[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 10, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S875-S876]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is only 17 days until the Department of 
Homeland Security of the United States of America runs out of funding--
the Department of Homeland Security.
  This is the Department we created after 9/11. We said: America needs 
to be safer. We have to put in place safeguards to make sure 9/11 never 
happens again. We created a new department, and it was done on a 
bipartisan basis. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat from Connecticut serving in 
the Senate, joined with Susan Collins, the Republican from Maine, on 
our side of the rotunda with like-minded people on the other side, and 
they crafted this new Department. They brought together 22 different 
agencies. They tried their best to achieve efficiency, to eliminate 
duplication, to save money but have a mission that would be 
accomplished in keeping America safe.
  If you think about the departments of government, of course the 
Department of Defense comes to mind immediately when it comes to our 
safety, but not far behind is the Department of Homeland Security. So 
it was December when the Republicans of the House of Representatives, 
given a choice of funding the government for this year, decided they 
would pick out one department and not fund it on a regular basis. They 
decided that one department would be funded on what they call a 
continuing resolution, which means kind of grabbing last year's budget 
and trying to make it work this year. Now, what was that one department 
the Republicans decided needed to be handled differently and not 
properly funded? The Department of Homeland Security. That Department, 
in 17 days, will run out of money again.
  What are they thinking? What is happening in those closed-door 
meetings when Speaker Boehner and the House Republicans or Majority 
Leader McConnell and the Senate Republicans sit down and plot their 
strategy? Is there anyone in that room who says: You know, I think we 
may have picked the wrong department not to fund.
  The Department of Homeland Security is one we think about instantly 
when we see the terrible things done by ISIS, these terrorists of 
extremism, and pray to God they are never visited on the United States 
and that this awful group comes to an untimely ending as quickly as 
possible. Yet this Department, Homeland Security, has been the target 
of the Republicans to really execute a political ploy, a political 
strategy. Here is what they said: The way to get the President's 
attention on immigration is to refuse to fund the Department of 
Homeland Security. Well, they not only have the President's attention, 
but they have the attention of the United States of America. People are 
asking: What are the congressional Republicans thinking?
  In fact, the latest inquiry, just referred to by the Democratic 
leader, was an editorial yesterday in--of all things--the Wall Street 
Journal. The article is entitled: ``Can the GOP Change?'' It basically 
challenges the whole strategy of jeopardizing the funding for the 
Department of Homeland Security in order to make the point that they 
disagree with the President on immigration.
  What we have offered, what the Wall Street Journal suggests is to 
have a debate on immigration but not at the expense of funding the 
Department of Homeland Security. That is what they have called for.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the February 9, 2015, 
Wall Street Journal article be printed in the Record at the conclusion 
of these remarks.
  So what are these immigration provisions that have the Republicans in 
such a rage that they are willing to jeopardize the funding of the 
Department of Homeland Security? One of them relates to a bill I 
introduced 14 years ago--the DREAM Act. Over the span of 14 years, 
though, this has not become the law of the land. It has become 
shorthand for a challenge we have with our broken immigration system. 
Here is the challenge: There were infants, toddlers, and small children 
brought to the United States by their parents many years ago. They were 
not documented. They grew up in this country, and they went to school 
in this country. They speak English. They have dreams about what they 
will do with their future, but being undocumented they are unable to 
realize those dreams.
  The DREAM Act said if they have a clean criminal record, have 
graduated from high school, are willing to serve in our military or go 
on to college, we will give them a path to legalization in America. 
These are young people who know no other country. These are young 
people raised in America, educated in our educational system--at the 
expense of our taxpayers, I might add. They have been successful in 
life and want to continue to be a part of America. They only know one 
flag--the one they pledge allegiance to every morning in their 
classroom, which is the same one we on the Senate Floor. They only know 
one national anthem. Yet they are being told by the Republicans they 
should leave.
  How many are there? We estimate 2 million across our country. There 
are 600,000 who have signed up for President Obama's protection 
program, called DACA, which says that on a 2-year basis they will not 
be deported. What the Republicans have said is: We want to deport these 
DREAMers--2 million of them--and let's start with the 600,000 who have 
stepped up for protection from deportation. So they are risking funding 
the Department of Homeland Security in order to make their point that 
DREAMers have to go.
  Well, let's at least take a look at one of these DREAMers and 
understand the kind of people we are talking about. This is Johana 
Mejias. Johana was brought to the United States from Venezuela when she 
was a child. She grew up in Boulder, CO. She played on her high school 
softball team. She played viola in the orchestra and dreamed of 
becoming a doctor. Here is what Johana said about her childhood:

       I've become a Boulderite in all aspects of that word. That 
     town, with those beautiful mountains, is truly my home.

  In 2011 Johana graduated from the University of Colorado at Boulder 
with a double major. I am going to try to describe her major, but as a 
liberal arts lawyer I may get lost in some of these scientific terms. 
Here was Johana's major at the University of Colorado: molecular, 
cellular, and developmental biology, and psychology-neuroscience.
  Johana finished at the University of Colorado without any government 
assistance because she is undocumented. She made it through these 
challenging majors, graduating with this double major. Her dream? To 
become a doctor. It was a dream she thought might never come to be 
because she is undocumented. She literally has no country. Then 
something happened. In 2012 President Barack Obama signed an Executive 
order called DACA, and Johana heard there was actually a medical school 
that was willing to admit students who qualified under this DACA 
protection--Loyola University Stritch College of Medicine in the city 
of Chicago. She couldn't believe it, and she applied quickly. Johana 
was accepted because she is an extraordinarily bright and promising 
young medical student.
  Like many States across the country, my home State of Illinois faces 
a shortage of physicians in some communities. Loyola University decided 
if a DACA-protected young graduate is willing to come here and 
qualifies in the competitive field of admissions to medical school, 
they can come to Loyola medical school if they promise to give 1 year 
of service after they are doctors for every year of medical school, and 
if they promise to go to an underserved area in the inner city or rural 
areas where there are not enough doctors. Johana signed up for that. 
She said it was worth it. She would give 1 year of her life for each 
year of medical school if she was just given a chance to become a 
doctor.
  This DACA loan program we have created is one that allows these 
students to receive the loans they need to finish at Loyola medical 
school. Last fall Johana began medical school at Loyola. I was there on 
one of her first days, and I met her. She is even more impressive than 
anything I could say in this speech. After she graduates, she has 
agreed to stay in my State of Illinois to help people who need a 
doctor.
  Here is what she wrote to me in a letter about her life experience:

       When the year 2012 came along, my life changed. My dreams 
     of becoming a doctor became a possibility again because of 
     DACA.

[[Page S876]]

     I was now able to apply to medical internship programs, take 
     the medical school intern exam, and apply to medical school, 
     all because of my DACA status. DACA has defined my path. DACA 
     has relit a fire within to succeed and continue to pursue my 
     dreams.

  Isn't that an amazing story--that a young girl would come here, 
realize she was undocumented, fight her way through for a bachelor's 
degree in these challenging subjects, continuing to keep alive the 
dream that maybe, just maybe something would happen to give her a 
chance to become a doctor? Then the President signs this Executive 
order, and now she is in medical school.
  Because this medical school is in Chicago, my State is going to 
benefit when she becomes a doctor because she will go to one of my 
down-State communities that is begging for a doctor. She will go to one 
of the inner-city neighborhoods in Chicago and serve people who are 
struggling to get basic medical care.
  What an amazing story--an amazing story that will come to a bitter 
end if the Republicans have their way on this bill.
  The Republican answer to Johana is: After all of your life's work, 
after all of your dreams are fulfilled, leave--leave America. They are 
prepared to deport her and 600,000 others just like her. They think 
America will be a better nation if we get rid of someone like Johana. 
What are they thinking?
  They are challenging the very funding of the Department of Homeland 
Security with this strategy of deporting the DREAMers. It doesn't make 
any sense. Whether you are conservative or liberal, this makes no 
sense--to spend $9,000 to deport her instead of finding $9,000 to help 
her finish medical school and be part of America's future.
  We are a nation of immigrants. My mother was an immigrant to this 
country, and I stand on the floor of the Senate proudly representing 
the State of Illinois. That is my story. That is my family's story. 
That is America's story.
  Those who have devised a strategy--what I consider to be a divisive, 
negative, hateful strategy--toward young people such as her are not 
thinking clearly about who we are as Americans. We are a nation of 
immigrants. People from all across this world have had the courage to 
pick up and come to America, to work some of the toughest, dirtiest, 
hardest jobs so their kids, such as Johana, would have a chance for a 
better future. That story has been repeated over and over millions of 
times. Republicans, with their strategy, their anti-immigration 
strategy, would kill that dream, kill that story.
  I hope we have the good sense to fund the Department of Homeland 
Security. If there is going to be a debate about the DREAMers and their 
future, count me in. I want to be part of it. I want to come to the 
floor and tell these stories about real lives affected by these 
political decisions, and I trust in the outcome in the Senate. But 
don't stop the funding for the Department of Homeland Security in the 
meantime. Let us make sure we are committed to our heritage as a nation 
of immigrants and to our future where young people like Johana can be a 
bright part of tomorrow for so many needy people across America.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 9, 2015]

                          Can the GOP Change?

       Republicans in Congress are off to a less than flying start 
     after a month in power, dividing their own conference more 
     than Democrats. Take the response to President Obama's 
     immigration order, which seems headed for failure if not a 
     more spectacular crack-up.
       That decree last November awarded work permits and de facto 
     legal status to millions of undocumented aliens and dismayed 
     members of both parties, whatever their immigration views. A 
     Congressional resolution to vindicate the rule of law and the 
     Constitution's limits on executive power was defensible, and 
     even necessary, but this message has long ago been lost in 
     translation.
       The Republican leadership funded the rest of the government 
     in December's budget deal but isolated the Department of 
     Homeland Security that enforces immigration law. DHS funding 
     runs out this month, and the GOP has now marched itself into 
     another box canyon.
       The specific White House abuse was claiming prosecutorial 
     discretion to exempt whole classes of aliens from 
     deportation, dumping the historical norm of case-by-case 
     scrutiny. A GOP sniper shot at this legal overreach would 
     have forced Democrats to go on record, picked up a few 
     supporters, and perhaps even imposed some accountability on 
     Mr. Obama.
       But that wasn't enough for immigration restrictionists, who 
     wanted a larger brawl, and they browbeat GOP leaders into 
     adding needless policy amendments. The House reached back to 
     rescind Mr. Obama's enforcement memos from 2011 that 
     instructed Homeland Security to prioritize deportations of 
     illegals with criminal backgrounds. That is legitimate 
     prosecutorial discretion, and in opposing it Republicans are 
     undermining their crime-fighting credentials.
       The House even adopted a provision to roll back Mr. Obama's 
     2012 order deferring deportation for young adults brought to 
     the U.S. illegally as children by their parents--the so-
     called dreamers. The GOP lost 26 of its own Members on that 
     one, passing it with only 218 votes.
       The overall $40 billion DHS spending bill passed with these 
     riders, 236-191, but with 10 Republicans joining all but two 
     Democrats in opposition. This lack of GOP unity reduced the 
     chances that Senate Democrats would feel any political 
     pressure to go along.
       And, lo, on Thursday the House bill failed for the third 
     time to gain the 60 votes needed to overcome the third 
     Democratic filibuster in three days. Swing-state Democrats 
     like Indiana's Joe Donnelly and North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp 
     aren't worried because they have more than enough material to 
     portray Republicans as the immigration extremists.
       Whatever their view of Mr. Obama's order, why would 
     Democrats vote to deport people who were brought here as kids 
     through no fault of their own? Mr. Obama issued a veto threat 
     to legislation that will never get to his desk, and he must 
     be delighted that Republicans are fighting with each other 
     rather than with him.
       Restrictionists like Sens. Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions are 
     offering their familiar advice to fight harder and hold firm 
     against ``executive amnesty,'' but as usual their strategy 
     for victory is nowhere to be found. So Republicans are now 
     heading toward the same cul de sac that they did on the 
     ObamaCare government shutdown.
       If Homeland Security funding lapses on Feb. 27, the agency 
     will be pushed into a partial shutdown even as the terrorist 
     threat is at the forefront of public attention with the 
     Charlie Hebdo and Islamic State murders. Imagine if the 
     Transportation Security Administration, a unit of DHS, fails 
     to intercept an Islamic State agent en route to Detroit.
       So Republicans are facing what is likely to be another 
     embarrassing political retreat and more intra-party 
     recriminations. The GOP's restrictionist wing will blame the 
     leadership for a failure they share responsibility for, and 
     the rest of America will wonder anew about the gang that 
     couldn't shoot straight.
       The restrictionist caucus can protest all it wants, but it 
     can't change 54 Senate votes into 60 without persuading some 
     Democrats. It's time to find another strategy. Our advice on 
     immigration is to promote discrete bills that solve specific 
     problems such as green cards for math-science-tech graduates, 
     more H-1B visas, a guest-worker program for agriculture, 
     targeted enforcement and legal status for the dreamers. 
     Democrats would be hard-pressed to oppose them and it would 
     put the onus back on Mr. Obama. But if that's too much for 
     the GOP, then move on from immigration to something else.
       It's not too soon to say that the fate of the GOP majority 
     is on the line. Precious weeks are wasting, and the 
     combination of weak House leadership and a rump minority 
     unwilling to compromise is playing into Democratic hands. 
     This is no way to run a Congressional majority, and the only 
     winners of GOP dysfunction will be Mr. Obama, Nancy Pelosi 
     and Hillary Clinton.

                          ____________________