[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.
____________________