[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 24 (Thursday, February 12, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S963-S964]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                Department of Homeland Security Funding

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to urge our colleagues to 
come together quickly to pass a clean Homeland Security bill. We are 
now just 16 days away from a Homeland Security shutdown. The clock is 
ticking. A shutdown would be wholly unnecessary and, quite frankly, 
completely dangerous. We know we do not lack for security threats. It 
was less than 2 years ago that terrorists attacked the Boston Marathon. 
It was just weeks ago that we witnessed a horrific series of terror 
attacks on our friends in Paris. We know the brutal destabilizing force 
known as the Islamic State, or ISIL, is determined to hurt our Nation 
and our citizens. The world is a dangerous place.
  At a time like this, we should be working together on a bipartisan 
basis to fund and strengthen Homeland Security, but instead we are 
facing insecurity, instability, and uncertainty because some want to 
hold the funding for the Department of Homeland Security hostage--
hostage to a partisan political debate.
  Is it really more important to hold a fight over deporting children 
who came to the United States and know no country other than the United 
States, came here through no fault of their own? Is it more important 
to hold this fight over deporting those children than it is to protect 
America against terrorist threats?
  Although protecting against these threats is reason enough to oppose 
this misguided strategy, the resulting fallout would not just be 
limited to national security. This bill includes

[[Page S964]]

FEMA grants to disaster-stricken areas. This bill includes funding for 
grants to local fire departments--grants that would not occur.
  Thousands of essential public servants--from Homeland Security, to 
FEMA, to our terrific men and women in the Coast Guard--would be asked 
to keep on working even though we are not paying them. This is not the 
way to run a nation. This is certainly not the way to address national 
security threats that face us.
  I think it is telling when a strategy is being criticized from 
Members on both sides of the aisle. This is a foolhardy game being 
played with our national security.
  A colleague from Arizona said on this floor just yesterday--a 
colleague from across the aisle--that ``to attempt to use a spending 
bill in order to poke a finger in the President's eye is not a good 
move.''
  Another colleague from across the aisle, from Illinois, said, ``The 
American people are pretty alarmed, as they should be, about security . 
. . the way to go forward is just fund DHS,'' the Department of 
Homeland Security. He continued, ``We ought to strip the bill of 
extraneous issues and make it about homeland security.''
  That is the path forward, to have a funding bill for Homeland 
Security, stripped of political riders designed to take on one issue or 
another when those issues can be addressed in separate bills. If 
someone really wants to prioritize the deportation of children who came 
here through no fault of their own and know no country other than the 
United States, our DREAMers, then they should write that bill, put it 
through committee, and then the majority should bring the debate to the 
floor of this Chamber. I can tell you that I would be voting against 
that bill, but we would have the debate on that issue separate from the 
conversation about funding Homeland Security.
  I found it interesting to read the Wall Street Journal the other day. 
It refers to immigration restrictionists who want a larger brawl and 
have browbeat GOP leaders into adding needless policy amendments. That 
is coming from the Wall Street Journal. They proceed to say in regard 
to the fight over prioritizing the deportation of folks who are here 
without legal credentials and who have criminal backgrounds, that the 
President is ``prioritizing'' those deportations of those with criminal 
backgrounds. The Wall Street Journal says:

       That is legitimate prosecutorial discretion, and in 
     opposing it Republicans are undermining their crime-fighting 
     credentials.

  So if some of my colleagues want to argue that the President should 
not prioritize deporting individuals with criminal backgrounds, which I 
think should be prioritized, have that debate, but do not hold the 
Homeland Security bill hostage to that particular fight.
  In this morning's paper, there was an article about the funding of 
the Department of Homeland Security. This is in the Washington Post. It 
refers to the Grand Old Party at impasse as a measure stalls in the 
Senate. It quotes the Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner. Speaker 
Boehner says, ``It is time for the Senate to do their work,'' and he 
proceeds to give a little lecture to Senators. He says, ``You know, in 
the gift shop out here, they've got these little booklets on how a bill 
becomes a law.'' Well, I encourage Speaker Boehner to actually read 
that book because what that book says is that in order to pass through 
the Senate, it has to get on the floor and it has to have support to be 
approved by this Chamber.
  So, Speaker Boehner, I encourage you to actually read the pamphlet 
you recommended because sending over funding for Homeland Security 
laden with unrelated policy riders is going to make sure that bill dies 
here in the Senate. Don't take my word for it, take the Senate's 
version or expression on this. It has come up for three votes in the 
Senate. We have voted three times to kill this House bill, giving clear 
instruction to the House: Send us the actual Department of Homeland 
Security bill free of these political riders, and we will put it on the 
floor, and we will have that debate, and we will undoubtedly pass that 
bill. But if you want to play political games rather than looking out 
for the security of the United States of America, don't expect the 
Senate to rubberstamp your political games, Speaker Boehner.
  So that is where we are now. I do encourage the Speaker to go right 
down the gift shop--I will be happy to buy him a copy of this, and I 
will be happy to read the phrases to the Speaker on exactly how a bill 
becomes law.
  It is deeply disturbing to the American people to see these types of 
political games being played with our Nation's security. We live in a 
dangerous world, and we need to take seriously our responsibility to 
fund this Department.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Brown pertaining to the introduction of S. 522 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, are we on the Carter nomination?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, this is an important nomination, at a 
time when this country faces very significant national security 
threats.