[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1764-1766]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the House of Representatives has voted 
to fully fund homeland security, as the President has requested. It 
sent a bill to the Senate that fully funds all the lawful policies and 
programs in homeland security. The bill will not deny a penny of 
funding. In fact, it says, spend the money, but on enforcing the laws 
of the United States. Don't spend money undermining the laws of the 
United States. Don't spend money in violation of the laws of the United 
States. Don't spend money in violation of the established policies of 
Congress, which rejected the President's ideas that he is now 
executing. And don't spend money in violation of the will of the 
American people who overwhelmingly oppose the President's unlawful 
Executive amnesty.
  That is what we are talking about today, and my colleagues continue 
to suggest that somehow Republicans are not funding the Homeland 
Security Department. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Our colleagues have now voted to block going to the bill. If they 
don't like some of the provisions that came over from the House, well, 
let's get on the bill and let's have some relevant amendments and let's 
vote on it. That is what Congress is about. That is the way we are 
supposed to do business here.
  But our colleagues have gotten spoiled. They think they can block 
anything and turn around and blame the Republicans for it and that 
somehow everybody is going to agree with them.
  Look, the American people get this. The President is not entitled to 
spend money to implement a system of immigration that Congress, 
representing the American people, rejected. If our Democratic 
colleagues are unhappy, then, as I said, they can offer amendments.
  I feel it would be a stunning event if the Senate removes language 
from a bill that simply restores the separation of powers and prevents 
the President from overreaching in violating the Constitution. But if 
they want to bring up amendments that would allow the President to do 
this activity, let's do it, let's bring it up, and let's vote on it. 
Perhaps they might win it. But I think it is untenable constitutionally 
and it is untenable legally, because it is contrary to the law and the 
will of the American people.
  My good friend Senator Schumer is one of our able Members of this 
body. He spoke earlier today and he said: The right wing of the 
Republican Party is risking a DHS--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.
  That is not so, Senator Schumer. Give me a break. Come on. You are 
blocking the bill. The House has voted to fund homeland security. It is 
on the floor. We need to pass it, and we will give you an opportunity 
to offer your amendments if you are not happy with it. It is absolutely 
not so that they are doing that.
  So how is it being reported? Republicans frequently complain they 
don't get fair reporting in the press, but let's look at this:
  U.S. News and World Report, today: ``Senate Democrats Block Bill 
Undoing Immigration Actions.'' That is the headline, ``Undoing 
Immigration Actions.'' Those are President Obama's unlawful actions. So 
they are defending his actions, not defending homeland security.
  How about this one, USA Today: ``Democrats again block efforts to 
derail immigration order.'' The effort would derail the President's 
unlawful Executive amnesty--but it funds homeland security, as the 
article makes clear.
  Fox News: ``Senate Dems nix debate on Homeland Security bill, 
blocking it, in protest over immigration.''
  Who is blocking the bill?
  Politico: ``Democrats filibuster Department of Homeland Security 
bill.''
  That is exactly what is happening. The bill has passed the House. It 
is on the floor. We are trying to bring it up. We are trying to have 
debate. We are trying to have amendments. And they are blocking the 
bill--according to Politico, no rightwing publication.
  The Washington Post: ``Senate Democrats block DHS spending bill 
targeting Obama's immigration actions.''
  The Atlantic. This is a good one. For those of us who have been 
around here a long time, and I think for reporters who cover it, this 
is really humorous, to have our Democratic colleagues, having 
complained for years about what Republicans do. This is the headline in 
the Atlantic: ``The New Democratic Obstructionists.''
  Here is the headline in the New York Times: ``Senate Democrats Block 
Republicans' Homeland Security Bill.''
  So I would say, colleagues, the American people know better. The 
media knows better. They know who is blocking this bill. They know that 
the Congress of the United States--that the House of Representatives 
and the Senate is not required to fund any program it doesn't like.
  It is absolutely not required, and it has a duty not to fund 
Presidential expenditures that are illegal. The Department of Homeland 
Security is provided funds to enforce the laws of the United States. 
The President right now is taking money that was sent to Homeland 
Security to enforce laws and he is redirecting it and moving it over to 
a building just across the river in Crystal City, hiring 1,000 persons 
to process applications of people illegally in the country and to 
provide them the earned-income tax credit, which is a direct check from 
the United States of

[[Page 1765]]

America, provide them a Social Security number, the right to 
participate in Social Security, legal status in the country, the right 
to work in the country, and participation in Medicare, when the law of 
the United States says if someone is here unlawfully, they cannot work. 
So that is what this is all about.
  I just want to push back. I urge my colleagues--at least seven of my 
Democratic colleagues have said they oppose President Obama's actions. 
When do they have a clearer chance to confront that action and 
demonstrate with conviction that they meant what they said than on this 
vote?
  It allows the bill to come forward. It allows us to have a vote. It 
allows anybody in the Senate to offer amendments that would be relevant 
to the bill. I feel strongly about that.
  I see the Senator from New York. I think she was in line to speak 
before I was, and I was able to grab a few minutes. So I would just say 
this. Colleagues, please review your position on this. Let's move to 
this bill. Let's fund Homeland Security. Let's discuss and have 
amendments and vote on the President's Executive order, and the one who 
wins the votes, so be it. That is the way the Congress of the United 
States works.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to do 
the right thing and pass a bill that would fully fund the Department of 
Homeland Security, without the politically driven riders that are the 
focus of this debate.
  Protecting our country from terrorist attacks should be our top 
priority in Congress and we should not be playing games with Homeland 
Security funding. That is the least our constituents expect of us. I 
know that for many of my colleagues the question of immigration is a 
very contentious one and an important one worthy of debate. We should 
have that debate without risking the safety of our families by once 
again putting an immigration bill on the floor of the Senate.
  But this funding bill for such a vitally important part of our 
national security is simply not the place for an ideological debate. If 
we fail to pass and fund the Department of Homeland Security, the 
consequences for our safety could potentially be devastating. Take for 
example the Urban Areas Security Initiative. This is the program that 
helps our cities pay for things such as surveillance equipment, secure 
communications systems, training for law enforcement personnel, all in 
order to increase our security and prevent terrorism. These grants 
ensure that all of the places terrorists have targeted and will 
continue to target are able to effectively prevent those violent acts 
from happening.
  New York City is my home State. It is the No. 1 terror target in the 
Nation. It relies on the urban security program to keep its millions of 
residents and tourists safe. It also relies on our Homeland Security 
network to stop the plans of would-be terrorists.
  Since 9/11, New York City has thwarted at least 16 terrorist attacks, 
and it has done so because of the constant support the Department of 
Homeland Security provides. If we cannot pass this bill, the Urban 
Areas Security Initiative and the extensive network of security systems 
in New York City would lose their funding, and every visitor to an 
urban area in this country, including right here in Washington, DC, 
would be less safe.
  If we cannot pass this bill, not only would our security suffer, but 
the inspectors at our ports would not be paid, our security personnel 
would not be paid, and our Border Patrol agents would not be paid. If 
we don't pass this bill, then we have failed at our most solemn 
responsibility, to keep the American people safe.
  I urge all my colleagues to please put politics aside, vote to pass a 
bill free of divisive policy riders and fully fund the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the rest of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass 
a clean Homeland Security funding bill for fiscal year 2015. This is an 
issue of national security, and we cannot allow politics to divert 
attention from our responsibility as Senators.
  The majority in the House sent the Senate a bill with five poison 
pills that they know will prevent the passage of this legislation. 
Yesterday and again today, my Senate colleagues and I sent a clear 
message that these politically divisive immigration provisions have no 
place in this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to dispense with any further delays and allow 
for an up-or-down vote on the bill as originally drafted.
  The Department of Homeland Security funding bill--created in the wake 
of 9/11, as Senator Durbin reminded us earlier--is not the place to 
litigate immigration policy; rather, those issues are appropriately 
addressed in a comprehensive immigration bill, and I hope the House 
will draft and vote on that type of legislation soon.
  The recent executions of the Japanese and Jordanian hostages by the 
terrorist group ISIL and the attacks in Paris, Ottawa, and Australia 
serve as reminders of the very real threat we face.
  Each day we delay in providing adequate, reliable resources to the 
Department of Homeland Security, we undermine the Department's efforts 
to defend the home front. That is why I am calling on my colleagues to 
take up and pass a clean bill.
  My colleagues on the Appropriations Committee Senator Shaheen and 
Vice Chairwoman Mikulski have introduced a clean DHS funding bill that 
reflects the bipartisan agreement reached between the House and Senate 
appropriators. This bill funds a wide range of programs that keep 
Americans safe and secure.
  For example, the clean version of this bill funds a host of 
counterterrorism, intelligence, and security functions; investments in 
cyber security defense technologies and personnel, investments to 
detect and protect against biological threats, research and development 
of nuclear detection technologies, TSA and Coast Guard operations to 
keep our skies and our waters safe. The clean version also funds $6 
billion in disaster funds to help States, localities, businesses, and 
individuals rebuild after a natural disaster, staffing nearly 24,000 
Customs and Border Protection officers who ensure legitimate travel of 
individuals who seek to enter the country, and staffing 20,000 Border 
Patrol agents who protect the 6,000 miles of our land border and 2,000 
miles of coastal waters.
  Department of Homeland Security Secretary Johnson has been clear that 
while the Department operates under the current CR, it cannot fund key 
homeland security initiatives.
  A short-term CR would prevent the Department from awarding new 
disaster preparedness grants that support our local emergency 
responders. It would delay the hiring of more investigators for cases 
related to human trafficking and smuggling. It would also prevent the 
Secret Service from training for the next Presidential election, and 
the list goes on.
  We cannot expect DHS to do long-term strategic planning with short-
term funding measures. The Department needs reliable funding to operate 
efficiently and effectively.
  The House majority is unfortunately playing politics with our 
homeland security because the President has taken an action that every 
President since the 1950s has taken: He has provided commonsense 
direction to our immigration enforcement efforts.
  The President's Executive actions on immigration are fundamentally 
aimed at keeping families together, making our communities safer, and 
using our resources efficiently. It is hard to understand how someone 
could oppose that.

[[Page 1766]]

  The President's actions will ensure that our immigration enforcement 
efforts are used to secure the border, prevent threats to national 
security, and protect public safety. These should be our top 
priorities, and I support those efforts, but if Members of the House 
take issue with them, they should draft and adopt immigration reform, 
just as the Senate did on a bipartisan basis 18 months ago.
  Our path forward is simple: Pass a clean funding bill. If my 
colleagues want to fix our broken immigration system, then let's take 
up a bill, but let's not use this critical funding bill to play 
partisan politics.
  The dedicated men and women of the Department of Homeland Security 
deserve better. The American people deserve better. Let's put aside 
politics and let's pass a clean Department of Homeland Security funding 
bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  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. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Alexander pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 
67 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________