[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.

                          ____________________