[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1607-1613]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader has 
stated that it is possible within the procedures of this Senate to pass 
a homeland security bill, as negotiated by our Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs--and I see the able head of the 
subcommittee here on the floor, the Senator from New Hampshire--and 
then move to immigration and bring it to the floor. So all of his 
arguments that we are afraid to debate immigration, that we don't want 
to debate immigration are false.
  There is not one choice, there are two. One is to debate immigration 
fully and openly. The other is to a play a game of hostage, to say: We 
are kidnapping Homeland Security, and now let's have a debate on how 
much the ransom should be.
  No one in America wants us to legislate that way. I know my 
colleagues in the Senate didn't do that. It was the House that did it, 
led by thinking by the junior Senator from Texas. His view, as I have 
heard him say, is that what the President did on immigration is so 
awful that we should shut down the Department of Homeland Security as a 
way of forcing the President to go along with what the junior Senator 
from Texas wants.
  When are our colleagues on the other side of the aisle going to 
learn? They followed Senator Cruz a year and a half ago when he wanted 
to shut down the government over ObamaCare. They actually did shut down 
the government for a few weeks and were so widely excoriated by just 
about all Americans that they backed off. But they haven't learned. 
They are following the junior Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz, into a cul-
de-sac at best and over a cliff at worst.
  We are happy to debate homeland security but not with a gun to our 
head

[[Page 1608]]

or the President's head; not to say: If you don't do it my way, I am 
going to shut down the government. The vast majority of Americans--
Democratic, Independent, Republican, North, East, South, West--don't 
believe that is how we should legislate. I am surprised--I am almost 
shocked, with some of the wisdom we have in the leadership of this 
body, that they are allowing that to happen. We will not. We have the 
ability to block it, and block it we will. We will not play hostage. We 
will not risk shutting down Homeland Security--as I am sure my 
colleague from New Hampshire will talk about--a vital Department. We 
will not let their being upset with DREAM kids jeopardize our safety 
with ISIS. We will not let that happen.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to pass the bill 
that has already been put on the floor--a clean Homeland Security 
bill--then they may decide to put immigration on the floor, and we will 
be happy, happy, happy to debate it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I have to say that I am a little 
confused about what is happening right now. The Republican Party is in 
charge--totally in charge of Congress. I am sure Speaker Boehner's and 
Majority Leader McConnell's staffs talk on a daily basis. I am sure 
they are talking, coordinating, and realizing the Republican Party now 
has the responsibility of showing this country they can run Congress.
  So what do we do right out of the gate? We threaten to shut down the 
Department of our government that protects our homeland while ISIS is 
burning prisoners alive on film? The irony of this is Republicans are 
in charge. All they have to do is present a clean funding bill for 
Homeland Security, and the very next day take up immigration reform and 
debate it. But they are trying to play a political trick and trying to 
make it look as if somehow their disagreement with the President on 
immigration trumps the protection of our country and that somehow we 
will all go along with that.
  Speaker Boehner mentioned me. My friend and my colleague from Texas 
just mentioned me. Yes, I said it. I am uncomfortable with the 
President issuing Executive orders such as this--no matter what party 
it is, no matter who the President is. But what I said when I made that 
statement is--I pivoted, and I said: Do you know how we prevent that 
from happening? We have a House of Representatives that is willing to 
take up and debate immigration reform. This body passed a bipartisan 
immigration reform bill by a wide margin. It wasn't even a squeaker. 
Many of my Republican colleagues voted for it, understanding this is a 
public policy area in our country that needs to be addressed.
  We can't make it a political punching bag on either side. My party 
can't say: We are for the immigrants; we get their votes. And the 
Republican Party can't say: Well, we are for the tea party, and we are 
against all immigrants. We need to come together and do public policy 
in a system that is broken. The bill we passed here was amazing in 
terms of border security. But Speaker Boehner wouldn't take it up for 
more than 18 months. Speaker Boehner wouldn't even allow it to be 
debated on the floor of the House.
  Now the Republicans are in charge. Do they take up immigration 
reform? Do they have a proposal? By the way, that is the way you get 
rid of the President's Executive order; that is, we do our jobs. We do 
our job. It is a little bit like ``replace'' for health care. I have 
heard repeal and replace for 4 years. Has anybody seen replace? Has it 
been identified anywhere? If it is out there, I would love to see it. 
It has been talked about a lot. The same thing for immigration. If you 
don't like what the President has done, then put up a bill and let's 
debate it.
  By the way, the Republicans have the power to do that immediately 
after we fund Homeland Security. We don't have to talk about anything 
else. We can stay on immigration reform and pound out a compromise and 
public policy that won't please everyone but will do exactly what the 
American people want us to do, and that is find a compromise that 
works.
  As countries around the world have united in their opposition to ISIS 
and the barbarians who are participating in ISIS activities, as all of 
our allies and some who haven't traditionally been our allies are 
beefing up their cyber security, their border security, beefing up 
their homeland security, their airport security, adding more resources, 
what are we doing in America? Talk about a mixed signal--we are 
threatening to shut ours down. We are threatening to shut ours down to 
score political points.
  I know there would be tough votes on immigration reform when we 
debate it, for me in my State and for many in their States. We had 
those tough votes last year and the year before. We pounded out a bill 
that nobody loved, but it was pretty good. It made sure, by the way, 
that people who had broken the rules went to the back of the line. If 
you want people who break the rules to go to the back of the line, then 
let's get busy on immigration reform. But this is exactly the nonsense 
that frustrates Americans--threatening to shut down a vital part of 
protecting our country in the name of politics.
  The notion that the senior Senator from Texas, the assistant majority 
floor leader, just said--that we were denying a debate--is absurd on 
its face. We debate whatever the Republican Party wants us to debate 
now. They are in charge. So step up, fund Homeland Security, and move 
on to an immigration debate. You will find a lot of willing partners 
trying to find a way forward but not with this gamesmanship. It is not 
going to happen. It isn't going to happen because homeland security is 
too important, especially at this moment in our history.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator of New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks from the 
Senators from Missouri and New York because I think they reflect my 
sentiments as well. The senior Senator from Texas suggested that we 
don't want to debate immigration. We are happy to debate immigration. 
In fact, I would love to debate immigration reform with our colleagues. 
But the bill before us is not about immigration reform. It is about 
whether we are going to fund the Department of Homeland Security. The 
fact is many of the issues the senior Senator from Texas raised about 
immigration were addressed in the comprehensive immigration reform bill 
this body passed in 2013. I am happy to go back to that debate, but 
that debate should not come in place of our willingness to fund 
national security and the Department of Homeland Security. That is the 
issue that is before us today, and we should not hold up our 
willingness to fund the Department because there are certain Members of 
the Republican Party in the House and Senate who want to talk about the 
President's Executive action. This bill is not about that. It is about 
whether we are going to fund the Department of Homeland Security.
  I thought it might be instructive to point out some of the changes 
Congress has made which are included in this bill and which actually 
strengthen border security, since that is one of the concerns that has 
been raised. Over the past 10 years, Congress has gone to extraordinary 
lengths to secure our borders against the threat of smugglers, of human 
traffickers, and of illegal immigrants.
  Since 2005 the combined budgets for Customs and Border Protection and 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement have grown by an astounding 97 
percent--97 percent--from about $8.5 billion in 2005 to more than $16.7 
billion today.
  In fact, the combined budgets for these two border security agencies 
now account for more than 42 percent of the entire discretionary 
appropriations of the Department of Homeland Security. But Congress 
just hasn't thrown money at the problem. We have made wise investments 
to ensure our borders are more secure than they have ever been.
  Since 2011 Congress has steadily maintained 21,370 Border Patrol 
agents.

[[Page 1609]]

That more than doubles the size of this force since 2001. Over the past 
2 years Congress has added 2,000 Customs officers to help stop the flow 
of illegal drugs and prevent human trafficking while still facilitating 
legitimate trade.
  I have been to the San Ysidro border crossing in San Diego. I have 
seen the advanced technologies that have been implemented to make sure 
that legitimate trade can get across the border yet stop those people 
who are coming illegally.
  Congress has deployed enhanced border security technology, including 
integrated fixed towers, remote and mobile video surveillance systems, 
tethered aerostats, and other technology to secure our southern border.
  We have also funded the construction of 652 miles of vehicle and 
pedestrian fencing at critical locations determined by the Border 
Patrol agents on the ground. The Department's ability to detect illegal 
border traffic has grown substantially due to simultaneous investments 
in airborne assets, including Blackhawk helicopters, multirole 
enforcement aircraft, and surveillance planes critical in the war 
against drugs, as well as nine unmanned, unarmed Predator aerial 
systems.
  Since 2011 Congress has provided more than $721 million above the 
President's request for these important airborne assets that strengthen 
our border security. In the bipartisan full-year budget that Senator 
Mikulski and Congressman Rogers negotiated last December--the same bill 
that Senator Mikulski and I have introduced in this session of the 
Senate--we included those critical investments made to continue those 
efforts to secure the border. These investments will not occur or they 
are going to be delayed if we have a short-term budget, if we continue 
with a continuing resolution and, heaven forbid, if we shut down the 
Department of Homeland Security, which some of the Members of this body 
and the House have suggested is not a problem for us to do.
  The clean bill includes a $119 million increase for Customs and 
Border Protection. This is the funding level that supports the largest 
operational force levels in history--21,370 Border Patrol agents and 
23,775 CBP officers. The agreement restores funding cuts to CBP's 
Office of Air and Marine proposed by the administration. That enables 
them to fly more patrols along the border and to continue purchasing 
critical assets.
  The clean bill also increases funding for the border security, 
fencing, infrastructure, and technology account by $20 million to 
provide additional video surveillance systems and adapt surplus Defense 
Department equipment for border security purposes.
  For Customs and Border Protection, a short-term budget also means 
that pending contracts for border security upgrades are going to be put 
on hold. When I met last week with CBP Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske, he 
told me that $90 million in contracts for mobile and remote video 
surveillance technology--the very technology that is going to help us 
keep illegal aliens from coming across the border--is going to be put 
on hold due to funding uncertainty.
  A clean, full-year budget bill provides an increase of $700 million 
for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency responsible for 
apprehending and detaining undocumented immigrants in this country. If 
we don't pass on full-year bill, ICE will have insufficient resources 
to maintain a statutorily mandated level of 34,000 detention beds for 
detaining illegal immigrants, the vast majority of which are criminals. 
They are going to fall over 4,000 beds short of that mandated level 
under a continuing resolution. Furthermore, they will have no funding 
to complete construction and continue operating new family detention 
facilities in Texas.
  Now, 3,000 family detention beds are supposed to be completed in 
Texas to deal with the surge of unaccompanied children and families to 
the southwest border. The very people who are complaining about border 
security, who are complaining about illegal immigrants coming into this 
country are opposing the funding that would address that border 
security. It makes no sense.
  The bill also increases ICE's capability to engage in domestic and 
international investigations with a $67 million increase for antihuman 
smuggling and traffic activities, to combat cyber crime, to combat drug 
smuggling, and to expand visa vetting capabilities. With a short-term 
budget, a continuing resolution, these additional investments will not 
be made. We should not be holding up this funding bill for the 
Department of Homeland Security with critical border protections in it 
because we have a few Members of the House and Senate who want to make 
this an ideological battle about the President's Executive action. 
Let's have that immigration debate, but this is not the place to do it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Shaheen for her 
leadership on the Homeland Security bill. She has taken that over this 
year and learned it, knows the ins and outs of it. She is someone who 
truly cares about being fiscally responsible. She just recently pointed 
out to our caucus that if we pass the House bill with all of the riders 
in it, it would cost $7.5 billion more and put us $7.5 billion more 
into debt, which I do not think is a fiscally responsible move. So we 
should be taking a very hard look at these riders as they come through 
from the House.
  I have come to the floor to talk about how important it is for us to 
pass a clean appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland 
Security. I wish to talk about how failing to pass a bill will impact 
the southern border, impact my State of New Mexico, where DHS plays a 
vital role in security, in business, and in people's daily lives. The 
men and women at DHS make sure commerce is conducted smoothly across 
our border with Mexico. They make sure workers can get back and forth. 
They inspect shipments coming into the country, and they protect our 
communities from drug smugglers and crime.
  It is inconceivable to me that Republicans would threaten to stop 
funding this agency over a policy dispute with the President. I have 
heard Republican leaders say the era of shutdowns was over, but here we 
are again, rapidly approaching the date when DHS funding expires. We 
need an appropriations bill that does not disrupt this important work.
  I talk to New Mexicans who live in the border communities. I talk to 
ranchers and farmers in my State. Border security is not theoretical. 
It is not a political game. It is crucial to safety. It is crucial to 
trade at our ports of entry, such as Santa Teresa and Columbus. In New 
Mexico a shutdown of DHS is a threat to our security, to jobs, and to 
our economy.
  I have read some reports where congressional Republicans have said on 
the record that a delay in funding DHS would not be a big deal. They 
say most of the Department's employees are considered essential so they 
would still be working at our borders and screening airline passengers. 
That may be true, but those employees would not get paid. I am not 
willing to tell our Border Patrol agents and TSA officers with families 
to feed that they still need to go to work, but they are not going to 
get paid because Washington cannot get its act together.
  I know my constituents would feel a lot more secure in border 
communities if the Border Patrol officers were getting paid rather than 
worrying about their mortgages, their car payments, tuition payments, 
and other household expenses. Despite the Republican claims that DHS 
will not actually shut down, there would be significant consequences if 
Congress failed to fund DHS.
  Consider what would happen to the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
Center, FLETC as they are called out in New Mexico. FLETC serves as the 
law enforcement training academy for 96 Federal agencies. FLETC in 
Artesia, NM, trains all of our Border Patrol agents and Bureau of 
Indian Affairs police officers.
  If we fail to fund DHS, FLETC training grinds to a halt. This will 
impact every Federal agency whose law enforcement officers must 
complete basic

[[Page 1610]]

training before they can be deployed in their posts of duty. A delay in 
training impacts securing the Nation's borders, aviation security, 
protecting our Nation's leaders and diplomats, securing Federal 
buildings, and other countless Federal law enforcement activities.
  The economic impact is huge. Over 3,000 students, 350 of them in 
Artesia, NM, are expected to be in training at the end of February. If 
DHS is not funded, they have to go back home. This will cost about $2.4 
million in airfare to send students back to their agencies, and then 
turn around and fly them back to FLETC when Congress does its job and 
funds DHS.
  Regardless of your views on immigration policy, wasting law 
enforcement's time and taxpayer money does not improve our security. 
Artesia is not a big city. Its economy relies on FLETC. The students 
spend their money at local businesses. Many residents are contract 
employees at the facility. If FLETC closes, it has a real impact in our 
community.
  As a New Mexican, I am appalled that a DHS shutdown is even being 
considered. We cannot risk our national security, our community safety, 
and our border commerce just so Republicans can prove some sort of 
inside-the-beltway point about how angry they are about immigration 
reform. The House Republican bill threatens to deport millions of 
people who have been living and working and going to school in our 
country for many years. The Senate should choose a different route: Put 
a clean bill on the floor, allow an open amendment debate, and enact a 
bill the President can sign before any shutdown occurs.
  Few States understand the importance of comprehensive immigration 
reform as New Mexico does. We need a system that secures our borders, 
strengthens families, and supports our economy. In fact, we almost had 
just that. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill in the last Congress, 
but House Republicans let it die--would not even take it up, would not 
put it on the floor.
  That bill was not perfect. It did not satisfy everyone in every case, 
but that is what compromise means. That is what a bipartisan effort 
requires. Due to the House's failure to act on immigration reform, over 
400,000 people in my State live in immigration limbo, all the while 
they work and raise families. Deporting these children and families is 
not a realistic option. We need to focus limited resources, as the 
President has done, on securing the border. We need to go after drug 
dealers and gang members and potential terrorists.
  I and so many other New Mexicans are appalled that Republicans want 
to take out their anger on the DREAMers. They will not commit to real 
reform, but they will commit to chasing down children--innocent 
children--brought to this country by their parents. These are inspiring 
young people in my State, when I talk about these young DREAMers. They 
have worked hard. They have persevered. They know and love this country 
as their own.
  They are young leaders such as Mabel Arellanes. Mabel came to Santa 
Fe with her mother from Mexico when she was just 6 years old. Mabel 
graduated from Capital High School. Her dream was to go to college, but 
her immigration status made that impossible. From the age of 15, Mabel 
worked to help other DREAMers. She helped pass the New Mexico DREAM 
Act. Mabel eventually did get to college and graduated from the 
University of New Mexico with honors. She is in her second year of law 
school now.
  Another one of the DREAMers--this is Alejandro Rivera. Another 
DREAMer, he moved to Belen, NM, when he was 7 years old. After high 
school, Alejandro enrolled at the University of New Mexico. 
Undocumented, he could not get financial aid. He and his mother worked 
hard to pay tuition. Alejandro also volunteered to help other young 
people get an education and to follow their dreams. He is at work now 
on his Ph.D. in education. We may disagree on the specifics of 
immigration reform, but these DREAMers have earned our admiration. They 
should not be pushed back into the shadows by the House deportation 
bill.
  The men and women who work to keep us safe, who screen more than 1 
million people a day through our ports of entry, who patrol our borders 
and help secure our communities should not be a bargaining chip. In New 
Mexico we believe homeland security should be a priority, not a talking 
point. Secretary Johnson at DHS has been very clear. Key security 
initiatives are left waiting. His predecessors have also been very 
clear. Last week all three former DHS Secretaries, two of whom are 
Republican, sent a letter to the Senate leadership urging them to pass 
a clean funding bill.
  We live in a very dangerous world. We face terrorist threats at home 
and abroad. Recent events make that very clear. Now is not the time to 
play politics with homeland security. In fact, there never is a right 
time for that. The American people are watching. The people of my State 
are watching. They are watching these games. What they see is a lot of 
sound and fury that leads nowhere. What they want is a government that 
works.
  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. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to discuss a matter of 
utmost importance: the Department of Homeland Security funding bill, 
H.R. 240.
  We live in a world of extraordinary threats. Around the world, 
terrorists continue to devise ways to harm Americans and our interests. 
In Pakistan and Afghanistan, we see a resurgent Al Qaeda, which 
continues to plot attacks from increasingly ungoverned safe havens. 
Throughout the broader Middle East, we see Al Qaeda's affiliate 
groups--from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to al-Shabaab--posing 
sophisticated new threats. In Iraq and Syria, we see the self-
proclaimed Islamic State controlling vast swaths of territory, shocking 
the world with its brutality, and announcing its deadly serious intent 
to kill Americans. Within Western societies, we see the potential for 
radicalization at home, the danger of which has been made manifest in 
the attacks on Ottawa, Sydney, and Paris. Inside the United States, the 
Department of Homeland Security serves as our critical line of defense 
against many of these threats at critical points--from our borders, to 
our airports, to our coasts and our ports.
  In the realm of cyber space, criminals, terrorists, and other 
nations' governments present sophisticated threats on a variety of 
fronts. Defending against these many serious threats requires efforts 
that range from securing critical infrastructure to guarding against 
the sort of espionage and blackmail that Sony recently experienced. 
These are enormously difficult tasks, especially in an ever-changing, 
high-tech operating environment. As the agency charged with protecting 
civilian networks and coordinating on cyber defense issues with the 
private sector, the Department of Homeland Security stands at the 
crossroads of our Nation's defense against this next generation of 
threats.
  When the dangers we face are natural rather than manmade, the 
Department plays no less of a critical role. From hurricanes and 
tornadoes to volcanos and forest fires, the Department's component 
agencies, such as FEMA and the Coast Guard, play a critical role in the 
preservation of lives and property.
  The House-passed bill provides the Department with nearly $40 billion 
in funding--a level consistent with the Budget Control Act's spending 
limits. That money will not only fund the critical programs I have 
mentioned so far, but will also provide critical improvements on a wide 
range of fronts, including more border control agents, new ICE 
detention facilities, increased funding for E-Verify, more effective 
security screening at our airports, improved Secret Service protection, 
increased support for cyber defense, and important disaster relief.
  These provisions all enjoy broad bipartisan support, and I commend my

[[Page 1611]]

colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their hard work on this 
package. But this work has been complicated by a troubling development: 
some of my colleagues--almost all of them Democrats--actively seeking 
to block consideration of this vitally important funding. Why? Only 
because they seek to protect a President of their own party who has 
acted lawlessly and overstepped proper constitutional bounds. Instead 
of following the examples of great Senators of the past who stood up to 
Presidents of their own party on behalf of the Constitution and the 
rule of law, today we have witnessed far too many Senators instead 
shamefully toeing the party line.
  Our Nation's Founders knew, in the sage words of Montesquieu, that 
``in all tyrannical governments . . . the right both of making and 
enforcing the laws is vested in one and the same man . . . and wherever 
these two powers are united together, there can be no public liberty.'' 
For this reason, when drafting the Constitution, the Framers divided 
power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and 
between the Federal Government and the States.
  Despite these constitutional foundations, President Obama has decided 
that he ``won't take no for an answer'' when Congress refuses to go 
along with his agenda. In direct opposition to our centuries-old system 
of legislation and to the binding authority of the Constitution, the 
President has audaciously declared that ``when Congress won't act, I 
will.'' And he has followed up these threats with a variety of 
unilateral Executive actions, many of which are flatly inconsistent 
with the law and the Constitution.
  Over the past weeks and months, I have come to the Senate floor to 
speak out about a series of specific instances that exemplified the 
brazen lawlessness of this administration. This pervasive and 
illegitimate overreach has come in many different forms.
  With his recent move on immigration, President Obama seeks not only 
to prevent enforcement proceedings against millions of people 
unlawfully present in this country, but also to license their unlawful 
presence with affirmative work permits. In doing so, he not only 
ignores the duly-enacted laws of the land but also seeks to 
unilaterally replace them with his own contradicting policies.
  The President and his allies in this Chamber want nothing more than 
to turn this into a debate about immigration policy, but that is not 
what this debate is about. Immigration is a complex and divisive issue, 
and Americans hold a wide variety of views on the matter that don't 
always divide neatly along partisan lines. Many conservatives--myself 
included--share some of the same policy goals as President Obama. 
Instead, this is a debate about loyalty. As Senators, where do our 
loyalties lie? Do we owe our loyalties first to the Constitution, to 
the protection of the American people, and to the goal of lawful and 
lasting immigration reform, or do we owe our loyalty, out of reflexive 
partisanship, to a President bent on dangerous unilateralism?
  President Obama's Executive action is a direct affront to our system 
of republican self-government. The Constitution vests legislative 
authority with the Congress, not the President alone. Instead, the 
President is charged with the duty to ``take care that the laws be 
faithfully executed.'' This is not a suggestion or an invitation for 
the President to enforce the law; it is an obligation for him to do so.
  The President and his executive branch exercise prosecutorial 
discretion--the discretion to choose not to prosecute certain cases. 
But that power stems from considerations of fairness and equity in 
particular cases. Instead of requiring individualized determinations 
based on individuals' specific situations, the President's latest 
action sweeps up millions of people based on only a few broad, widely 
shared criteria.
  An administration, of course, cannot prosecute when there are not 
sufficient resources to do so. But the Obama administration has never 
explained how these Executive actions will save money. In fact, the 
administration's own policy advisers have acknowledged that a work-
permitting program will be expensive and will actually take away 
resources from law enforcement.
  While no one disagrees that capturing and removing violent criminals 
should be our highest immigration priority, President Obama has gone 
much further and made current immigration law essentially a dead letter 
for millions of illegal immigrants.
  Despite the administration's claim to the contrary, President Obama's 
action is not comparable to the Executive actions taken by President 
Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush. Even the Washington Post 
editorial board found that claim by the White House to be 
``indefensible.'' Presidents Reagan and Bush simply implemented the 
enforcement priorities established in laws that Congress actually 
passed. By contrast, President Obama sought to change the law before 
Congress has acted, so he cannot rely on Congress's authority to 
enforce the policy he prefers. Indeed, President Obama has acted 
directly in the face of congressional opposition, so we should call his 
Executive order what it is: an attempt to bypass the constitutionally 
ordained legislative process and rewrite the law unilaterally.
  Perhaps the most persuasive case against this disturbing 
unilateralism was laid out by President Obama himself. On at least 22 
different occasions since he took office, the President acknowledged 
that he lacked the legal authority to carry out these actions. As he 
himself said, by broadening immigration enforcement carve-outs, ``then 
essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be 
very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option . . . What 
I've said is there is a path to get this done, and that's through 
Congress.'' He was right then; he is wrong now.
  Faced with this brazen lawlessness, the House of Representatives 
passed a bill that both funds our critical homeland security priorities 
and fulfills our duty to respond to the President's lawless actions. 
This is a careful line to walk, and our colleagues in the House deserve 
praise for their admirable work. Their bill represents a responsible 
governing approach by funding our critical homeland security needs 
while preventing President Obama's constitutional abuse.
  When faced with such a sensible approach, I have frankly been shocked 
and dismayed by the opposition that many of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have expressed to this bill. On the floor today, many 
of my colleagues have indicated that they will oppose letting us vote 
on Homeland Security funding and even oppose allowing a formal debate 
and an open amendment process on the bill unless we allow President 
Obama's Executive action to come into effect.
  Senators of both political parties have often stood up to Executive 
encroachment--not for purposes of partisan gain or political 
grandstanding, but in defense of Congress as a coordinate and coequal 
branch of government with its own essential authorities and 
responsibilities.
  Implicit in the constitutional design of separating the Federal 
Government's powers is the idea that each branch would have the 
incentive and authority to resist encroachments from the other 
branches, ensuring that unfettered power is not concentrated in any one 
set of hands. The Founders recognized this as indispensable to 
preserving the individual liberty of all citizens. As Madison counseled 
in Federalist 51, ``The great security against a gradual concentration 
of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to 
those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means 
and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.''
  Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia embodied this institutional 
idea as much as anyone with whom I have served. Although he helped to 
lead this body for more than half a century and left us less than 5 
short years ago, I was surprised and dismayed to learn recently that 
nearly half of current Members never served alongside Robert C. Byrd.
  Senator Byrd fiercely defended this body's prerogatives and 
independence

[[Page 1612]]

against the encroachments of the executive branch--whether they were 
Republicans or Democrats in the executive branch. He neither censored 
his criticisms nor weakened his defenses based on the President's 
political party. Even in his twilight years, when President Obama took 
office with extraordinarily high approval ratings, Senator Byrd was 
willing to hold the new President's feet to the fire to defend the 
Senate's right to give advice and consent to nominees. He publicly 
chastised the White House for its excessive reliance on czars, 
observing that unconfirmed policy chieftains ``can threaten the 
Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House 
staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are 
the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.''
  How far we have fallen since the days of Senator Byrd. Indeed, this 
brinksmanship by my colleagues in the minority represents the height of 
irresponsibility. They risk our homeland security funding at a time 
when our terrorist enemies have repeatedly demonstrated a renewed 
capability to threaten the homeland. They risk our very system of 
constitutional government by sacrificing our power to make the laws and 
the President's duty to enforce them. They risk many of the immigration 
reform goals that are shared across party lines.
  I am committed to making real progress toward implementing lasting 
immigration reform. I supported the Senate's comprehensive immigration 
bill in the last Congress. Even though that bill was far from perfect, 
I voted for it because I believe in working together to make much 
needed progress on this vitally important issue.
  As I have long argued, the way to get real immigration reform back on 
track is not for the President and his allies to insist on his ``my way 
or the highway'' approach. Responsible legislating--not unilateralism--
is the right way forward on immigration. The President's Executive 
action risked the opportunity for meaningful bipartisan progress and 
undermined the Constitution in the process. And now, his allies in this 
Chamber are apparently willing to risk the security of our Nation at a 
time of extreme danger just to close partisan ranks and provide 
political cover to the President.
  If my colleagues in both parties are serious about protecting our 
Constitution's separation of powers and the liberty it ensures, if they 
are committed to protecting Americans from the sorts of terrorist 
attacks we have lately witnessed with alarming frequency, and if they 
are committed to working together to achieve lasting immigration reform 
the right way, I urge them to reconsider their vote earlier today and 
to agree to--at the very least--debate this critically important bill.
  Madam President, 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. MANCHIN. 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. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to what seems to 
be a politically motivated Department of Homeland Security funding bill 
that we had to vote on. Funding the DHS should be a priority of 
Congress. It really should be. I know it is for all of us, and we 
cannot afford to play any of the political partisan games. It is not 
what people in this country want see. It doesn't do any of us justice 
whatsoever. We jeopardize the funding for third largest agency in the 
country that will risk lapse in not only our border security, which is 
most important to all of us, but also cyber security, also Secret 
Service protection, disaster response, FEMA, TSA in airports. Our 
Nation faces many threats from our enemies, both overseas and here at 
home, more so than ever before.
  The world is a troubled place. We all go home and the No. 1 thing 
people are concerned about is the security of our own Nation. They see 
this evil going on, and now this horrific, barbaric action we saw that 
took place with the Jordanian pilot is unimaginable to us, that people 
could act this way to other humans.
  With that being said, we have to stand united in supporting our 
values and protecting our citizens in the United States of America. 
This is not the forum for debate on immigration, and I have said that. 
I would hope some of my colleagues would feel the same way. We should 
fully fund the DHS, and this is one that has necessary levels that must 
be funded for the protection of our country. Then we can deal with our 
immigration system which is broken. I think we have stated that in the 
Senate. We have stood bravely, we voted, and we did changes and took 
some tough votes that needed to be made.
  I agree with all of my Republican colleagues that our borders need to 
be secure. I don't think any of us disagree with that. It has to be 
secured first and then must stem the tide of illegal immigrants flowing 
into our country. We have seen them coming in all different sizes, 
races, and sexes. It continues to be something we should be concerned 
about.
  I also agree with my Republican colleagues that President Obama 
should not have executed action--he should not have used his Executive 
action to make changes in our immigration system. I think we should 
have doubled down and gotten this bill before us and get the House. I 
disagree with the House's decision not to even take up the bill we 
sent. In a bipartisan fashion it was debated on this floor, put 
together by Democrats and Republicans.
  I have been here for 4 years. I haven't seen a bill worked more 
intensely than the immigration bill. I haven't seen the border security 
worked more intensely and Republicans and Democrats working together to 
make sure we have a Homeland Security that will secure our borders. 
That is the first time I saw the Senate truly work since I have been 
here and saw what the potential would be if we worked together. I was 
very excited about that. I thought for sure we would get a vote. Now we 
are back to the same, putting together who is for what and how we are 
going to posture on this one. I believe this is not the place and this 
is not the bill for us to get into a political squabble. I don't.
  I know the House put us in a difficult position. It came over here, 
it had to be voted on, and it was. Now we have to get on to serious 
business. How do we take care and make sure our Department of Homeland 
Security has the necessary funding through an appropriations bill that 
both Democrats and Republicans worked on, not for another continuing 
resolution which does not let our different branches that are 
responsible for Homeland Security be able to upgrade and fight the 
battle we need to fight.
  When we think about all of the new equipment that is needed for our 
forces out there, our National Guard, also our Coast Guard, what they 
need to be updated and upgraded to and the things that have been 
planned, it will only happen through a bill we pass on this side. It 
will not happen through a continuing resolution bill. It will be the 
same as we have had. The status quo will not change.
  I am willing to work with all of my friends in here to have a good, 
clean Homeland Security bill that does the job and protects the United 
States of America. I am not willing to do a bill that will jeopardize 
the security of our homeland, which is what I think we have received. I 
think we can do better than that.
  I urge all of our colleagues to work together to get a piece of 
legislation that helps protect America and keeps America safe and also 
puts the emphasis where it needs to be. That is what the people back 
home in West Virginia expect. I know people in New Hampshire expect the 
same from the Presiding Officer. I know we can deliver, working 
together in a bipartisan way, putting America first and not our 
politics. That is what they expect. I hope we are able to rise above 
this, and we will get through this. I think we will get to a clean bill 
that basically secures America and keeps us safe.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

[[Page 1613]]


  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I come to the floor to join my 
colleagues to call for an end to any political gamesmanship being 
played over this bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. I 
thank Senators Shaheen and Mikulski for their leadership on this issue. 
They have introduced legislation I am proud to cosponsor and that 
provides the critical resources the Department of Homeland Security 
needs today and for the remainder of 2015.
  The issue of funding the Department of Homeland Security has become 
particularly important to my State. It is important to every State. New 
Hampshire cares a lot about the Coast Guard and many of the other 
agencies involved in security.
  In Minnesota we have actually had active recruiting, a first from al-
Shabaab that recruited young men in the State of Minnesota--and 
particularly in the Twin Cities--to go to Somalia and to fight, 
including becoming suicide bombers. We actually had 18 Federal 
indictments that came out of that. Half of those people have already 
been convicted because of the fact our community--our Somali 
community--has been able to work with the law enforcement positively. 
We have been able to get the information to prosecute those cases.
  Then we go to Syria, something our Presiding Officer knows a lot 
about and is an expert on. The first American who was killed fighting 
on the side of the terrorists was from Minnesota. There is active 
recruiting that has been going on there. I have seen the ads of some of 
the recruiting from the FBI that has been going on there. In fact, we 
had an indictment of people involved in going to fight for ISIS. So 
this is real for us. This isn't just something that is thousands of 
miles away. It is happening in our communities.
  Just last fall a young man from the Twin Cities area was arrested by 
the FBI at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport as he was 
trying fly to Turkey. The next day the young man's partner was able to 
board a flight for Turkey and is thought to be fighting with ISIS.
  These are real people, real terrorists. I think we all know when it 
comes to Homeland Security it is not just our national security that is 
at stake, it is also our economy. Our border with Canada stretches over 
5,500 miles, the longest in the world. Over 400,000 people and nearly 
$2 billion in goods and services cross our borders every day.
  In Minnesota we understand the economic significance of cross-border 
commerce. Canada is our State's top international trading partner with 
over $19 billion in total business across the border. Think of that--
$19 billion. Over 1 million Canadians visit Minnesota every year--that 
is a lot of Canadians--contributing $265 million to our local economy. 
A lot of them visit the Mall of America in Bloomington. Many of them go 
fishing up north. That relationship relies on a seamless United States-
Canadian border with U.S. Customs and Border Protection keeping that 
border secure and efficiently screening all cross-border traffic.
  We have made important strides in recent years with the trusted 
travel programs to make our northern border more secure while 
encouraging the cross-border tourism and commerce that is the lifeblood 
of so many Northern States, including Minnesota and New Hampshire. 
Withholding critical funding from DHS could threaten this progress, 
leading to a less secure border and also hindering economic 
opportunity. Withholding critical funding risks the safety of our 
people, the strength of our economy, and even our relationships abroad.
  At a time when other countries around the world are stepping up their 
security, we can't be standing it down. 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 cyber attacks by North 
Korea. We need to be stepping up our security.
  That is why it is so important we turn immediately to this bill to 
fund the Department of Homeland Security, a bill we can all agree on. 
The funding bill introduced by Senator Shaheen and Senator Mikulski and 
that I am proud to cosponsor does just that. It would provide funding 
for security while keeping crossings open for business. It would 
support 23,775 Customs and Border Protection officers working at our 
country's 329 ports of entry. It would ensure that we keep 21,370 
Border Patrol agents at work keeping our country safe. It funds cyber 
security initiatives that protect our critical infrastructure and 
allows us to track down and punish hackers who are responsible for 
cyber crimes.
  It provides over $1 billion for security-related grants to States--we 
are talking about firefighters and first responders--and localities to 
help ensure they are prepared to handle both manmade and natural 
disasters. No one knows this better than our State when we had a bridge 
fall down in the middle of a summer day on August 1 in Minneapolis, MN. 
An 8-lane highway right in the middle of the Mississippi River, 13 
people died, dozens of people injured, dozens of cars submerged in the 
water after dropping 111 feet. No one knows this better than our State 
after we had the floods we shared with North Dakota across the Red 
River, floods that nearly swept away homes and resulted in a lot of 
economic loss. That happened in our State. No one knows better than our 
State, where we have had tornadoes similar to so many places in the 
Midwest, sweep across the prairies, taking everything in their path. 
That is when you know what FEMA is all about. That is when you know 
what Homeland Security is all about. That is why we must continue to 
fund this important Agency.
  It is my hope we can come together to pass the Shaheen-Mikulski 
Homeland Security appropriations bill. We should never play politics 
when it comes to protecting our homeland. That is why former Homeland 
Security Secretaries from the George W. Bush and Obama administrations 
have come together--Tom Ridge, Michael Chertoff and Janet Napolitano--
and all agree on the need to pass a clean bill. Anyone who is watching 
C-SPAN and says, What is she talking about--a clean bill? Did it go 
through the laundry machine? This is a bill that focuses on what it is 
supposed to focus on, which is funding Homeland Security. It doesn't 
have other provisions in it that are better debated on other bills, 
that are comprehensive and focus on these issues. This bill should not 
have those kinds of things on it. This bill is about Homeland Security, 
and we shouldn't be shutting down our security over political fights.
  As Senators, chief among our responsibilities is to do everything we 
can do to keep Americans safe. As a Senator from Minnesota, no job is 
more important to me than keeping our State and our country safe. I was 
a prosecutor for 8 years. I know how much this means to people. I 
deeply respect the work of the Department of Homeland Security and what 
they do every single day to protect us. Those workers deserve the best. 
The people of America deserve the best. That is why we have to pass 
this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to pass the Shaheen-Mikulski bill without delay.
  I yield the floor.
  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. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate in morning business for such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________