[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S913-S914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we are running out of time until the 
Department of Homeland Security shuts down, and the majority doesn't 
seem to have any real plan to avoid it.
  There are 17 days left--with a week of recess in between--until tens 
of thousands of DHS workers are furloughed, fire grants to local fire 
departments are no longer sent out, and training local first responders 
in handling terrorist attacks stops dead in its tracks. Yet each day 
comes with a new round of finger-pointing from Republicans eager to 
pass the buck to the other Chamber.
  The distinguished majority leader, my friend, Senator McConnell, and 
my friend from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, and many other Republicans 
in this body have said it is time for the House majority to come up 
with a new plan. The House of course says it is the Senate majority 
that needs to act again. This morning Speaker Boehner, astoundingly, 
said the House would not pass another DHS bill. He is tied in such a 
knot he can't move, even though he knows his failure to move risks a 
government shutdown.
  The House of course says it is the Senate majority that needs to act 
again, and yesterday the majority leader said the onus was now on the 
House to fund DHS. This morning the majority leader said the onus is 
now on the Senate. We have all kinds of Abbott and Costello behavior 
going on. The funny thing is the finger-pointing is not at the 
Democrats. They are pointing at each other as to who is to blame.
  The American people are getting whiplash from listening to the 
Republican leadership on this issue. The Republicans need to sort out 
the divisions within their own caucus before they deflect any blame on 
Democrats, because while Democrats remain united in both Houses in 
support of a clean bill, the Republican majority is busy playing a game 
of hot potato with national security funding.
  The disunity and delay has led a few Republicans to start talking 
about a continuing resolution that would guarantee another cliff and 
more brinkmanship and underfund DHS in the meantime. Delaying this same 
standoff by a few weeks or months isn't a very good plan B. It is 
hardly a plan at all.
  Secretary Jeh Johnson described the CR for DHS this way: ``It's like 
going on a 300-mile trip with a five-gallon tank of gas.''
  Let me give a few examples of why a Republican continuing resolution 
is a very poor plan B.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will my friend from New York yield for a 
question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will yield for a question when I finish my remarks, 
just as he was nice enough to yield to me a few days ago.
  First, without a bipartisan full-year bill, the Secret Service cannot 
move forward with the critical reforms recommended by an independent 
panel of experts made after the White House fence-jumping incident.
  Second, we can't upgrade the biometric identification system that 
prevents terrorists from coming into the country. Republicans and 
Democrats negotiated an additional $25 million for DHS to upgrade the 
system that allows them to stop terrorists from coming through an 
airport or on a cargo ship and into the United States. A CR does not 
provide that funding.
  Third, Secretary Johnson has said the Department will be constrained 
by a CR from improving security along our southwest border and 
maintaining the resources we added to deal with last summer's border 
crisis. Some say, Why does a CR constrain all of this? Because it is 
just ratifying last year's funding, and when new situations have 
emerged--new terrorist threats, new trouble on the border--we can't 
change the budget. It makes no sense. No company would simply pass last 
year's budget when they are experiencing new challenges; neither should 
our government.
  In short, a CR just doesn't work. It is not how we should be funding 
the Department of Homeland Security.
  So we implore our Republican colleagues: Don't shut down the 
Department of Homeland Security, don't set up another shutdown, and 
don't underfund the men and women who work 24/7 to keep us safe. Pass a 
clean appropriations bill and give the people on the frontlines of 
defending this country the tools they need to get the job done.
  I will be happy to yield for a question to my good friend, the 
Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask my friend from New York--I don't 
hear any Republicans talking about a shutdown and I don't hear any 
Republicans talking about a continuing resolution. I just hear 
Republicans talking about taking up the bill the House has passed, 
which is a $40 billion appropriations bill and having a vote on it. But 
isn't it true that Democrats are united in blocking our ability to even 
consider that $40 billion appropriations bill?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my friend for the question. It is nice to see 
him standing on the Democratic side. I hope he tries it again. If he 
likes it, he might do it more often.
  I would say this: We all know what Speaker Boehner did. The hard 
right in the House said we want to force the President to undo his 
Executive order. They know if they put it on the floor alone, the 
President might veto it, so they attached it to Homeland Security and 
they basically say to the President, the only way we will fund the 
Department of Homeland Security is if we include these unpalatable 
riders, which the President has said he would veto.
  So there is a simple solution.
  That would force a shutdown. What the House did is say if we don't do 
it our way, we are shutting down the government. That didn't work 2 
years ago--and that effort was led by the junior Senator from Texas, 
not my friend, the senior Senator from Texas--and it is not going to 
work today. Everyone knows what our colleagues in the House did. They 
are playing hostage. They are holding a gun to the head of America and 
saying unless we do it their way, they are going to shut down the 
government. That is why they attached it.
  Let me repeat to my dear friend from Texas: No one objects to 
debating what the President did on Executive orders. We welcome that 
debate. It is the act of tying it to funding the government--the same 
thing they did with ObamaCare a few years ago--that says we are going 
to shut down the government unless we get our way.
  So the logical solution--and I will yield in a moment--is very 
simple: Pass the Department of Homeland Security bill. If they don't 
want to shut

[[Page S914]]

down the government, pass a clean Homeland Security bill and then the 
majority can put immigration on the floor and we can debate it.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, again, I don't hear any Republicans 
talking about shutting down the government. Indeed, the deadline, as I 
understand, is February 27 for this appropriations bill. What we are 
having is a discussion about the President's abuse of his authority 
under the Constitution by issuing the Executive order. I understand we 
disagree about that--and we ought to have that debate--and the public I 
think would insist that we honor our oath by making sure we protect and 
defend the Constitution of the United States, including against 
Presidential overreach.
  I ask my friend, is it going to be the consistent position of our 
Democratic friends in the Senate that they are going to block us from 
even getting on the bill so that then they can offer amendments to 
strip out the parts they don't like? That is the way the Senate is 
supposed to work, but it doesn't work that way when Democrats are 
filibustering this $40 billion appropriations bill.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague from Texas for his good question. I 
agree with parts of what he said. First, I agree that we disagree on 
the President's Executive order.
  Second, I agree we ought not debate it in a hostage-taking situation. 
Our colleagues in the House may not have used the word ``shutdown.'' It 
doesn't matter. Their actions speak louder than words. When they attach 
these proposals to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations 
bill and say we are not going to fund Homeland Security unless we get 
some of these proposals, that is saying we will shut down the 
government unless we get our way. Sure, they will not shut down the 
government if we vote for all of their extraneous immigration 
provisions, and then next time they will attach something else and then 
something else. But they are using the threat of a government shutdown 
to try and get their way. That has not worked in the past and it will 
not work today.
  So we Democrats are not blocking any debate. We are happy to debate 
funding the Department of Homeland Security. We are happy to debate 
immigration. Challenge us. Pass Homeland Security, put immigration on 
the floor, and see if any Democrat tries to block that debate. We 
welcome that debate. We think we will win that debate. I know my good 
friend from Texas disagrees with that.
  But that is not the issue. The issue is again that unless Democrats 
do it our way, we are shutting down the government. That is what the 
House did and so far that is what the Republican majority in the Senate 
is going along with. That is government shutdown. That is hostage-
taking. That hasn't worked in the past and it will not work now.
  It is unprecedented. The junior Senator from Texas came up with this 
kind of thinking, and unfortunately too many of our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle go along with him, either out of conviction or 
for some other reason.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one last 
question? He has been very gracious, and I appreciate it.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Of course. I enjoy these debates.
  Mr. CORNYN. While I don't agree with his answers, I appreciate the 
spirit in which we are actually having a discussion. But I wonder if he 
can explain to me how it is that the majority is blocking Department of 
Homeland Security funding when the House has passed a $40 billion bill. 
Republicans have been united in voting to proceed to get on the bill 
and then allowing an amendment process where the minority can then move 
to strike the provisions they don't like. That is the way the Senate is 
supposed to operate.
  How is it that Republicans are blocking Department of Homeland 
Security funding under those circumstances? I don't understand that.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would just ask the rhetorical question--and I thank my 
colleague--why did they attach these provisions, inimicable to the 
President, inimicable to us, to the Department of Homeland Security 
bill, which has nothing to do with it? It was not because they wanted a 
debate, not because they wanted to fund Homeland Security. There are 
easy ways to do that. They wanted to say that unless we do it their 
way, they are not going to fund Homeland Security and they are going to 
shut down a major portion of the government.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are indeed, with Senators permitted to 
speak for up to 10 minutes.

                          ____________________