[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2367-2369]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              IMMIGRATION

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, last week, U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement--also known as ICE--initiated a precipitous action to 
reduce the population of the illegal immigrants detained by the U.S. 
Government for, they said, ``budgetary reasons.''
  Let me quote ICE spokesperson Gillian Christensen, who stated, ``As 
fiscal uncertainty remains over the continuing resolution and the 
possible sequestration, ICE has reviewed its detained population to 
ensure detention levels stay within ICE's current budget.'' So the 
result was a release of a significant number of detained illegal 
immigrants and blaming it on the sequester's imminent budget cuts last 
week, when it appears ICE mismanaged its resources.
  That is unacceptable. This was an unnecessary action. It has the 
potential to put communities at risk. It is ineffective, inefficient, 
and irresponsible government.
  Let's be clear about something else that ICE points to as a reason 
for this action, ``fiscal uncertainty.'' Fiscal uncertainty is what has 
defined our economy over the past 4 years because this

[[Page 2368]]

government cannot get its act together. This government has failed to 
define for the American people, whether it is business men or women or 
whether it is homeowners, or anyone else in this country who is looking 
to Washington to get its act together, what the future will look like. 
Then decisions can be made as to how to adapt to necessary changes or 
modifications given our dismal fiscal situation, plunging into debt at 
record rates, borrowing 40 cents of every dollar. It is unsustainable. 
But instead of providing a clear path forward on how we will address 
this, we continue to lurch from cliff to cliff, fiscal calamity to 
fiscal calamity. It is freezing everything in place. The economy is 
suffering for it, and more than the economy, Americans are suffering 
for it. The 23 million Americans who are either unemployed or 
underemployed are suffering greatly.
  Sadly, this uncertainty and the budget constraints we face should not 
catch any department or agency by surprise. This is not good 
government, but it is the Washington way under this administration and 
the current Democrat-led Senate. The Department of Homeland Security 
and ICE have known since September 28, 2012 exactly what level of 
resources were available for ICE under the current continuing 
resolution.
  For those who do not understand the jargon that comes out of this 
place, ``continuing resolution'' means a stopgap measure that Congress 
put in place last September in order to fund this government at the 
current levels. That expires March 27. We likely will do it again for 
the second 6 months of the year, instead of putting a budget together, 
instead of putting together something that would give the American 
people certainty as to how much money we are going to spend, and what 
effect it would have on the economy.
  Anyway, ICE has known their spending level since September 28, as has 
every agency. So they had plenty of notice. Why then would ICE release 
detained illegal immigrants a week before the sequestration even took 
place? Why did they not take proper steps necessary during the 6 months 
time they had to evaluate this and manage their resources in a way that 
would not require that someone make the decision to release hundreds if 
not thousands of illegal immigrants?
  In an effort to sort out the facts, I have requested Secretary 
Napolitano provide in writing more information and answer several 
questions regarding the release of those individuals from detention. 
Question No. 1: What triggered the ICE instruction to the field to 
reduce the detainee population by this date?
  Secondly, what is the total number of detainees released between 
February 22, 2013, and February 25--a 3-day period of time? How many 
were released? These numbers have been all over the lot, from the low 
hundreds to well into the thousands. We need to know how many illegal 
immigrants were released in the United States and under what conditions 
that decision was made.
  We need to know how many of these detainees were released solely due 
to so-called ``budgetary'' reasons. How many of the released detainees 
were designated as criminals? If additional funding can be found first 
within ICE or DHS for custody operations, will these released 
individuals be returned to detention, and how will they be rounded up 
and how will they be found?
  We know that not all law enforcement authorities were notified of 
this in Arizona. It is unlikely to think that we know where all of 
those individuals are at this time. I do not think they are going to 
come back and voluntarily line up and say: Oh, I am back; I knew I 
should not have been released.
  Have instructions been given to field offices to reduce the intake 
and arrest of illegal aliens into detention?
  Furthermore, I want to know if the Secretary agrees with the decision 
to release these individuals. If not, what is being done to modify this 
action so it does not take place in the future?
  I am also concerned that the administration has not taken 
accountability for this action. Secretary Napolitano distanced herself 
from the press by saying, ``Detainee populations and how that is 
managed back and forth is really handled by career officials in the 
field.'' Well, that may be the case, but that is not an appropriate 
response.
  Is anyone in this current government willing to take responsibility 
and say, the buck stops here? I am assigned to this position and 
therefore I take responsibility for what happens underneath my 
position? This constantly, ``well, we didn't know about that,'' or 
``that is somebody else's obligation,'' or ``really, do you expect us 
to be on top of that''--yes. That is why you are CEO for a company. 
That is why you get paid more than anybody else. That is why you were 
selected as Secretary of a department or the head of an agency, to take 
responsibility for what happens underneath you.
  I was also struck by the Secretary's comments at an event hosted by 
Politico yesterday where she talked about the challenges DHS faces 
because there is not the opportunity to shift money around.
  I agree with that. Republicans agree with that.
  On this floor, just last Thursday, Republicans put forward a proposal 
to allow agencies to do just that after weeks and months of moaning and 
groaning by this administration and by its various agency heads about 
how this sequestration has made the situation much worse. It is stupid. 
It is a terrible way to do things. I agree, by the way.
  However, we need to be able to have the flexibility to move the money 
from less efficient--or not needed at this time--to the essentials. We 
wouldn't need to put out statements such as: Arrive at the airport 4 
hours early because we need to cut the TSA agents at the same level as 
the least function of this particular government.
  We put that proposal before us. The President, who has been begging 
for this, simply said: No, we are not going to do it. It was a quick 
change of mind. I think it destroyed his political narrative. This 
proposal was before this Senate body last week to give those agencies 
the flexibility to take from one pot that wasn't needed as much--or 
take from areas that are efficient--and put it toward traffic 
controllers, transportation security officials, FDA, Department of 
Agriculture meat inspectors, wherever the priorities lie. To complain 
about not having flexibility when your own President rejected the 
proposal given by Republicans to allow that to happen, it just boggles 
my mind.
  As I have said many times before over the past 2 years when the 
various department heads come before the Appropriations Committee: Do 
you have an alternative plan? Do you have a plan in the event the money 
doesn't continue to flow in from the taxpayer at a rate which allows 
you every year to increase, increase, increase, your spending? We are 
running out of money. Wouldn't it be wise to look at how you could run 
your department more effectively and efficiently as States have had to 
do, cities had to do, businesses had to do, families had to do? They 
need to make those decisions about separating the essential from the 
``would like to do but can't afford to do it right now.'' We need to 
eliminate the items and programs that never should have been funded in 
the first place or the programs that used to work, but are not a high 
priority any longer. Manage your department in a way that you can 
become more effective, do more with less.
  To date, all the answers that have come back are, no, this is what 
the administration wants. This is what we are going to do. We are going 
to ask for an increase next year, and we are going to tell the American 
people we need to raise their taxes in order to pay for it or we are 
going to continue to borrow and go deeper and deeper into debt. It is a 
terrible way to run any organization, whether it is a Little League 
organization, a business or even the Federal Government of the United 
States. No agency can assert with any credibility that it cannot 
perform its stated mission if it is asked to join the rest of Americans 
in reducing its budget and making modest cuts. The irony is that the 
more Congress and the President delay action on a bold long-term fiscal 
plan with credible spending reforms,

[[Page 2369]]

the more all other programs, agencies, and departments will need to cut 
back and do more with less.
  We are simply pushing the problem down the road for another day. Each 
time we push it down the road with short-term fixes or no fixes at all 
and don't address the real problems, we are making it ever harder and 
will be forced to do it in a more Draconian way.
  If the Cabinet Secretaries want more flexibility with their budgets, 
I urge them to encourage the President to lead and reform the main 
problem and to address the main drivers of our spending, which is the 
runaway mandatory spending that is eating everybody's lunch. Whether 
you are for paving more roads, fixing more bridges, funding more 
medical research or whether you want more money to go into education or 
any other function of government, if you can't address the big donkey 
or elephant in the room, which is the mandatory runaway spending, there 
is not going to be enough funds for any other priorities. We have all 
known that year after year after year.
  Without leadership from the top this cannot happen. It has been tried 
many times, sometimes with bipartisan efforts, all shot down because we 
don't have leadership from the White House and from the President of 
the United States. He is the chief CEO of this country and he needs to 
manage resources in a more effective way.
  Only when we do that will we be able to avoid these constant budget 
showdowns and short-term stopgap measures which don't solve the 
problem.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Morning business is closed.

                          ____________________