirrors the underlying bill with respect to the funding 
levels provided to the Department of Homeland Security so it can carry 
out its functions. Ironically, there is no dispute over those funding 
levels. Second, it strikes the House provision restricting the 
expenditure of funds to implement the DREAMers Program that I described 
and that Senator Durbin just commented on.
  And third, it retains the House prohibition on expenditures to fund 
the President's unauthorized action on immigration announced in 
November of last year.
  Now, let me make clear that Congress should consider comprehensive 
immigration reform. The fact that there are now an estimated 11 million 
illegal immigrants in the United States is irrefutable evidence that 
our immigration and border security systems are badly broken. That is 
why I supported the bipartisan immigration reform bill that passed the 
Senate in 2013.
  While I was disappointed that immigration reform legislation of some 
sort did not become law, I reject the notion that its failure can serve 
as the justification for the action taken by the President last 
November. He cannot do by Executive fiat what Congress refused to pass, 
regardless of the wisdom of Congress's decision. Such unilateral action 
is contrary to how our constitutional system is supposed to work, and 
it risks undermining the separation of powers doctrine, which is 
central to our constitutional framework.
  Our Constitution vests the power to make law in the legislative 
branch--with Congress--not with the President. To the President it 
assigns the obligation to take care that the laws are faithfully 
executed. That was the rule used by the Supreme Court in 1952 in the 
famous Youngstown Sheet & Tubing case that overturned President 
Truman's Executive Order nationalizing the steel industry to prevent a 
strike during the Korean War.
  As the Court explained, the President's power to faithfully execute 
the laws does not make him a lawmaker. The Court said:

       (T)he Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking 
     process to the recommending of laws that he thinks wise and 
     the vetoing of laws he thinks bad.

  In other words, the President is not free to pick and choose among 
laws, enforcing the ones that he likes and ignoring the ones that he 
doesn't.
  The President is fully aware of this fact. He has often made the 
point that he could go no further than to protect the DREAMers. Here is 
what he said:

       Congress has said ``here is the law'' when it comes to 
     those who are undocumented. . . . What we can do is to carve 
     out the DREAM Act, saying young people who have basically 
     grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. . . . But 
     if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be 
     ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very 
     difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option.

  Those are the President's own words. The action taken by the 
President in November is a direct contradiction to his own statements. 
By acting unilaterally, ironically, the President is making it less 
likely that Congress will act to pass comprehensive reforms. He is 
undermining the efforts of those of us who favor immigration reform by 
diverting energy and attention from that goal.
  I urge my colleagues to give consideration to the proposed compromise 
that I filed as a substitute yesterday. It will ensure that the men and 
women on the front lines of the Department of Homeland Security can do 
their vitally important jobs, it will overturn the President's misuse 
of his Executive authority last November, and it will protect the legal 
status of children brought to this country by their parents years ago.
  Mr. President, I believe I have put forth a reasonable, constructive 
compromise that could get us out of this impasse that is such a 
disservice to so many. I hope my colleagues will join together and 
support the substitute I have proposed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first I want to compliment once again my 
colleague, the senior Senator from Maine. She is always looking for a 
compromise. She is always looking to try to work in a constructive way. 
While I don't appreciate the results she has asked for--which I will 
talk about in a second--I always appreciate her efforts.
  We have a very simple position here. It is a position that is 
logical. It is a position that even Republicans, as Leader Reid has 
mentioned, have talked about: Pass a clean homeland security bill and 
then go to the floor and debate amendments. Debate the amendment of 
Senator Collins, debate the amendment of Senator Cruz, and debate any 
immigration amendments you want.
  To repeat, we will not be held hostage. The American people don't 
want a gun to their head, particularly when it involves security, to 
debate immigration. We know that. We know what the junior Senator from 
Texas is doing. Everyone on the other side knows it; and, of course, we 
are not going to go along.
  So my dear friend from Maine comes up with a new solution. It is 
still hostage taking because it is attached to funding the Homeland 
Security bill. We are now only debating the size of the ransom. We will 
not do it. We are not going to be pressured, be bullied into doing this 
or that immigration reform as a price to funding Homeland Security.
  Homeland Security is too vital to America. It is too vital to our 
country. It is not the way legislating should work. My dear colleagues 
on the other side should have learned this lesson a year and a half ago 
when they threatened to shut down the government unless they got their 
way. No matter how deeply they feel about the substance, they lose.
  The junior Senator from Texas is leading his Republican colleagues at 
best into a cul-de-sac and at worst over a cliff, and I don't think 
they want to follow. But the House is in a box and says: Show us the 
Senate won't pass the bill. Well, we won't. We are not into hostage 
taking, we are not into being bullied, and we are not into legislating 
with a gun to our heads. And my guess is the White House would not 
support anything like this either.
  So I say to my dear Republican friends, go back to the drawing board. 
You control the Senate. You are in charge. It is your responsibility to 
find a way out of this. Our way is simple, as Leader Reid outlined. 
First, pass a clean Homeland Security bill to protect our security, and 
then place on the floor immigration. We welcome the debate. We welcome 
the debate on the

[[Page S807]]

amendment of Senator Cruz. We welcome debate on the amendment of 
Senator Collins--but not as a hostage taker. Again, all Senator Collins 
is doing is saying what the size of the ransom is, but we are still 
doing hostage taking.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to encourage the Senate to start 
debate on H.R. 240, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act of 2015. I am puzzled by my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who insist on blocking debate on this bill, particularly after 
many of those individuals criticized the majority for spending 3 weeks 
on the Keystone XL bill.
  This body has a constitutional obligation to consider appropriations 
bills. As a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Government 
Affairs Committee, I understand the important role that the Department 
of Homeland Security plays in protecting our Nation at its borders and 
in our communities. As the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I 
also understand the substantial amount of resources it takes to fund 
Customs and Border Protection, FEMA, Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, the Coast Guard, and TSA.
  It was not all that long ago, President Obama criticized 
Congressional Republicans by saying it was time to, ``get out of the 
habit of governing by crisis.'' Well, here we are just shy of a month 
before funding for the Department of Homeland Security expires. This 
bill has already passed the House with substantial support and now the 
Senate has the time to debate it, amend it, and pass it. However, 
nobody will get a chance to offer amendments unless our colleagues join 
us in allowing debate to begin on this bill.
  I also believe President Obama acted unconstitutionally with his 
Executive actions on immigration last year. A number of my colleagues 
feel the same way and this bill is an opportunity for the Senate to 
debate and fix this administration's failure to enforce the law.
  I do not buy the arguments that the Senate should consider its own 
bill to fund the Department. I would like to take this time to remind 
my colleagues that the Constitution requires revenue and spending bills 
to originate in the House. Why not call up the House bill and then 
offer our own amendments?
  It is important that the Senate continue the regular order that 
rejuvenated this body with the start of the 114th Congress. I have long 
spoken on the merits of considering bills, amending bills, and passing 
bills under regular order. It is a process that our constituents demand 
and it is one that makes the Senate a healthier institution.
  I for one do not wish to play chicken with the Department that keeps 
our skies safe, protects our borders and enforces a substantial body of 
Federal law. This is why I encourage my colleagues to move forward with 
debate on this bill at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 10\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask to be notified after 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify the Senator.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the key part of the President's unlawful 
executive amnesty, the overwhelming majority of it that actually is 
involved in the House bill, deals with adults and providing them work 
permits. It is not about the young people, as has been discussed. It 
involves 4 million-plus people.
  We have talked at length about the President's executive action and 
how he is unlawfully, unconstitutionally making law--Senator Collins 
laid that out--when only Congress can make law. We have shown that the 
law he has created is law that he proposed and that Congress 
specifically rejected. We have shown that the President himself has at 
least 20 times said he does not have the power to take this action, 
rightly declaring he is not an emperor--those are his words--and that 
Congress makes laws.
  So now Senator McConnell has moved to bring up the House-passed 
legislation that fully funds all lawful aspects of the Department of 
Homeland Security and all its lawful actions to protect the homeland. 
But the legislation has a provision in it that simply bars the 
President from spending any money to execute his unlawful Executive 
directions. It stops the Department of Homeland Security from outlaw 
activities. This is a matter of great constitutional importance.
  It is, in addition, a matter of great importance to working 
Americans. What the President is doing is giving lawful status to over 
4 million adults--persons who entered our country against the law or 
came in and overstayed their time. These persons, under current law, 
cannot be hired by any business or employer, but the President wants 
them to work anyway.
  Congress considered and rejected this plan. The result is that the 
President's plan will be a further kick in the teeth to down and 
struggling American workers. The facts are clear. I am not seeing them 
disputed.
  Median family income since the recession of 2007 to 2009 has declined 
by almost $5,000. This is a catastrophic event. This is unbelievable 
damage to America's middle-class workers. Such a decline is 
unprecedented since the Great Depression 80 years ago. While some say 
jobs and wages are recovering and we can stop worrying about that, the 
facts show otherwise. In addition to depressed incomes, America has the 
lowest percentage of persons in their working years who are actually 
working in nearly 40 years.
  So consider this. There were huge worker layoffs during the 2009 
recession, and many more had their hours reduced as a result of 
ObamaCare and other events.
  There are other factors that combine to reveal that job and wage 
conditions are much worse than the unemployment rates would indicate.
  Despite these problems--a slow economy, job-killing automation, and 
low wages--the President is carrying out his unlawful plan rejected by 
Congress that we give 5 million persons unlawfully here legal status--a 
Social Security number, a photo ID, and the right to take any job that 
may be available in America. The President's policies are in perfect 
accord with those of his nominee for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch. 
When I asked her this simple question last week, I got a surprising 
answer.
  Question:

       Who has more right to a job in this country? A lawful 
     immigrant who's here, or citizen--or a person who entered the 
     country unlawfully?

  Answer:

       I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one 
     that's shared by everyone in this country regardless of how 
     they came here. And certainly, if someone is here, regardless 
     of status, I would prefer that they would be participating in 
     the workplace than not participating in the workplace.

  That is the testimony last week by the chief law enforcement officer 
in the land who is supposed to be enforcing the laws of the country. 
That is her view of who should be working: Regardless of how you came 
here, you are entitled to work and apparently take any job in America.
  This was a moment of inadvertent candor. She tried to modify that 
later, I acknowledge, but essentially all she said was: Well, I don't 
think anybody should work except those the President says should work--
and that would include the 5 million who are here unlawfully.
  Let's be clear. These 5 million persons, with their new government-
issued documents, will be able to apply for and take any of the few 
jobs now available in the economy. Sadly, the problem in America is not 
too few workers, but too few jobs. Last year, the administration 
celebrated the creation of over 2 million jobs. The President's actions 
would create from unlawful immigration over twice that many workers in 
one single amnesty act. Millions more Americans who lost jobs during 
the recession still haven't found work today.
  Is this the right thing to do? I don't think so, and neither do the 
American people--by a wide margin. But, arrogantly, the President 
refuses to listen to the legitimate concerns of hurting Americans. He 
dismisses them, and supported by his palace guards in the Senate who 
blocked legislation----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has used 7 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair, and will wrap up and save some time 
for Senator Hoeven.

[[Page S808]]

  He pushes on to advance the interests of immigration activists, 
political consultants lusting after votes for the next election, and 
big business interests lusting after low wage labor. Businesses, who 
have become so transnational that their interests and those of the 
American workers are often incompatible.
  President Obama supports these business interests. But I ask: Who 
represents the interests of dutiful American citizens and the lawful 
immigrant who followed the rules? Who is speaking out for their 
interests? They are the ones who are forgotten.
  I am going to make a prediction: Their voices are going to be heard. 
No longer, in secret, will the legitimate wishes of good and decent 
Americans be denied. The people's voice will be heard. The day of the 
special-interest operatives, tone-deaf politicians, and those who would 
allow this--their voices will end. This time, the American people will 
get what they rightly demand--the protection of the laws already on the 
books. They will force the political class to end the massive 
lawlessness, and to produce an immigration system that serves the 
national interests, not the special interests. They will force these 
self-interested forces out of the seats of power and demand policies 
that protect their wages, their jobs, their national security, and 
their government budgets.
  I thank the Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this, and 
I hope, when we vote soon, our colleagues will recognize it is time to 
consider the opportunities Senator Collins has said will be provided 
here--to have amendments and to go forth and do the right thing for the 
American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, both from Alabama 
and from Maine, for coming down to the floor and saying: Let's do the 
work of the Senate. Let's advance to this Department of Homeland 
Security bill, let's offer amendments, let's have the debate. Let's 
fund the Department.
  But let's make sure we do it in the right way, and where we protect 
the checks and balances built into this government by our forefathers.
  For the last few days I have come to the floor to call attention to 
the importance of voting ``yes'' on the motion to proceed to the 
Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for 2015--H.R. 240.
  I wish that weren't the case. I had hoped that by now we would be 
much closer to passing a funding bill for the Department; that the 
Senate would have proceeded to the DHS appropriations bill, and that we 
could begin the process of debate, of considering amendments, and of 
developing consensus--of getting our work done.
  Yet here we are on the third day, just trying to proceed to funding 
the Department of Homeland Security--a Department that everyone agrees 
is vital.
  That is what this bill does: It funds the Department fully and 
completely, and it does it in the right way by enforcing the law.
  I don't have to tell my colleagues that the defining attributes of 
the Senate come from the Senators' ability to debate and to amend 
legislation. Debate and amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 3 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I certainly want to give my colleague time to finish 
his remarks. I just want to make sure there would be an opportunity for 
me to also speak before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be advised there is 9 minutes 
54 seconds remaining.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. That is fine. Thank you.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I would be willing to defer in the order 
too if my colleague from New Hampshire prefers to go, and I can follow; 
either way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I wish to thank the Senator from the great State of New 
Hampshire.
  Debate and amendment. Debate and amendment. That is what we are 
talking about.
  We are talking about going to this bill that funds the Department of 
Homeland Security and having the debate and offering amendments. That 
is what I am asking for. That is what we need in order to address the 
issues such as the one that my good friend and colleague from New 
Hampshire raised on Tuesday. She is the ranking member on the 
Appropriations Subcommittee of the Department of Homeland Security. She 
made a request in terms of a parliamentary point of order--budget point 
of order--and she made the inquiry. It is a valid point of order, one 
that can and should be debated, and we should have the opportunity to 
vote on it. But we can't vote on it unless we proceed to the bill. So 
let's proceed to the bill. Let's have that debate. Bring up the point 
of order, and let's have a vote. And let's have amendments. That is how 
we do our work in the Senate.
  But despite the best efforts of Republicans to provide that 
opportunity for debate by proceeding to this bill to move forward, we 
are met with no's from the other side of the aisle. In essence, we are 
being filibustered--a tactic that was decried as obstructionist in the 
previous Congress.
  In case my friends on the other side of the aisle think this is going 
unnoticed, they should check the headlines. Look no further than an 
article from CNN on Tuesday: ``Democrats block funding for DHS to 
protect Obama immigration orders.''
  Or the Washington Times: ``Democrats filibuster DHS spending bill, 
block GOP on amnesty debate.''
  These headlines speak to a central flaw in the arguments of those who 
say we need a DHS bill, but then vote against this Senate proceeding to 
that very bill.
  On the one hand, they are saying we need a bill, but they won't go to 
the funding bill that is here before us. That is exactly what we are 
voting and trying to do, is to proceed to the DHS funding bill--with an 
amendment process, with open debate.
  Yesterday, one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle 
stated that if the Senate takes up H.R. 240, the homeland security 
appropriations bill, it would simply be a delaying tactic.
  Well, how can moving to the bill that directly addresses the DHS 
funding issue constitute delay? In order to pass the DHS funding bill, 
we have to be allowed to proceed to the bill. The truth, of course, is 
the delay is in fact coming from those who won't allow us to take up 
the bill, debate it, and consider amendments and pass it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 3 minutes have expired.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, in a few minutes the Senate is going to 
have yet another procedural vote on the Department of Homeland Security 
funding bill.
  The bill before us, the House-passed version of the funding bill, 
can't become law. We have already heard the President reaffirm 
yesterday that he is going to veto the House-passed bill before us. 
That means we could face a shutdown of the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  At this point, given the threats from terrorism, given the work that 
is done by the Department of Homeland Security, that is not a tenable 
position to begin.
  Let me say, I very much appreciate the efforts of my colleague from 
my neighboring State of Maine, the senior Senator from Maine, Senator 
Collins. But the amendment she has put forward still raises some 
serious concerns about the impact on our security, because it includes 
language that would defund all of the Department of Homeland Security 
directives from November 20, 2014. So it would defund those provisions 
that direct law enforcement officers to place top priority on national 
security threats, convicted felons, gang members, illegal entrants 
apprehended at the border. It also defunds the southern border and 
approaches campaign which establishes three joint task forces to reduce 
the terrorism risk to the Nation. And, as she has indicated, it defunds 
the deferred action programs.
  While she suggested that it would allow the 2012 Executive action 
that refers to the DREAMers to stay in place,

[[Page S809]]

it raises serious questions about whether USCIS could effectively 
process renewables of those DREAMers--such as the young man whom 
Senator Durbin spoke so eloquently about--so who knows what the court 
action could be on that.
  While I appreciate the effort, I don't think it adequately addresses 
the concerns we have in the Democratic caucus, that we need to pass a 
clean bill. We need to have a separate debate about immigration.
  The Presiding Officer worked very hard 2 years ago to help us get a 
comprehensive immigration reform bill that most of us didn't agree with 
everything in it, but most of us supported. We are happy to have that 
debate, but what we need now is a clean bill--one that allows the 
funding for the Department of Homeland Security to go forward.
  I noticed on the news this morning, one of the issues that is at risk 
in this debate over whether we are going to support funding for the 
Department and the security of this Nation versus an ideological 
objection to the President--this morning one of the lead items on the 
news had to do with the cyber security breach at Anthem, the second 
largest health insurance company in the country. I happen to have my 
health insurance through Anthem, so I paid particular attention to 
this.
  But one of the things that is in this clean bill that was agreed to 
last December by Senator Mikulski and Congressman Rogers was funding 
for the cyber security center within the Department of Homeland 
Security to address the next-generation threat to our cyber networks.
  That is critical funding we need if we are going to intercept the 
kinds of breaches we saw with Anthem and heard about this morning. Yet 
that funding is at risk because there is not agreement to get a clean 
bill done to fund the Department of Homeland Security.
  What we have heard from almost everybody who has spoken is: We agree 
we should fund the Department of Homeland Security; we agree to the 
dollar levels that are in that bill; we agree to making sure the safety 
and security of this country should be paramount. We have heard a 
number of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle and from the 
House who have said ultimately this is about getting a clean bill. So 
we should do that now. We should provide certainty, we should get this 
done, and we should stop having an ideological debate about whether we 
are going to support immigration and the President, or whether we are 
going to support the safety and security of this Nation.
  I think we should all be able to agree that the safety and security 
of America comes first. We should get this clean bill done, and then we 
can go on and debate immigration reform.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 20 seconds.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I think it is worth noting some of the great work done 
by the Department of Homeland Security, which interfaces with the 
American people more than any other department.
  Every day Customs and Border Protection processes nearly 1 million 
travelers entering the United States and seizes 19,000 pounds of 
illegal drugs between the ports of entry. The Transportation Security 
Administration--the people who work at our airports--screen 2 million 
passengers and their baggage. The Coast Guard patrols 3.4 million 
square miles of U.S. waterways and conducts 54 search and rescue 
missions that save lives annually.
  Every day FEMA provides $3.7 million in Federal disaster grants to 
individuals and households and provides $22 million to States and local 
communities for disaster response and recovery. Every day the Federal 
Law Enforcement Training Center trains 8,000 officers from across the 
country. This work is just too important for our security to be delayed 
or disrupted because of ideological reasons concerning immigration 
reform.
  We need to pass a clean, full-year Homeland Security funding bill. We 
need to pass it without controversial riders, and I hope we will do 
that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The assistant 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, Thad Cochran, Tom Cotton, Roger F. 
           Wicker, David Vitter, Jerry Moran, Daniel Coats, 
           Michael B. Enzi, Mike Crapo, Bill Cassidy, John 
           Boozman, John Thune, Tim Scott, John Hoeven, James 
           Lankford, Jeff Sessions.

  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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
is necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 53 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     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
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--47

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     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

       
     Boxer
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). On this vote, the yeas are 52, 
the nays are 47.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I enter a motion to reconsider the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, Republicans in the Senate are ready to 
begin debating the bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. 
But in order to do that, we must first vote to proceed to the bill, and 
Democrats have blocked us from doing that. They have done that yet 
again today.
  This is simply a procedural vote, but it is a very important 
procedural vote. It is a threshold vote, without which other votes 
cannot and will not occur.
  Voting yes on a motion to proceed to this bill doesn't mean you 
support the bill. Regardless of which way you vote, it doesn't signal 
which way you lean on the underlying merits of this bill. It doesn't 
mean you support this or that amendment. It simply means you are 
willing to engage in an open, transparent, and public debate about the 
future of Homeland Security and about making sure the Department 
charged with this task is funded.
  Why would our friends across the aisle be afraid of that? Some may 
argue that they voted against proceeding to this bill somehow because 
they support funding Homeland Security, but that is not true. This bill

[[Page S810]]

funds Homeland Security. Why then are my friends on the other side of 
the aisle voting against proceeding to this bill?
  Well, the difference that might be found is that many of them also 
support the President's incredibly unpopular and controversial action 
to grant amnesty to 5 million illegals who are here illegally inside 
the United States, individuals who will now be eligible for work 
permits and in some cases entitlement benefits. But the American people 
do not support that. They certainly do not support the action the 
President took and the way he did it. They oppose the way President 
Obama went around Congress. They oppose the fact that President Obama 
ignored the law. They oppose the damage this policy will do to American 
workers who are already struggling to find work and remain employed. 
They oppose the crisis this kind of action is creating and will 
continue to create at the border, as we saw last summer with so many 
children making that dangerous trip to get into the country and to do 
it the wrong way, to get here illegally.
  Now that the American people have put Republicans in charge, in the 
majority, in the Senate, we are trying to keep our promise to them, to 
do what they sent us here to do, and to hold a vote on President 
Obama's action in this regard. But the Democrats seem to be reluctant 
to take that vote. They seem to not want to take it. Perhaps they are 
afraid of it; I do not know. Maybe that is why they refuse to even 
begin consideration of this bill, plain and simple. This effort to try 
to hide from the American people is embarrassing, and it is wrong.
  My friends across the aisle may say that they have an alternative 
bill and that we should pass their alternative bill immediately. There 
are at least two problems with this approach.
  First, that may have been the way the Senate functioned under the 
previous majority--writing bills in back rooms, waiting until the last 
minute to make bills public, then filling the tree, which means making 
it impossible for anyone to amend the bill once it gets to the floor, 
having virtually no debate, and then ramming the bill through without 
any input from the American people, without adequate debate here, 
without virtually any debate here. That is not the way the Senate is 
supposed to work. That is not the way the Senate does work and will 
continue to work under the Republican majority.
  Second, traditionally appropriations bills do not start in the 
Senate. In fact, the House has not considered a Senate-originated 
appropriations bill for over 100 years--since at least 1901, the period 
for which these kinds of records are readily available. Unfortunately 
for them, the bill the Democrats want is not supported in the House. 
Why? Well, precisely because it is not supported by the American 
people.
  It is time to stop delaying democracy. It is time to stop hiding from 
the American people. It is time to fund the Department of Homeland 
Security. It is time to have this debate and this discussion about the 
President's actions--actions that many people regard as unlawful, 
actions that people have different feelings about as far as the 
underlying policies but that the overwhelming majority of the American 
people look at and say: Look, even if I like the underlying policy 
here, I do not like the way the President did it.
  If the President does not like the law, he needs to change the law. 
The way to change the law under our constitutional system is to go to 
Congress and to get something passed through Congress. Ours is not a 
government of one; ours is a government in which we have two entities 
within Congress that are charged with making the law. The President 
cannot act alone.
  So my plea to my colleagues, particularly those across the aisle, is 
let's have a vote and then let's have a debate. When we have a vote and 
we have a debate, we will get to the point where we can fund the 
Department of Homeland Security and keep our Nation safe. We should not 
be keeping these important programs--we should not be holding them back 
simply out of a desire to protect the President and his actions that 
are outside the law.

                          ____________________