[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1755-1758]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday our friends across the aisle 
blocked--filibustered, really--a $40 billion funding bill that would 
have paid the funds necessary to keep the Department of Homeland 
Security running through the rest of this fiscal year. I understand 
they had some differences over the content of the legislation the House 
passed, but it is undeniable that the House acted responsibly by 
passing this appropriations bill, particularly at a time of heightened 
security concerns not only here at home but around the world.
  Of course, the part that I guess confused me the most is our 
Democratic friends said: Well, we don't want to debate the bill, but 
what we want is a clean DHS appropriations bill. So they wanted to get 
to the end of the process without even starting the process, which 
strikes me as odd.
  As I pointed out last week during the Senate debate on the Keystone 
XL Pipeline, Senator Durbin from Illinois, the assistant minority 
leader, spoke very sincerely in support of a process surrounding that 
bill. We didn't all agree that the Keystone Pipeline should be passed, 
but we did at least have an open amendment process that allowed 
everyone to express their point of view and to get votes on amendments, 
up or down, before concluding that piece of legislation. I think the 
most notable part of that was that we actually had more votes in the 
Senate during the 3 weeks we were on the Keystone XL Pipeline than we 
had all of last year under the previous management.
  So it was amazing to me to see that the Democratic leadership--the 
Senate minority--worked so hard to marshal their caucus together to 
block debate on this $40 billion appropriations bill to fund the 
Department of Homeland Security, especially considering the promise of 
the Senator from Illinois to continue to work with us to foster an open 
debate process and an open opportunity on both sides of the aisle to 
offer good ideas and to put them up for a vote on how to improve 
legislation.
  It was also amazing to see this outcome considering what so many of 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said last fall when the 
President made his Executive action on immigration.
  As I said yesterday--and I want to repeat it again--we are not upset 
with people who are seeking a better life in the United States. All we 
are asking for is a legal process. We are very upset with the President 
violating his oath of office and purporting to make unconstitutional 
Executive orders. That is the problem. That is what the House is 
focused on like a laser.
  In fact, this President's actions were a stunning display of 
Executive overreach. You don't have to take my word for it; take his 
word for it--at least the first 22 times he talked about it. He said he 
didn't have the authority to do it 22 different times.
  Then there is the view of some of our colleagues in the minority. For 
example, the senior Senator from West Virginia put it simply last 
November when he expressed, I think, the feeling of a lot of Democrats 
when he said, ``I wish he wouldn't do it.''
  This was echoed also in a very straightforward manner by the very 
junior Senator from Minnesota, who said, ``I have concerns about 
executive action.'' Of course, it is easy to understand why because 
this is a uniquely legislative responsibility. The President doesn't 
have authority to make laws on his own--at least that used to be his 
position.
  Then the senior Senator from Missouri said of the President's 
unilateral action: ``How this is coming about makes me uncomfortable, 
[and] I think it probably makes most Missourians uncomfortable.'' Well, 
the public opinion polls I have seen bear that comment out, that while 
many people think we do need to fix our broken immigration system, the 
majority of people in the public opinion polls I have seen disagree 
with the way the President has tried to act by doing this 
unilaterally--or purporting to do it unilaterally.
  Well, I have good news for Senator McCaskill, Senator Franken, and 
Senator Manchin. The House of Representatives has actually passed a 
piece of legislation that addresses their concerns and should give them 
some comfort.
  The legislation on which we are trying to open debate fully funds, as 
I said, the Department of Homeland Security while reining in the 
President's unconstitutional actions. This is one of the tools 
available to Congress--using these legislative riders on appropriations 
to in effect express disapproval and defund certain acts by the 
Executive. That is one of the tools we have available to us.
  I will renew my request from yesterday to Senator Reid, the 
Democratic leader, and ask the assistant minority leader to honor his 
commitment that he made when we were debating the Keystone XL Pipeline. 
Please work with us to achieve at least debate on the floor, if not 
some significant legislation. But to just throw a fit and say ``We 
refuse to even start debate on the legislation'' strikes me as more of 
a political move than a legislative solution.
  So I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, who so 
boldly stood up to express their concerns with the President's 
Executive actions only a few short months ago, to again stand up--this 
time to their own leadership--and to join us in reining in the 
President's Executive overreach and to not hold hostage the $40 billion 
the House has appropriated to help fund the Department of Homeland 
Security through the end of the fiscal year, through September 31.
  If there are parts of the House bill you don't like--and there are 
parts of the House bill that I have concerns over and that I hope we 
have a chance to vote on, but that is the way the House and the Senate 
are supposed to relate to one another. The House passes legislation, 
the Senate passes legislation, and if they are different, then they get 
reconciled in a conference committee or through a ping-pong back-and-
forth before they go to the President. But to throw a fit and say ``We 
refuse to do our job of legislating'' just because they don't like 
where we are starting is extraordinarily counterproductive and is an 
unfortunate return to the dysfunction I believe the voters repudiated 
in their vote on November 4. So we will see whether there is a 
different point of view.
  I know the majority leader, Senator McConnell, will come back to the 
floor and ask to reconsider the vote from yesterday, and so there will 
be another opportunity for our friends across the aisle to reconsider 
their vote blocking even beginning considering this legislation. I hope 
they will reconsider and join us and try to come up with a consensus 
solution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I wish to follow up on what the majority 
whip has been talking about.
  Clearly the country is and should be concerned by the President's 
unilateral Executive action on immigration. He announced this action on 
November 20 of last year. The majority whip has already gone down that 
list of a number of our colleagues on the other side who said this is 
the wrong way to do this. The House happens to agree. In fact, the 
House of Representatives has passed legislation that agrees that this 
is the wrong way to do it and try to come up with a remedy.
  Frankly, there is a better remedy. We are not going to find that 
better remedy if we don't have a debate. We are not going to find that 
better remedy if we don't come to the floor and say: Here is how we 
think that bill should be changed.
  The action taken last November by the President was clearly Executive 
overreach. It was an affront, I believe, to the rule of law, and it was 
an affront to the Constitution. Article II, Section 3 of the 
Constitution states that the President ``shall take care that the laws 
be faithfully executed.'' That is the end of the quote right out of the 
Constitution. It couldn't be clearer--``shall take care that the laws 
be faithfully executed.''

[[Page 1756]]

  That is why we call the President the Executive. The President's job 
is not to make the law. The President's job is not to rule as a court 
would on the law. The President's job is to execute the law. The 
question here is: Does the law matter or not? The question here is: 
What do we do when the House of Representatives has passed a spending 
bill that would allow the funding for the U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security for the rest of the fiscal year--between now and September 
30--which does try to stop President Obama's Executive amnesty plan?
  It appears, if you can believe what you read that people have said, 
that a substantial majority of the Senate agrees the President 
shouldn't have done what he did. So what is our obligation to try to 
undo that? The House has done their part by sending a bill over that 
does that.
  The President himself said 22 times that he didn't have the authority 
to do what he eventually did. I guess this is one case where I agree 
with the President 22 times. So if anybody is thinking I don't agree 
with the President, here are 22 times I agree with the President--the 
22 times he said he couldn't do what he eventually decided to do. And 
what was that? The President said he can't unilaterally change the 
country's immigration laws.
  The President didn't have that authority the 22 times he said he 
didn't have that authority. He didn't have that authority on November 
20, 2014, when he took actions that clearly were designed not to 
enforce the law, and he doesn't have that authority now. So the House 
sent a bill over that tries to clarify that the President doesn't have 
that authority; that the legislative branch of the Federal Government 
is the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States. It 
is not whoever gets to act last.
  Occasionally, the President will say: I am going to take Executive 
action if the Congress doesn't do its job. Well, the key point there is 
that it is the job of the Congress to pass laws, not the job of the 
President. If the President wants to repeal the law, if the President 
wants to change the law, nobody is in a better position than the 
President of the United States to encourage the Congress and the 
country to do that. But that doesn't mean the President has the default 
option, if the Congress doesn't act by some certain date, to just do it 
himself. That is not in the Constitution. The President is not going to 
find it there.
  I continue to believe the House-passed Department of Homeland 
Security funding bill is the way to send a message to the President 
that he can't act unilaterally; that there is a constitutional way to 
do this. I have not given up on winning over six Democrats in the 
Senate. Everybody understands the importance of 60 votes in the Senate. 
There are 54 Republicans, not 60, but there are more than six Democrats 
who have said they didn't agree with what the President did. I think in 
all cases they have said they agree with the funding levels or they 
would vote for the funding levels for the Department of Homeland 
Security. It seems to me those two things come together pretty nicely 
here. They get a chance, by debating this bill, to undo what the 
President did and to fund the Department of Homeland Security. So there 
are at least six Democrats who have said those are two different things 
they are for, and this is a case where we get to do that.
  We need to pass this House measure that ensures spending at an 
important time with critical needs of homeland security, but it also 
would stop the President's illegal amnesty. We should not let that 
stand. We don't know where these legislative fights will wind up until 
we have them. Maybe that is why no Democrat yesterday was willing to 
have this debate, because maybe they do not know what happens if 
attention is called to the past positions they have had or the need to 
fund the Department of Homeland Security. But we don't know how these 
legislative battles work out if we don't have them. I think we need to 
have this one.
  Leader McConnell said our first choice is to try to pass the House 
bill. If the law shouldn't be followed, then advocate that it be 
repealed, advocate that it be changed, but don't advocate that it be 
ignored. The ignore clause of the Constitution doesn't exist. There is 
no ability of the Executive to do that.
  The United States is a nation founded on the rule of law. With every 
trade agreement we enter into, with all our relationships with other 
countries, and with people who come here, we talk about this being a 
country where you can look at the law and rely on the law itself--no 
matter what your status. The President is to take care that the laws 
are faithfully executed. Yet President Obama repeatedly has found ways 
to circumvent the Congress by picking and choosing which laws he wants 
to enforce.
  Take the case of the overwhelmingly complicated health care law, 
where the President is picking and choosing what dates the law is to be 
complied with, even though the law often has very clear other dates. 
The President said: Well, I think there is a better date. This is a 
bill of which the President was a major advocate. He had a chance to 
put the dates in there and didn't.
  I recently reintroduced the ENFORCE the Law Act to ensure the 
President can't just continue to blatantly not do what the law says has 
to be done. This is a bill I introduced in the last Congress, where it 
passed the House with a bipartisan vote, but we weren't allowed to vote 
on it in the Senate. Apparently, there are a number of my colleagues 
who think that not only are we no longer allowed to vote on bills, but 
now it is even a bad idea if we debate a bill. That is what the vote 
was yesterday--to debate the bill. It wasn't approving anything except 
to debate the bill. That is what we should be moving towards now so we 
can fund this part of the government. The President complicated the 
funding of this agency with his action last November.
  The ENFORCE the Law Act permits the Congress, if the Congress 
believes the President isn't enforcing the law, to go to court--not to 
wait months and years for an aggrieved citizen to go to court with 
their own money and say he or she does not believe the government has 
the authority to do something. This allows the Congress to go to court 
and to go early and let a judge decide if the law is being enforced as 
written or not.
  The ENFORCE the Law Act would reestablish the proper limits of the 
executive branch. It would restore checks and balances. It would also 
provide a defender of citizens who, in their own capacity, don't have 
to defend or fight the government by themselves if the Congress itself 
believes the President has taken authority that he doesn't have or is 
enforcing the law in a way that wasn't intended.
  I think we have to stand up for the rule of law. I have joined in a 
court case supporting the State of Texas. Texas is suing the 
administration over what they believe are all kinds of added expenses 
put on them by the President's power grab in deciding on his own which 
immigration laws would be enforced and which won't be. Senator Cornyn, 
Senator Cruz, and I were signatories to this brief filed in December, 
and 24 House Members joined us, including the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, saying we agree with these States and that many 
responsibilities have been placed on them because the President of the 
United States chose not to enforce the law as written.
  Twenty-six States have now joined that lawsuit filed by the State of 
Texas, and I look forward to the conclusion of that suit because I 
think the judge is likely to decide that, no, there isn't the 
selectivity of which laws you enforce that the President has applied 
here, and there are great costs created for States as a result of that.
  Every Senator in this Chamber has a constitutional obligation to curb 
the unilateral Executive overreach. We have a chance to do that with 
the bill that could be before us. We have a chance to do that with the 
bill the House has sent over. This whole issue goes to the very heart 
of the system of checks and balances in our country and reiterates the 
importance of the Constitution and following the Constitution--adhering 
to the rule of law.

[[Page 1757]]

  I would like to see us have a chance to do that, as this Department 
of Homeland Security funding bill should--and eventually, I am 
confident, will--come to the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, it is good to follow my good friend, 
the chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration, on which I 
am ranking member. I don't agree with him, but he is a fine man.
  Now, I rise to dispel attempts by the other side of the aisle to 
dodge responsibility for funding the Department of Homeland Security in 
a responsible way. Here is what is happening. The rightwing of the 
Republican Party is risking a Department of Homeland Security shutdown 
to get their way on immigration. They are saying: Take our hard-right 
stance on immigration or we won't fund national security.
  Most Americans don't agree with that view. Most Americans are for a 
rational immigration policy. A large majority in this body--bipartisan, 
led by Senator McCain and myself--voted on that in 2013. But we have a 
small group, led by the junior Senator from Texas, who say: It is our 
way or we are going to shut down one of the premier agencies dedicated 
to our security.
  As I said when I engaged in a colloquy with my good friend from 
Texas, our Republican colleagues have the majority. They can debate 
immigration any time they want. In fact, we welcome that debate. We 
think the American people are on our side. We are willing to have that 
debate. We are eager to have that debate but not with a gun put to the 
head not only of us but of the American people. Do what we, a narrow 
minority, want or we are going to shut down the Department of Homeland 
Security--at a time when security is of utmost importance given what 
has happened around the world and what we just saw happen to the 
Jordanian pilot yesterday.
  This strategy makes no sense. The junior Senator from Texas is 
leading his party at best into a cul-de-sac, and at worst over a cliff. 
We are not going to be taken hostage. If my good friend the majority 
leader, Senator McConnell, thinks that by bringing this bill up again 
and again it is going to change what happened yesterday, it is not. So 
we are saying to the other side: Now that you have seen the vote, now 
that you have shown Speaker Boehner that we can't pass his bill in the 
Senate, get real. I say get real, to my friend the majority leader and 
to the Speaker of the House.
  Let's roll up our sleeves, and let's work out a Department of 
Homeland Security bill and pass it. Let's not hold that agency hostage. 
Let's not just renew them every couple of months. As the Secretary of 
DHS said yesterday, that is like getting a car and only giving it five 
miles of gas at a time. It just doesn't work. So get real. Let's 
negotiate a DHS spending bill.
  I know our Senator from Maryland, the ranking member of the Committee 
on Appropriations, and the Senator from New Hampshire, the ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on 
Appropriations, are eager to sit down and pass a bill that we can all 
agree on in terms of funding Homeland Security, and then we can debate 
immigration. Then we can debate immigration--but no hostage taking and 
none of this bullying. None of this: If you don't do it my way, I am 
going to hurt a whole lot of innocent people. That didn't work in 2013 
when Republican numbers plummeted after they tried to shut down the 
government, and it won't work today.
  We will not allow a government shutdown. We will not allow hostage-
taking. We will ask our colleagues to get reasonable, do things the way 
they used to be done, debate each issue on the merits. They have the 
floor. They can debate any issue they want and move forward.
  I will say one other thing to my Republican colleagues: The junior 
Senator from Texas has you tied in a knot. I say that to Speaker 
Boehner as well: Speaker Boehner, the junior Senator from Texas has you 
tied in a knot. Now you are going to have to find a way to untangle it. 
We will not be bullied. We will not be told we have to negotiate 
because you seek to hurt innocent people and hurt our security. We will 
move forward.
  So let me suggest the way to go forward: Let's put a good, clean 
Homeland Security bill on the floor. Let's make America secure. Then, 
separately, we are happy to debate immigration to the Republican 
Party's heart's content, but let's stop this govern-by-crisis 
mentality, especially when national security hangs in the balance.
  So I urge Speaker Boehner, I urge Senator McConnell to come to their 
senses, end this wild goose chase and let us vote on a clean bill 
forthwith.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. 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. NELSON. Madam President, I wish to talk about the necessity of 
having an appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security 
and the fact that it is being held up over the issue of folks in the 
House of Representatives who do not want to appropriate money for the 
actions that the President has taken in trying to improve a 
dysfunctional immigration system. Holding up the funding for the 
Department of Homeland Security appropriations is absolutely 
ridiculous, in the opinion of this Senator.
  The fact is the clock is ticking because the funding runs out in just 
a couple of weeks--February 27. What does the Department's name imply? 
Keeping the homeland secure.
  In one regard, that means cyber attacks. Doesn't it occur to someone 
that we have had an extraordinary number of cyber attacks recently? 
Most everybody will remember Sony. People were attacking us because 
they wanted to stop the expression of free speech, in this case with 
regard to a movie the Sony company had produced. Because they got in 
and got all of the personal data and were manipulating the internal 
controls of the company with this cyber attack, it is the Department of 
Homeland Security that is charged. Hopefully, if we can ever pass a 
cyber security bill that can be signed into law, the portal through 
which the early warnings will come will be the Department of Homeland 
Security. By the way, that cost the Sony corporation about $100 
million.
  How about what happened to all of the customers of Target: Addresses, 
phone numbers, and e-mail addresses were taken from 70 million 
Americans who were customers of Target.
  How about Yahoo: Passwords and user names were exposed to cyber 
attacks.
  How about eBay: Users' passwords, because of a cyber attack, had to 
be changed because they were compromised.
  How about a number of major banks, including JPMorgan Chase: Seventy-
six million households and seven million small businesses' accounts 
were affected by the attack.
  How about Home Depot: Six million accounts were put at risk.
  That ought to be enough to continue the funding of the Department of 
Homeland Security, but there is a lot more.
  Most folks understand that TSA, which checks us as we go through the 
security at airports, at seaports--TSA is a part of the Department of 
Homeland Security. Are we going to cut off the funding for TSA--TSA 
that is now trying to stop the new kind of attacks with nonmetallic 
explosives?
  Remember, because of our intelligence apparatus, working through 
liaison partners in other countries, about 2 years ago a cartridge in a 
printer was discovered ultimately going onto an airplane that was bound 
for the United States--that was a nonmetallic explosive. We were 
fortunate we got that, but they continue.
  These folks who are trying to attack us all over the world are trying 
very ingenious ways to avoid the security,

[[Page 1758]]

and we rely on TSA--especially at American airports--to protect us.
  We simply in a couple of weeks can't afford for the appropriations to 
stop.
  How about immigration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Again, 
another responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security, and we 
are going to cut off the funding on what kind of folks are coming 
across our borders and what kind of folks we are going to be checking 
and rechecking and what kind of things they are bringing into the 
borders.
  There are a lot of people who want to get into this country to do us 
harm. That is the responsibility of the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  So it is not only ridiculous to this Senator, it is almost silly. But 
the problem is it is tragic, and it could be horrendous given the fact 
that people around the world are trying to harm us as we try to protect 
ourselves in our national security every day.
  This is a debate we should not be having. Unfortunately, it is a 
condition our politics have come to, and we need to stop that 
condition.
  I leave the Presiding Officer on a happier note. As the Senate goes 
into recess at the conclusion of my remarks, happily all of the 
Senators are going to a bipartisan luncheon where we are going to talk 
about things we can do together. Indeed, that is the happiest thing I 
have heard today.
  Madam President, as I yield the floor, I understand that pursuant to 
the previous order, the Senate will stand in recess.

                          ____________________