[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 10, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S883-S885]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I come to the floor, and I have been
trying to get time to do this, because I stand here in amazement that
after the Republicans took over on January 6--after they won big in
November and they took over the Senate on January 6--it took them 1
month to threaten a government shutdown of the Department of Homeland
Security. Unbelievable. It took them 1 month to get into a situation
where we are threatened with a shutdown of the Department of Homeland
Security. It is unbelievable to me because we know the threat of
terrorism that is all around us, and playing politics with this is
absolutely uncalled for.
Why did they do that? They did that because the President under his
authority said we shouldn't deport immigrants who were raised in
America. That is what they didn't like.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for up
to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. With terrorists all around us, Republicans are playing
politics with the critical funding for the Department of Homeland
Security and threatening a shutdown. It took them exactly a month in
power to do that because they didn't like the fact that the President,
who is in line with Presidents of both parties, issued an Executive
order. By the way, President Obama has issued the fewest number of
Executive orders in the history of any President. I never heard one
Republican complain when Ronald Reagan did a number of Executive orders
or George Bush did Executive orders, all on immigration. And I have
those, for the record. But they didn't like this. I guess they would
rather deport these DREAMers.
One of my colleagues said they are more scared of the DREAMers than
they are of ISIL--a joke. What are they afraid of? Some child who was
brought here at 3 years of age, went to school, is holding down a job,
doing great? Those are the people the President's Executive order is
affecting. They are in my State, they are in Texas, they are in
Arizona, they are all over the country. If there is anyone swept up in
that who is not a good citizen, they don't get to have this benefit,
which, by the way, does not include citizenship. It just says action on
your deportation is deferred.
I would say to anyone within the sound of my voice, if anyone from
your family ever came here from another country, think about what they
are doing. Think about what they are doing.
It will cost billions of dollars to deport these students. Then, by
the way, they don't take up an immigration bill. If the status quo
prevails, you are talking about deporting 11 million people. You have
got to be kidding. We had an independent analysis done by USC which
shows how important it is to resolve this immigration issue, and what a
boon it is to our society if we do so.
Well, the Republicans are stomping their feet. They never said
anything when Ronald Reagan issued an Executive order on immigration.
They never said anything when George Herbert Walker Bush did it. They
never said anything before. But when this President does something that
I think is very wise to make sure we keep these young people here, they
threaten to shut down the Department of Homeland Security.
Now let's talk about what that means. You would stop command-and-
control activities at the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
You disrupt important programs that protect weapons of mass destruction
and train local law enforcement. You force critical frontline personnel
such as Border Patrol agents to work without pay.
Now maybe my colleagues would like to work without pay. Go for it.
Most of us need our pay to live. Imagine the Border Patrol agents and
TSA agents who work every day to support their families--they don't get
paid.
It would jeopardize the safety of my constituency. During the last
fiscal year California received over $200 million in crucial grant
money that enabled State and local authorities to respond to national
security threats and prepare for natural disasters. The Republicans are
putting this crucial funding in jeopardy.
Let's be clear: Even if they back off their threat to shut down the
government by shutting down Homeland Security, if they back off and
say, well, let's just fund it at last year's level, let me tell you, we
will not see those safety grants.
Last year, Texas, for example, received $105 million from these
grants. You cannot go home and tell your Governor, too bad, we are
stepping out. You step up. It doesn't work like this. We are one Nation
under God. We have to protect our people.
I will tell you what else is threatened. Even if they back down and
let the government stay open but they fund it at last year's level,
firefighting grants such as the Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response
Grants Program would be delayed. These programs are vital to
California. We have a nearly year-round fire season. Last year
California firefighters received $20 million in fire grants that
allowed fire departments all over our State to purchase necessary
equipment.
Let me tell you, I have been to fire scenes I will never forget where
we have lost firefighters. They need equipment that saves their lives.
They are so great, but the wind changes and they find themselves in a
canyon, and if they don't have the right equipment--horrific results.
We also received $50 million in SAFER grants last year that allowed
fire departments to hire and train firefighters. Sometimes you are in a
situation and if you haven't been trained on how to respond, it puts
your life and other lives in jeopardy.
Other States such as Ohio received a total of $33 million in fire and
safety grants last year.
I have to say, this kind of threat, after what we saw the last time
Republicans threatened a shutdown, makes no sense at all. We need a
clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill. When I say that, I
hope people understand I don't mean scouring the bill. What I mean is
keep extraneous issues off the bill. We all have our pet peeves.
Listen, a lot of people don't like the fact that the DREAMers are
staying here. They want to deport them. Introduce the bill to deport
the DREAMers, bring it to the floor--have at it.
I will talk about what it would have been like for me, whose mother
was born in Europe, and it took her a while to get her naturalization
papers, if she was ripped out of my life. You know, I thought we had
family values around here. We need a clean bill.
If you want to deport all the undocumented people--11 million--who
are living in your communities and a lot of times fearful, that is a
position you can defend. Defend it. Explain why we should spend
billions deporting these people. Put up your solution. Don't try to
kill a bill by holding it hostage to your demands.
We had an immigration bill this past year. It was terrific, it was
bipartisan. Let's go for it. Let's go for it again. Let's have a
debate. Oh, no. They are in power for 30 days and they are already
threatening a government shutdown of the Department of Homeland
Security. I tell you, this is no way to run the greatest Nation in the
world.
These programs are critically important and are we going to turn our
back on those who keep us safe?
TSA officers would not be paid during a DHS shutdown. The agency that
seized a record 2,212 firearms last year from passengers' carry-on
luggage (of which 83% were loaded)--would be
[[Page S884]]
doing their important work keeping the traveling public safe without
pay.
And communities that are relying on federal FEMA funding to help them
get back on their feet, after disasters have shattered their lives,
will have to wait to be reimbursed during a shutdown.
California emergency officials expect slowdowns in ongoing disaster
recovery operations like the RIM Fire and Napa Earthquake.
By failing to pass a clean DHS funding bill, we're putting the safety
of our cities and our citizens at risk. The United States Conference of
Mayors agrees--they are urging us to pass a clean DHS bill to keep our
cities functioning.
Unless Republicans stop catering to their extreme Tea Party wing,
critical programs that protect us from terrorists will be undermined or
frozen just weeks after the horrifying attack in Paris and evidence
that our enemies are willing and able to launch cyberattacks against
us.
Republicans would rather tear families apart than provide critical
funding for the homeland security infrastructure that was built
following 9/11. It's clear that Republicans hate DREAMers more than
they hate ISIS.
The Republicans' extreme anti-immigrant amendments would have a
chilling effect on the Latino community, instill fear of deportation
for victims of domestic and sexual violence, and subject DREAMers, who
are peacefully contributing to our economy and community, to
deportation and exploitation. These are young men and women who have
been living in the U.S. since they were children and came here by no
fault of their own. They consider themselves just as much a part of the
fabric of their communities--and this country--as their classmates and
peers.
Specifically, the Republican amendments would prevent the
implementation of President Obama's DACA initiatives, which would
enable many unlawfully present young people who came to the United
States as children to apply for ``deferred action,'' a temporary relief
from removal not permanent immigration status--and work authorization.
It would also prevent the implementation of President Obama's DAPA
initiative, which would enable the parents of U.S. citizens or green
card holders who have lived here for years to apply for deferred action
and work authorization as long as they pay fees, have not been
convicted of a serious crime, and submit to a background check.
It would prevent ICE from using its expertise to set immigration
enforcement priorities, to focus on the most serious public safety
threats, as it has done for years.
It would put domestic violence survivors in danger by taking away
their ability to stay in the United States and obtain the help that
they need and ensure that the perpetrators of this violence are
punished.
DACA and DAPA will strengthen community policing, improve community
safety, and help more immigrant women come forward sooner to protect
their children and themselves from domestic violence. Immigration law
already provides abused women an opportunity to apply for protection.
Why would we want to potentially curtail these protections from the
women and children who need them the most?
Specifically, President Obama's Executive Actions on Immigration will
improve California's economy with an $11.7 billion increase in GDP over
the next 10 years, by giving California a boost in productivity from up
to 1.5 million more people who could pay taxes and contribute to the
state's economy.
This will increase the average wages of U.S. born workers across the
country by $170 a year and raise the Nation's gross domestic product by
up to $90 billion over the next decade by expanding the labor force and
giving immigrant workers the flexibility to seek new jobs.
Let's come together. We had a really good meeting of the minds in a
lovely setting last week, and a lunch. We agreed these differences are
not personal and it is fine that we have them. I don't mind. That is
healthy in a society. We want to have differing views. That is what
makes everyone in our country feel represented. The fact that I have
certain views and the Presiding Officer may have a different view is
fine. What isn't fine, in my view, is using your views to hold the
Department of Homeland Security funding hostage. Too much is at stake.
This Chamber is empty. We are not doing a darn thing. We even have
Republicans on our side and saying, no, this is not the right way to
go.
Why don't we do this: Why don't we fund the Department of Homeland
Security--it went through the entire process--and then make an absolute
commitment, which the Republicans have the ability to do, to take up
immigration reform. Then let's debate it. Let's hear why some of my
friends on the other side want to deport the DREAMers. Let's find out
why they don't want to do much about keeping families together. That is
fine. Let's debate it. Let's move on. But let's not hold hostage the
Department of Homeland Security funding to some ideological debate on
immigration, which should stand on its own and have the focus it
deserves.
Frankly, I hope we will begin with these unanimous consent requests--
I won't do it today because I haven't warned anybody I want to--but
fulfill the Department of Homeland Security and then immediately go to
immigration reform where we can hash it out and become the deliberative
body we are supposed to be.
Nobody is here. We are not doing anything right now, because we are
stopped dead because of this dispute that has nothing to do with
homeland security, in my view.
The American people agree across the board on this. You shouldn't
attach irrelevant legislative matters on a funding bill. They have a
funding bill. They have a job to do. In this case it is protecting
Americans from terror, OK? That is over here, and over here is a very
legitimate debate on immigration policy, and one that deserves the full
time of this United States Senate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document entitled
``Executive Grants of Temporary Immigration Relief, 1956-Present'' be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Executive Grants of Temporary Immigration Relief, 1956-Present
1956 (Eisenhower) Paroled orphans for military families who
wanted to adopt them; 1956-1958 (Eisenhower) Paroled
Hungarians who escaped the Soviets; 1959-1972 (Eisenhower,
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon) Paroled Cuban asylum seekers who
fled the Cuban revolution; 1962-1965 (Kennedy, Johnson)
Paroled Chinese who fled Hong Kong; 1975-1979 (Ford, Carter)
Paroled Indochinese from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos; 1976
(Ford) Extended Voluntary Departure for Lebanese; 1977
(Carter) Temporarily suspended expulsion of immigrants who
were being deported because of an error by the State
Department; 1977-1982 (Carter, Reagan) Extended Voluntary
Departure for Ethiopians; 1977-1980 (Carter) Paroled Soviet
refugees; 1978 (Carter) Extended Voluntary Departure for
Ugandans; 1979 (Carter) Extended Voluntary Departure for
Nicaraguans; 1979 (Carter) Extended Voluntary Departure for
Iranians; 1980 (Carter) Extended Voluntary Departure for
Afghans; 1980 (Carter) Paroled Cubans and Haitians during the
Mariel boatlift.
1981-1987 (Reagan) Extended Voluntary Departure for Polish
after martial law declared in Poland; 1987 (Reagan) Directed
the Immigration and Naturalization Service not to deport
Nicaraguans and to grant them work authorizations if they
demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution, even if they
had been denied asylum; 1987 (Reagan) Deferred deportation
for unauthorized children of noncitizens who applied to
legalize; 1989 (Bush Sr.) Deferred deportation for Chinese
nationals following Tiananmen Square; 1989 (Bush Sr.) Paroled
Soviets and Indochinese, even though they were denied refugee
status; 1990 (Bush Sr.) Formalized Deferred Enforced
Departure for Chinese nationals following Tiananmen Square;
1990 (Bush Sr.) Deferred deportation of unauthorized spouses
and children of those legalized under the immigration reform
law; 1991 (Bush Sr.) Deferred deportation of Persian Gulf
evacuees after the Kuwait invasion; 1992 (Bush Sr., Clinton)
Deferred deportation of some El Salvadorans, even though
their Temporary Protective Status had expired; 1994 (Clinton)
Paroled Cubans into the U.S.; 1997 (Clinton) Deferred
deportation for Haitians in the U.S. that were here prior to
1995; 1997 (Clinton) Deferred deportation to noncitizens who
might gain relief under the Violence Against Women Act.
1998 (Clinton) Suspended deportations to El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua after Hurricane Mitch;
1999 (Clinton) Deferred deportation for Liberians; 2002
(G. W. Bush) Expedited naturalization for green card holders
who enlisted in the military; 2005 (G. W. Bush) Deferred
deportation for foreign academic students affected by
Hurricane Katrina; 2006 (G. W. Bush) Enabled Cuban doctors
conscripted abroad to apply
[[Page S885]]
for parole at U.S. embassies; 2007 (G. W. Bush) Deferred
deportation for Liberians whose Temporary Protective Status
had expired; 2009 (Obama) Deferred deportation for Liberians;
2009 (Obama) Extended deferred deportation to widows and
widowers of U.S. citizens and their unmarried children under
21; 2010 (Obama) Allowed parole-in-place to spouses, parents
and children of U.S. citizen members of the military; 2010
(Obama) Paroled Haitian orphans being adopted by U.S.
citizens; 2011 (Obama) Extended deferred deportation to
Liberians; 2012 (Obama) Deferred action for childhood
arrivals (DACA); 2013 (Obama) Revised parole-in-place policy
to spouses, parents and children of members of the military;
2014 (Obama) Expedited family reunification for certain
eligible Haitian family members (HFRP).
Mrs. BOXER. With that, I yield back my time.
____________________