[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 30 (Monday, February 23, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1022-S1028]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015--MOTION TO
PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 240, which the
clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk (Mary Anne Clarkson) 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.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, in just a few minutes Democrats will
have another opportunity to end their weeks-long filibuster of Homeland
Security. It will be the first opportunity our friends on the other
side have to show where they stand after a Federal judge preliminarily
enjoined the administration from moving ahead with actions President
Obama himself referred to as ``ignoring the law.'' President Obama said
that just over a year ago.
The point is that it is time to allow this Homeland Security funding
measure to come to the floor. Democrats say they want the ability to
amend DHS funding legislation, but then they keep voting to block their
own ability to offer amendments. It doesn't make any sense. So in a few
moments we will give our Democratic friends another opportunity to
reconsider. They can vote to allow the Senate to debate the Homeland
Security funding bill. They can vote to allow the Senate to consider
amendments from both sides, and that is what they actually should do.
That is what constituents have a right to expect. Let's take up this
funding bill and get to work.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Madam President, in just a few days--5 to be exact--the
Department of Homeland Security will run out of money. This unique
entity was established right after 9/11. President Bush believed there
were too many agencies trying to take care of the security of this
Nation, so he got Congress to work with him, and they came up with 22
entities for the Department of Homeland Security. They have protected
our homeland since 9/11, and they have done a good job.
I am very disappointed that the political ploy used by my
congressional Republican leadership to force a shutdown of Homeland
Security will only hurt our Nation, but it does make very clear where
Republicans stand on fixing our broken immigration system.
Twenty months ago some valiant Senators, Democrats and Republicans,
worked together for almost a year. Democrats were led by Senators
Schumer, Durbin, Bennet, and Menendez. Republicans were led by Senators
McCain, Graham, Rubio, and Flake. They worked night and day. They came
up with a bill that they presented to us, Democrats and Republicans,
and we worked hard. We had lots of amendments. There was a wonderful
debate. It was one of the great days of this body. And we passed it
with a bipartisan vote. It was such a good day for the Senate and our
country. But now, after 20 months, suddenly people are not interested.
Even Senators Flake, Graham, and McCain have stated that we should
fund Homeland Security--fund it. We have all kinds of Republican
Senators who have said the same thing in the last few days. Senator
Johnson said it should be fully funded. He said that today.
I don't understand what my Republican friends are trying to do. They
want to hold up DHS funding in order to deport DREAMers and their
parents. That doesn't make any sense. Their plan is destined to fail. I
have said that many times. Republicans are not listening to me, and I
understand why, but my Republican colleagues are not listening to a lot
of people.
They are not listening to the President of the United States, who has
warned them that blocking Homeland Security funding will hurt our
ability to respond to these new threats.
Tom Ridge and I came to Washington at the same time in 1982, to the
House of Representatives. Here is a man who was valiant in Vietnam. He
was a highly decorated soldier. He has had a stunning career in
government. He was the Governor of the State of Pennsylvania and the
Secretary of Homeland Security. He, along with another Republican
Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, who has a great
record of his own as a prosecutor and Federal judge, and a Democratic
Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, who was a former
Governor of the State of Arizona--so three former Secretaries of
Homeland Security--two Republicans and one Democrat--have said the
Republicans should do this. In fact, here is what they said in a letter
Senator McConnell and I received a month ago:
Funding for DHS is used to protect our ports and our
borders; to secure our air travel and cargo; to protect the
federal government and our nation's information technology
and infrastructure from cyber-security attacks; to fund
essential law enforcement activities, and to ensure the
safety of the president and national leaders . . . Funding
for the entire agency should not be put in jeopardy by the
debate about immigration.
That is what the former Secretaries of Homeland Security said. They
did not mince words.
In fact, Tom Ridge said yesterday on national TV that the
Republicans' plan ``irritates the hell out of me. I think it is bad
policy . . . The men and women of Homeland Security deserve better.''
Jeh Johnson, who has certainly been as down the middle as anyone
could be on this issue, said that to not fund Homeland Security is
``unacceptable from a public safety and national security view.''
The majority leader and Speaker Boehner are not listening. They are
obviously not listening to me, they are not listening to the President,
and they are not listening to former Homeland Security Secretaries.
They are not even listening to their newspaper--it has been referred
to as their newspaper--the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal
said that the Republicans' game of Russian roulette with our homeland
security is destined for ``a spectacular crack-up.'' Republicans
obviously are not listening to the Wall Street Journal. The Fraternal
Order of Police has lambasted the Republican scheme. The Republicans
are not listening to the police. The United States Conference of Mayors
said: Please don't do that. If you do not fund the Department of
Homeland Security, and even if you go with a continuing resolution, it
is going to affect our ability to protect our cities. The Governors
have said the same thing.
Republicans are not listening to anyone. They are bound and
determined to see this doomed plan to the end. This is all because
Republicans want to overturn DHS directives that prioritize the
deportation of national security threats, convicted felons, and
individuals apprehended at the border. It doesn't make sense. The
administration sought a stay of the proceedings in Texas, but the trial
judge in Texas never ever declared anything the President did as
unconstitutional. If you read every word he wrote, the word
``unconstitutional'' is not written. He said the Administrative
Procedure Act was not followed.
The President has the right to determine who is to be deported, and
the families of these DREAMers are way down the list. So the President
is well within his established constitutional authority and legal
process to hear this out. So why would we divert resources from real
threats just so Republicans can deport DREAMers, long-term permanent
residents, mothers and fathers of U.S. citizen children who pose no
security risk? Republicans say they are attacking the President's
actions, but they are really attacking families.
I suggest to my Republican colleagues that if they won't listen to
me, the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Wall Street
Journal, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the United States
Conference of Mayors, maybe they should at least heed what
[[Page S1023]]
our enemies are saying. We can all picture in our minds what happened
just a few weeks ago. They put a Jordanian pilot in a cage and burned
him, and they showed the world that for 22 minutes. We have seen the
beheadings. They have not stopped. Twenty-one Egyptian Christians were
beheaded just a few days ago.
Yesterday on national TV Secretary Johnson said that we must remain
vigilant against threats because now they told us they are going to go
to malls around America, including the Mall of America. We must listen.
Why would our Republican friends want to shut off funding for Homeland
Security in this environment? Listen to reason. Let's fully fund
Homeland Security and do it now. Republican Senators are saying the
same thing. I don't understand what is going on here.
Republicans reportedly have a backup plan--fund Homeland Security by
passing short-term continuing resolutions. That is not an answer. It is
not an answer. A continuing resolution will prevent the Department of
Homeland Security from working with communities and States and their
first responders in addressing new threats and emergency situations.
Our Nation is depending on the Department of Homeland Security, and
fully funding it is what is needed to keep us safe. More than 230,000
Homeland Security employees are depending on a paycheck for their
families. A simple way of doing this is to fully fund the Department of
Homeland Security, not some Rube Goldberg procedure where they make
something very simple very complicated. It doesn't need to be
complicated. We simply need to give the Department of Homeland Security
the resources it needs to do its job, as said by Republican Senators in
the past week.
Why are we doing this? Is it to please the House Republicans who
cannot agree on anything? It is important that we fully fund this
agency and do it now.
Would the chair now announce the business of the day. I am told the
motion to proceed is now pending. Is that true?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tribute to JoAnne A. Epps
Mr. CASEY. Madam President, as I have every year since 2007, I rise
today to commemorate Black History Month. This year we are privileged
to recognize Dean JoAnne A. Epps, the dean of Temple University's
Beasley School of Law. Dean Epps is a woman who has made significant
contributions to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Nation by
promoting opportunity and diversity throughout our legal institutions.
JoAnne's life and career have been a testament to hard work and
following her dreams. Her achievements are substantial, and she has
worked to inspire others to fulfill their dreams, while advancing the
cause of social justice to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to
reach their full potential.
Today I am proud to honor JoAnne Epps as a leader in law and
education and highlight some of the ways in which she has demonstrated
the power of dreams by opening doors of opportunity for women and
minorities throughout her career.
JoAnne Epps's story serves as an example of where our dreams can take
us. She is a native of Cheltenham, PA. For those who don't know the
geography of our State, it is in the southeastern corner of our State
in Montgomery County. She attended Trinity College in Connecticut. As
an undergraduate JoAnne planned to follow in her mother's footsteps and
become a legal secretary; however, she distinguished herself throughout
her undergraduate career, and her mother and professors encouraged her
to dream big. She applied to and was accepted by Yale Law School, where
she was one of 40 women and just 10 African Americans in her class of
150. JoAnne entered law school having never known an adult attorney and
often experienced discomfort that her background differed so
significantly from those of many of her classmates. Despite these
challenges, JoAnne Epps remained focused on the opportunities ahead of
her.
Following graduation in 1976, JoAnne devoted herself to public
service, becoming a deputy city attorney for the city of Los Angeles,
CA, and ultimately returning to Pennsylvania as an assistant U.S.
attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
After that work as a prosecutor, in 1985 she joined the faculty of
the Beasley School of Law at Temple University, utilizing the
experience she had gained as a prosecutor to instruct students on
criminal procedure, evidence, and trial advocacy. Exhibiting strong
leadership qualities and a gift for teaching, JoAnne was soon named
associate dean of academic affairs, and in 2008 was named dean of
Temple Law School.
As dean, JoAnne has worked tirelessly not only to advance the quality
of legal education but to instill in students the values she believes
define the legal profession. They are service, integrity, and passion.
JoAnne has expanded opportunities for students at Temple to apply these
values to a legal career by implementing programs that focus on hands-
on legal experience, both through high-quality clinical programs and
through an innovative experiential first-year course as curriculum.
This work has led to the creation of the Stephen and Sandra Sheller
Center for Social Justice at Temple Law School, and we are honored
today to have both Steve and Sandy Sheller with us.
The Sheller Center encourages early community involvement and a
commitment to social justice in Temple Law students by facilitating
collaboration with community groups, the university community, and the
Philadelphia and Pennsylvania legal communities to improve access to
justice for underserved communities.
It is a truly inspiring project. Even as JoAnne innovates at a
schoolwide level, she has not lost her dedication to the individual
connections fostered through teaching. She continues to share her
experience and insight with first-year law students by teaching a
course in litigation basics each fall.
JoAnne has employed her talent for teaching not only to the benefit
of Temple University and the Pennsylvania legal community but to
further social justice objectives on an international scale. JoAnne has
been an advocacy instructor for attorneys at the United Nations
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Beijing Supreme
People's Procuratorate. In 2007 and 2008, she worked with a small group
of lawyers to provide training for Sudanese lawyers representing
victims of the crisis in Darfur on evidence, advocacy, and substantive
international criminal law with a focus on practice before the
International Criminal Court.
JoAnne's service and impact on Temple Law School is made all the more
impressive in light of the myriad of other roles she has taken on to
advance the causes of social justice through legal institutions. In
2001, JoAnne was appointed by the mayor of Philadelphia to chair the
Mayor's Task Force on Police Discipline, and in 2011 she was appointed
by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to
monitor the city of Philadelphia's compliance with a settlement
concerning stop-and-frisk procedures. She has a long history of service
on various commissions designed to increase access to justice,
including the Philadelphia Bar Association's Committee to Promote
Justice, the board of directors of the Defender Association of
Philadelphia, the advisory board of the Public Interest Law Center, the
Pennsylvania Commission for Justice Initiatives, and too many others to
name today.
In recognition of this work, in 2003 Temple Law School presented her
with the Gideon Award, given to acknowledge dedication to the cause of
justice.
JoAnne Epps has had a great career and has had great success as a
lawyer, as a teacher, as an advocate, and as a prosecutor despite the
challenges of being an African-American woman entering a field that is
predominantly white and male. She consistently worked to open the doors
of opportunities to women and minorities who face similar challenges.
At Temple, JoAnne served as a member of the Women's Studies Program
Steering Committee, and she remains an affiliated member of the Women's
Studies Department at the law school. She has also previously served as
an adviser to both the Women's Law Caucus and the Black Law Students
Association.
[[Page S1024]]
Outside of Temple Law, JoAnne served as vice chair of the
Pennsylvania Gender Task Force and as a member of the Third Circuit
Task Force on Equal Treatment in the Courts, also serving on the Third
Circuit task force commission on race and ethnicity.
JoAnne testified on behalf of the National Association of Women
Lawyers at the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court Justice Sonia
Sotomayor. In 2014, she was awarded the Justice Sotomayor Diversity
Award by the Philadelphia Bar Association in recognition of her work on
behalf of women and minorities in the legal profession.
JoAnne has said the following about her legal career, and I am
quoting:
I spent much of my career not seeing ahead of me someone
who was at all like me, and I've had to make my way without
that. I want to be a resource for young people entering the
profession that I never had.
Joanne's dedication to both legal education and the legal profession
has helped empower countless young attorneys to exceed expectations and
fulfill their dreams.
JoAnne Epps is here today in the gallery of the Senate, and as the
rules tell us, we are not allowed to acknowledge those in the gallery.
I am saying that for my friend. But she is joined by family and
friends, and I am going to go through a list here. If I miss someone,
someone will tell me later.
Starting with her husband L. Harrison Jay, her uncle Harold Ashton,
and her cousins Eric Ashton, Joan and Tommie Frye, Donnie, Debbie,
Adrienne, and Christopher Jackson, and Marcia and Glenn Yarbrough--I
will hear if I missed someone a little later, but we are honored she is
here with us. We are honored her family is here on this special day.
Today we honor JoAnne Epps, the dean of Temple Law School, for her
significant work to advance access to justice and for inspiring and
empowering new generations of attorneys to emulate their commitment to
service, integrity, and passion.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO. Madam President, as I come to the floor today, the
Senate is continuing to try to debate a bill to fund the Department of
Homeland Security. We have made no progress on this bill for weeks, as
Democrats continue to filibuster our efforts to actually even get on
the bill, to have a meaningful discussion on the subject. The bill has
already passed the House of Representatives.
The way the Senate is supposed to work is that if Democrats don't
like something about the bill, then they should offer amendments and
change it. That is how the process has worked in the past. It is how
the process is supposed to work today.
It is the process as it worked about a month ago when we debated the
Keystone XL Pipeline. We had more than 40 different amendments debated
on the floor, voted on the floor. That is more than double the number
of amendments the Senate Democrats allowed all last year in debate on
the floor of the Senate.
We could be debating those and voting on those amendments right now.
My question is, why aren't we doing that? It is because Senate
Democrats are filibustering to keep us from even considering this bill.
This is a very important piece of legislation. Funding for the
Department of Homeland Security is scheduled to expire on Friday.
Everyone in this Chamber, both sides of the aisle, should agree that
funding the Department of Homeland Security is something we need to do.
Why are Democrats being obstructive in the way that they are? Why are
the Democrats so eager to cut off funding for the Department of
Homeland Security?
The answer is this is a disagreement not about funding Homeland
Security, it is about our Nation's immigration policy and the
President's Executive amnesty, an action which I believe is illegal.
Congress is the appropriate place to make laws about America's
immigration policy. It is not something the President gets to decide on
his own. It shouldn't be controversial either. At least eight Senate
Democrats have said they disagreed with the President's Executive
actions or they have doubts about them.
Senator Donnelly said back in November ``the President shouldn't make
such significant policy changes on his own.''
On the same day Senator Heitkamp said the President's actions ``could
poison any hope of compromise or bipartisanship in the Senate before it
has even started.''
Even the President himself has on 22 separate occasions said he
lacked the authority to rewrite immigration law--22 times. He said in
March of 2011:
There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are
very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration
system, that for me to simply, through Executive order ignore
those congressional mandates would not conform with my
appropriate role as President.
He did it anyway. He knew it wasn't appropriate, but that didn't stop
him. Now a Federal judge has made it crystal clear the President does
not have the authority to act on his own as he did. The President
cannot make a new law just because he doesn't like the laws passed by
Congress. This was a U.S. district court ruling in a lawsuit that 26
States brought against President Obama.
Here is how USA TODAY described it in a front-page headline last
Wednesday. They said, ``Obama Immigration Plan Blocked.''
Rollcall ran its own headline the same day that said, ``Immigration
Ruling Casts Shadow on Obama's Legacy.'' What the court did was to stop
the Secretary of Homeland Security from implementing any and all
aspects or phases of the President's plan. The Federal court said, ``It
is Congress, and Congress alone, who has power under the Constitution
to legislate in the field of immigration.'' Let me repeat that. ``It is
Congress, and Congress alone, who has power under the Constitution to
legislate in the field of immigration.''
The judge added that the President's plan ``clearly represents a
substantive change in immigration policy.'' This is not just a minor
change. It is not the same thing that other Presidents have done
before. The judge completely rejected the Obama administration's claim
that it was simply exercising ``prosecutorial discretion.''
I know the President did not understand the last election. I am
starting to think Democrats in this body do not understand why they
lost. It is strange that Democrats want to continue trying to protect
the President who does not have the strong support of the American
people. It was a losing strategy in November and it will be a losing
strategy now.
Democrats in this body are continuing to prevent the Senate from
doing anything, again, in an effort--they are doing it to protect
President Obama. Now that a Federal judge has agreed the President
exceeded his own authority, it is time for Democrats to stop defending
the President and the White House. Senate Democrats have already voiced
their concerns about what the President did and how he did it. It is
time for those same Democrats to convince the rest of their Members
that enough is enough.
It is time for them to stop pretending this is about immigration,
when it is now clear this is about the President's overreach. It is
time for Democrats to end their filibuster and to fund the Department
of Homeland Security.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote for the
fourth time on a procedural vote to take up the House Homeland Security
funding bill. We are going to be voting on the cloture of the motion to
proceed because it is a parliamentary way of dealing with the funding
for the Homeland Security Department, which runs out on Friday.
The Presiding Officer is the ranking member on the homeland
subcommittee. The Presiding Officer did a fantastic job, working with
Senator Landrieu, creating a funding framework that had bipartisan and
bicameral support. I congratulate the Presiding Officer and the way the
committee worked.
[[Page S1025]]
We should be voting on the final passage for a clean Homeland
Security bill. The bill--when we say ``clean,'' this is Washington
speak. People do not know what a clean bill is. Is there a dirty bill?
Is there a dusty bill? Is there a muddy bill? No. What we are talking
about is meaning no riders on the bill. In this case, no poison pill
riders. There was no disagreement, finally, because of the excellent
bipartisan work on the funding of the bill, but the Senate is locked in
a game of parliamentary ping-pong on moving this legislation forward,
where the losers are the American people.
Look at what is going on in our country right now. We are absolutely
relying on Homeland Security for some of the biggest challenges--not
facing in the abstract but facing us right now.
There are the terrorists and there is cold weather and there are
other issues. Right now in my Chesapeake Bay there is a Coast Guard
cutter called Chock. It is out there breaking the Maryland icy
conditions--frigid and windy. What is it they are doing? This enables
commerce to get up and down the Bay so people are working and getting
important supplies. They even work--because the Bay is in both Maryland
and Virginia. They went out to the famous Tangier Island to free
residents that were iced in, to take food and fuel. The Coast Guard is
on the job. They are working in the cold. They are working in the wind.
They are breaking up ice not only in Maryland but all over--to these
frozen ports. What do we say? Good job, guys. There they are on TV. We
love you, but we might not pay you. What is this? They are out there
saving lives. We are playing parliamentary ping-pong.
Then there is this whole issue of this despicable, barbaric group
called ISIL who essentially says: We are out to get you. Not only are
they out to get us, but then they threatened that there could be
attacks on malls, the shopping malls in the United States.
We need then additional security from Homeland Security. We also need
to be able to work with our local and State partners. What is
Congress's response? We are going to talk about increasing that defense
budget in 2016, but we are not going to fund the appropriations from
2015 on Homeland Security. What is wrong with that picture?
I am for a strong national defense and having the muscular way of
dealing with the threat of ISIL and any other terrorist group, but they
are talking about our malls. They also go on their Web--I hate to even
say this in public. They say attack anybody who is in uniform. Well,
that is my firefighter, that is my police officer, that is my EMT
person. I mean, really. We are worried about lone wolves?
Well, I am worried too. We need to be able to protect them. One way
to do it is we need to fund the Homeland Security Department so people
who are on the job protecting us can get paid. There are Members on the
other side of the aisle who continually ask the President what he is
doing to defend America. Let's put boots on the ground. Let's put more
missiles in the air. Let's put more flights for airplanes.
Right here in America we have boots on the ground. They are called
Border Patrol agents, Customs officers, TSA personnel, intelligence
analysts. We have to fund our own Homeland Security boots on the
ground. I want to make sure we do it now, so we do not have some big
crisis at midnight on Friday.
Where we are is this: We have agreed on the funding on both sides of
the aisle and both sides of the dome. The House has added five riders
on immigration. Immigration is an important topic. I do not minimize
it. I do not dismiss it. It should be debated but not on this bill.
The other issue is that the courts have now made a decision--the
Texas court--on the Obama action on Executive orders and immigration.
It is now going to go through the courts. The Texas judge made a
decision. That is America. It will go to the Fifth Circuit for an
appeal and maybe even higher. While it is working its way through, we
are debating it. Let the courts decide whether the President exceeded
his Executive authority. Whatever the courts decide, I think we will be
able to accept it. We cannot hold up the bill waiting for the courts to
decide.
We should not hold up the Homeland Security bill waiting for the
courts to decide. So with the court decision pending, I say to my
friends on the other side of the aisle--who I know are patriotic, who I
know want to protect the homeland--put immigration aside on the
Executive orders and all of those others, let the courts decide on the
Executive authority, but between now and, say, Wednesday let's pass
this Homeland Security bill.
We can pass it, send it to the House, and we can get on with the
protecting America rather than what we think about President Obama. I
respect what other people think about President Obama. I do not also
respect what some people say in their attacks on him: Is he American?
Is he patriotic? I think that is despicable to attack our President.
But if you think this is a constitutional question on Executive
authority, it is now in the courts. That can be a valid consideration.
But right now we have a Homeland Security funding problem. I want to
fund the Coast Guard. I want to fund Border Patrol. I want to fund
Customs. I want to fund the TSA at the airports. I want to protect us
on threats related to cyber security. This is for the 22 subagencies
that make up Homeland Security. So I would hope, for the 162,000 people
who work for that agency, they do not get IOUs.
Given what they are doing in this cold weather and on this incredible
intensity and escalation of chatter and threats to the United States,
we have to help them be them. We have to give them respect. We have to
pay their salaries. We have to give them the right technology to be
able to do their jobs to protect us. I say to the Presiding Officer and
to all of my colleagues on the floor: Let's stop playing parliamentary
ping-pong with the Homeland Security bill.
The politics in that are over. The issue is going to be resolved in
the courts, but what cannot be resolved is the fact that on February 27
the money to fund the salaries for every single man and woman who works
at Homeland Security will run out. The time is running out. The money
is running out. We cannot run out on Homeland Security. We have to help
them make us a safe country, protect our country, and do their job.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Mikulski. She has been
joined by Senator Shaheen, both of whom have been leading this very
important bill to pass this funding for Homeland Security. I thought
the points Senator Mikulski made were so well taken about the fact that
there has been a new development since we left this Chamber; that is,
that the courts are taking on some of the immigration provisions our
colleagues have been trying to attach to this bill.
I would hope they could look at this in a fresh way now and see that
we should just simply allow this bill to go forward while the courts
are considering this matter. To me, that is the answer. I do not think
they should see it--our colleagues on the other side--as a concession.
It is simply a fact. It is something that has changed. So I come to the
floor to talk about the importance of the Mikulski-Shaheen bill. The
critical importance of this funding has been driven home in the last
few days in my State, the State of Minnesota.
Just this weekend the terrorist group al-Shabaab released a video
encouraging attacks on shopping malls throughout the world--a shopping
mall in Minnesota, the Mall of America, a shopping mall in Canada, in
Edmonton, a shopping mall in London. I do not think we could ever think
they would be limited in their threats when it comes to shopping malls
in America.
This is the same terrorist group that actually carried out a major
attack on a shopping mall in Kenya, killing more than 60 people. It has
also called for attacks, as I said, in other countries. In this video,
an al-Shabaab spokesman bragged about his previous attacks and the
chaos future attacks can cause. He talks about if just a handful of
fighters could bring Kenya to a complete stop for weeks, he talks about
what they could do to--in his words, obviously not mine--American- or
Jewish-owned shopping centers across the world.
That is what we saw this weekend. That is what the people in my State
[[Page S1026]]
awoke to. They awoke to that video and those words. I spoke yesterday
with Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, with our U.S. attorney
for Minnesota, Andy Luger. We are working with the FBI, and they have
boosted the security at the Mall of America. It already had good
security. We have fine law enforcement in Minnesota on the Federal,
State, and local levels.
The FBI has advised people, clearly, to go on with their lives in
Minnesota. The Homeland Security Secretary has clearly said people
shouldn't be discouraged from going to the mall in any way.
So the people in my State are standing tall when it comes to this
threat, and our law enforcement is standing tall when it comes to this
threat, but in Congress our message to these terrorists cannot be that
we are going to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. That
cannot be the message coming from the Senate of the United States of
America.
Rather than acting to protect my State from the threat, there are
people who are actively contemplating a shutdown of the Department of
Homeland Security--the Department we created after 9/11 to protect our
homeland, to protect our country from these kinds of terrorist threats.
This would mean--if it was to go forward and we weren't to fund it
this week--over 1,700 Department of Homeland Security employees in
Minnesota would be forced to work without pay or be furloughed,
including 472 Customs and Border Patrol personnel, 953 Transportation
Security Administration officers, 156 Immigration and Customs
Enforcement personnel, and 74 Federal Emergency Management Agency
personnel.
We need to act to fund Homeland Security. Think of the people in my
State who were going to spend a normal day going to the mall, waking up
to see that video. Think about the fact that I have to tell them there
are people messing around with this bill over extraneous provisions
that are now being battled out in court--and not on a bill that funds
our Homeland Security.
Now we also know terrorist organizations such as al-Shabaab and ISIS
are trying to recruit people in my State to take up arms and do harm to
Americans.
Why do we know that? The first American who was killed fighting for
ISIS in Syria was from Minnesota. His name was Douglas McAuthur McCain.
We also know our law enforcement, because they have worked so well with
our Somali community--we are so proud of that community. We have half
the Somalis in the Nation in the State of Minnesota.
They were able to work with our law enforcement over the last few
years. Twenty people were indicted. Twenty people were indicted for
helping al-Shabaab or trying to go over to fight on the terrorists'
side. We have already had nine convictions in Minnesota.
Those convictions would not have happened without this community.
This Muslim community basically said: We don't want our kids to go over
and be suicide bombers. We don't want our kids to go fight next to
ISIS.
That community has worked with law enforcement in Minnesota and they
will continue to work with law enforcement. We have already had four
people from the Twin Cities area who have been charged for crimes
relating to travel for the purpose of going to aid ISIS.
But it is not only our national security that the people in my State
see as at stake here. I know Senator Shaheen, who is on the floor, is
also from a border State and understands how important that work is as
we go up to our northern neighbor of Canada. This is 5,500 miles--the
longest border in the world. Over 400,000 people and nearly $2 billion
in goods and services cross our borders every day.
That is economically significant for my State. Canada is my State's
top international trading partner, with over $19 billion in total
business across the board. Over 1 million Canadians visit Minnesota
every year--by the way, many of them going to the Mall of America--
contributing $265 million to the local economy.
But that relationship relies on a seamless U.S.-Canadian border, with
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol keeping that border secure and
efficiently screening all cross-border traffic. We have made important
strides in recent years with trusted traveler programs to make our
northern border more secure, while encouraging the cross-border tourism
and commerce that is the lifeblood of my State. Withholding critical
funding from the Department of Homeland Security could threaten that
progress, leading to a less secure border and hindering economic
opportunity.
Without that critical funding, we risk security. Even a cursory look
at world headlines shows the threats the United States and our allies
face--from the terrorist attacks in Paris and Sydney to the cyber
attacks by North Korea. We need to be stepping up our security, not
stepping down our security.
So last night I spoke to a group of workers--about 500 Minnesotans--
who were honored in the city of Bloomington, MN, for the work they do
in the hospitality industry. These were desk clerks, these were pizza
delivery people, these were people who man our hotels and clean the
rooms when we have guests. Many of them work in that Mall of America,
and I told them I was coming back to Washington and that this Senate
would stand tall in the face of threats such as videos from al-Shabaab,
people who will not even show their faces but make a video to threaten
our country.
We have to show our faces. We have to stand tall. We now have a very
good reason--my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I implore
them, they have a good reason. This is in the courts now. It is being
battled in the courts. These extraneous measures should not be on this
bill and we should fund our Homeland Security. I want to go back and
tell those workers in Bloomington and in Minnesota that we have done
that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I applaud Senator Klobuchar for her
comments and for pointing out there are real threats that we heard this
weekend from al-Shabaab against the Mall of America. I heard a news
report this morning about that, and one of the things they have talked
about are the very good relations the State of Minnesota and Senator
Klobuchar have built with the Somali community.
But her remarks, just as those news reports, underscore the fact that
we have to address funding for the Department of Homeland Security. We
are just days away from a shutdown, a shutdown of the Department whose
mission it is to protect the citizens of this country while we are
under threat of attack by terrorist groups. That is reckless and it is
dangerous. What kind of message does it send to ISIS, to cyber
criminals, to drug cartels if Congress can't keep the Department of
Homeland Security open?
Because of the real and dangerous threats we face, we need to have
our counterterrorism, our intelligence, and our law enforcement
officials functioning at their highest level.
I met this morning with a group of law enforcement officials and
firefighters from the sea coast of New Hampshire, and they were talking
about how important the funding from the Department of Homeland
Security is to them as they do their jobs. They said two things that I
think are very important. First, they said they have been able to be
proactive about planning to address threats because of the Department
of Homeland Security, and second is they can share those resources. New
Hampshire, similar to Indiana, is a State with a lot of very small
communities, and we need to be able to share those resources if we are
going to be prepared for the threats.
It is time for us to put politics aside. We can debate immigration.
We can debate the President's Executive orders. I am pleased to do
that, but we should do it in another place. We should not be doing it
on the bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security.
I hope my colleagues will come together and support a clean funding
bill so we can make sure the resources are there to fight the threats
that we face.
Mr. NELSON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. SHAHEEN. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. NELSON. Would the Senator believe that if the Department of
Homeland Security is shut down that essential personnel will be
required to work,
[[Page S1027]]
but essential personnel--the following--will not be paid? For the first
time people engaged in the war--namely, the U.S. Coast Guard that is in
fact involved in the Middle East in the war, along with the services
from the Department of Defense--for the first time in the history of
this country they will be essential to continue work but will not be
paid.
Would the Senator believe that in addition, Customs and Border Patrol
personnel who are essential, as well as TSA, which is essential, will
continue to work but without pay and that is what will happen this
Friday if we do not fund the Department of Homeland Security?
Mrs. SHAHEEN. My colleague makes a very important point. I visited
the Coast Guard station in Portsmouth, NH, on Friday and heard about
their drug interdiction efforts and their search and rescue efforts. As
the Senator points out, they--similar to so many other Homeland
Security employees--will not be paid. We should not let that happen.
That is not conducive to making sure we protect this country.
I thank my colleague from Florida.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow my esteemed
colleagues from the State of Florida and the State of New Hampshire in
discussing the legislation before this body. I worked with the Senator
from New Hampshire on the Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee, and we are working to fund Homeland Security. That is
what this bill does. The bill we are trying to proceed to fully funds
Homeland Security.
My question is, How do we finish a bill if we can't start? All we are
asking for is to proceed to a bill that fully funds the Department of
Homeland Security. So I have been listening to my colleagues talk about
the need to fund Homeland Security and that is exactly what this bill
does--fully funds the bill.
Now I understand they want to make changes to the bill, but again I
ask the question how do they make changes to a bill if they are not
willing to proceed to the bill, get on the bill, debate the bill, and
offer their amendments?
So that is where we find ourselves and that is why it is so important
that we proceed to this DHS funding bill. This is a bill that has
passed the House.
At the end of the day, both Houses of Congress have to pass the bill.
We can't just pass it in the Senate and they can't just pass it in the
House. The House has passed this bill.
Now we need to take it up. We need to have the debate, we need to
offer amendments, have votes on those amendments, and pass the bill--
pass the bill that fully funds DHS. Again, I emphasize, this bill fully
funds the Department of Homeland Security.
We are ready to legislate. We are willing to go back and forth on
amendments, one Democratic amendment for every Republican amendment,
but when that was offered last week on this floor by the majority
leader, it was rejected by the other side of the aisle.
This leads me to believe that what my Democratic colleagues are
asking for is that the only DHS funding legislation the Senate consider
is legislation endorsed by the President. Moreover, they don't seem to
be interested in amendments, in allowing the Senators and those
Americans--whom we represent--to have a voice in this process.
My colleagues know that is not how the Senate works. When our
Founders sought to build a government of checks and balances, with a
strong legislative branch and mechanisms to prevent the Executive, the
President, from imposing his or her will on the rest of government, I
doubt this is what they had in mind; that we simply rubberstamp what
the President wants.
Today's cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the DHS
appropriations bill offers all Senators a choice. We have a choice
today. Senators can choose to legislate a solution to this DHS funding
impasse to prevent a DHS shutdown or they can choose to defend the
President's Executive action.
That is exactly what is going on. As Senators we must be willing to
engage with one another to pass a bill. We must be willing to engage,
to debate, and to vote on amendments.
Often there are many sides to an issue. In fact, sometimes it feels
as though there are 100 different perspectives, and of course there
are. But the ability to merge our diverse viewpoints into legislation,
that is the strength of the Senate. That is the only way, short of one
party possessing 60 votes, the Senate can function. Many of our friends
on the other side of the aisle are asking this body to rubberstamp the
President's approach, but the Senate was not intended to be a
rubberstamp. We must be willing to take that first step toward funding
DHS together, and that first step is proceeding to a bill. In order to
consider amendments and develop consensus, we simply must be able to
move to the legislation and consider it on the floor today.
Let me remind my colleagues why this funding is so vital.
The Department is responsible for so many essential security
programs. I think it is important that we take a few minutes to talk
about the funding that is in this bill, full funding for the Department
of Homeland Security.
This bill provides $10.7 billion for Customs and Border Protection,
CBP, including record levels of personnel, tactical infrastructure,
technology, and air and marine assets. It provides $5.96 billion for
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, and maintains a record 34,000
adult detention beds and 3,828 family detention beds.
This bill strongly supports the vital missions of the Secret Service
and provides for our cyber security efforts. The bill provides more
than $10 billion for the Coast Guard for its many missions, including
search and rescue.
Since Homeland Security is a national effort, the bill continues
critical funding for grant programs to State and local firefighters,
emergency managers, and law enforcement. The bill also provides for
research and development, TSA's aviation security screening operations,
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and E-Verify, which
supports businesses across the United States in hiring legal workers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute to
complete my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Hearing none, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOEVEN. This bill does not fund the President's Executive
actions--and rightly so.
Since we haven't had regular order in this Chamber in years, it seems
there may be some reluctance to allow the Senate to work as it is
designed to do: to proceed to legislation so that we, as a legislative
body, can engage in a healthy debate. It is time the Senate proceed to
the DHS appropriations bill without further delay. I urge my colleagues
to vote to proceed to H.R. 240, the DHS appropriations bill.
With that, I yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk (John Merlino) 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, John Cornyn, 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator
[[Page S1028]]
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk),
the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
Sullivan), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Heinrich) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Michigan (Mr. Peters) would have voted ``no.''
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 57 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Lankford
Lee
McCain
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
NAYS--46
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--7
Graham
Heinrich
Kirk
Peters
Rubio
Sullivan
Vitter
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are
46.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today Democrats voted to continue
blocking funding for the Department of Homeland Security to protect
actions President Obama himself referred to as ``ignoring the law.''
The vote came after a Federal judge enjoined the administration from
moving ahead with that overreach. I was certainly glad to see that
court decision. The issue will continue winding its way through our
courts. In the meantime, Congress is trying to do what it can. Yet even
Democrats who had previously been critical of the President ``ignoring
the law'' voted again today to defend his overreach.
My preference is still to debate and pass the funding legislation
that is currently before us. It has already passed the House. It is the
simplest and easiest way forward. If Democrats think it needs to be
amended, I am sure they will try to do that, but first we need to bring
it to the floor. As long as Democrats continue to prevent us from even
doing that, the new bill I described offers another option we can turn
to. It is another way to get the Senate unstuck from a Democratic
filibuster and move the debate forward.
____________________