[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1803-1805]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are in an odd world. Our Democratic 
colleagues continue to have the gall to suggest and state that the 
Republicans are blocking funding for homeland security in America when 
nothing could be further from the truth.
  I guess they have gotten away with blaming Republicans for blocking 
things, so they just keep on saying it. But the House has fully funded 
all the legal policies and programs within Homeland Security, and they 
sent the bill over here.
  What did they do? They simply said: You can't take money out of 
homeland security enforcement for immigration and border security, and 
spend it on activities that violate the law, that undermine immigration 
law, that in fact are contrary to immigration law--that the President 
has said he intends to do no matter what Congress does, no matter what 
the American people want. He says he is going to do it anyway. They 
simply say we are not going to fund that.
  So it comes over to pass. It fully funds the Department of Homeland 
Security. It doesn't change any of the laws in Homeland Security--and 
they say this is being obstructed by the Republicans.
  But look. What does the media say about it? How is it being reported?
  Here is Politico: ``Democrats filibuster Department of Homeland 
Security bill.'' That was yesterday. And that is exactly what is 
happening. They are filibustering the bill and saying Republicans are 
blocking it, when all that the Republicans are saying is: Let's get on 
the bill. We can't even get on the bill so amendments can be offered 
because they are filibustering the motion to proceed to the bill, 
blocking us even getting on the legislation so amendments can be 
offered.
  If they are not happy with anything in the bill--the language the 
House put in or anything else--they can offer amendments to deal with 
it and strike it out.
  That is what Politico said.
  How about the New York Times. They are always favoring Democratic 
immigration policies. This is their headline: ``Senate Democrats Block 
Republicans' Homeland Security Bill.'' Isn't that true? That is exactly 
true.
  How about the Atlantic. I think this is almost amusing: ``The New 
Democratic Obstructionists.'' That is the headline in their 
publication.
  So I would push back at this. Are we through the looking glass? Are 
we down the rabbit hole into never-never land? Where are we?
  My good friend Senator Schumer, one of our able advocates here--and I 
really admire him. But this is what he said earlier today:

       The right wing of the Republican party is risking a D.H.S., 
     a Department of Homeland Security, shutdown to get their way 
     on immigration.

  This is how Senator Schumer framed it:

       They're saying take our hard right stance on immigration or 
     we won't fund national security.

  He goes on to say:

       We think the American people are on our side. We're willing 
     to have that debate.

  Well, why don't we have it? Why don't we bring the bill up and let's 
have the debate if he wants to offer amendments contrary to what the 
House did?
  But remember, the House didn't do anything but say we are going to 
spend money on all the programs in Homeland Security. It didn't defund 
any of them. It didn't change any of those rules.
  So, is it really true? Do only rightwing Republicans want to end the 
President's unlawful actions? No, no, no. That is not what the truth 
is.
  Why don't I share with our colleagues here what many of our 
Democratic Senators have said about the President's unlawful action. 
Here is what the junior Senator from Indiana said:

       It is clear the immigration system in this country is 
     broken, and only Congress has the ability to change the law 
     to fix it . . . I am as frustrated as anyone that Congress is 
     not doing its job, but the President shouldn't make such 
     significant policy changes on his own.


[[Page 1804]]


  That was just November last year.
  The senior Senator from Missouri said:

       Our immigration system is broken, and I support a 
     comprehensive plan to fix it, but executive orders aren't the 
     way to do it.

  The senior Senator from West Virginia:

       I disagree with the President's decision to use executive 
     action to make changes to our immigration system.

  The junior Senator from North Dakota:

       I'm disappointed the president decided to use executive 
     action at this time on this issue. . . . It's Congress' job 
     to pass legislation and deal with issues of this magnitude.

  Isn't that true.
  The junior Senator from Maine:

       I also have constitutional concerns about where 
     prosecutorial discretion ends and unconstitutional executive 
     authority begins.

  Well, I share that thought.
  The junior Senator from Minnesota:

       I have concerns about executive action. . . . This is a job 
     for Congress.

  The senior Senator from Virginia:

     . . . the best way to get a comprehensive solution is to take 
     this through the legislative process.

  So are those right-wingers? Are those people who can't be trusted to 
put the public interest first? Are they exaggerating? Are they somehow 
all in error to question the power of the Presidency to execute this 
policy?
  No, and I will cite one more national leader that is well known. I 
would cite President Obama himself, who on 20 different occasions said 
he did not have power to do what he now has done. So Congress is not 
passing any new law. Congress is not passing any new power. Congress is 
simply saying: Mr. President, you cannot create new laws and fund new 
programs that are contrary to existing law, in violation of existing 
law, and in violation of the wishes of the American people and the 
decided actions of Congress itself.
  Remember all these ideas were presented to Congress, and Congress 
rejected them. They were elected to represent the people of the United 
States of America, and they rejected these policies. So why should 
Congress fund the President, who goes and does what they now reject?
  Well, Senator Schumer says he believes the American people are on his 
side, or ``our side,'' the obstructionist side, the side that is 
blocking Homeland Security.
  Let's look at the polling data. This is a poll from Paragon Insights. 
The question to the American people was: Should you focus on bettering 
work situations for Americans? Should that be our focus and not 
immigration advancements or expansion. Among Democrats, 64 percent said 
yes. Among Independents, 75 percent said yes.
  What about this: Do you believe providing amnesty encourages illegal 
immigration? Democrats, 63 percent. Is that part of the great rightwing 
conspiracy? How about Independents--68 percent; Republicans, 88 
percent.
  How about this: Do you believe illegal immigrants take jobs from 
vulnerable citizens? Democrats, 57 percent; Independents, 73 percent.
  How about this one: Do you believe amnesty is disastrous and 
unconstitutional? Democrats, 53 percent; Independents, 70 percent.
  How about the question that illegal immigrants take jobs from 
vulnerable citizens. What do Hispanics say about that? Mr. President, 
65 percent of Hispanics agree with that.
  What about the question that providing amnesty encourages illegal 
immigration? We all know that it does, and 63 percent of Hispanics 
agree with that. What about the question: Amnesty will hollow out the 
middle class. We had a lot of talk about what to do with the middle 
class. Ask the middle class what they think for a change. Will amnesty 
hollow out the middle class? Independents--not Republicans, not 
Democrats, not rightwingers--73 percent agree; 62 percent of Hispanics 
agree with that statement.
  This idea somehow that the American people support blocking the 
Homeland Security bill to protect the President's unlawful Executive 
amnesty, that the American people support the Democrats in doing that 
is not true. The data shows that, and that is consistent with my 
understanding.
  How about this question in a poll by Kellyanne Conway's polling 
company, a nationwide survey: ``President Obama recently said that he 
may go around Congress and take executive action on immigration 
policy.'' This was done back in August of last year. ``Which do you 
support more: President Obama changing immigration policy on his own, 
or President Obama working with Congress to change immigration 
policy?'' Well, 74 percent said he should work with Congress. Only 21 
percent said he should do it on his own.
  How about Independents? How about the Independents--not conservative 
rightwingers? What do they view as to whether the President should work 
with Congress and pass a law in the orderly business according to 
legitimate processes or do it on his own? Among Independents, 81 
percent said he should work with Congress, and only 14 percent say he 
should do it on his own.
  So this idea that somehow the American people are all in support of 
President Obama's outrageous actions, which he himself 20 times said he 
had no power to do but did anyway, is just false. It is not true, and 
it is not true the Republicans are blocking the Homeland Security bill, 
either. The Democrats are filibustering the bill, not allowing it to 
come to the floor so even an amendment can be voted on.
  What do our colleagues do? They seem to think that if they say the 
Republicans are causing it to happen, then the media will accept it. 
But the media is not accepting this, and nobody is accepting this. And 
I hope the Democratic colleagues who openly question this policy will 
re-evaluate where they stand and think back.
  Isn't this the thing to do? Let's move to the bill, and then we can 
debate all the language and all the issues that are relevant and see 
where we go from there--not just block the bill. So I would urge 
colleagues to think that through and change their view from what they 
have been doing, which is supporting unanimously a filibuster.
  Now there is some simple Paragon Insights polling data. It asked a 
simple policy question without reference to Republicans and Democrats 
or President Obama. What did they find in their poll, by a 50-point 
measure?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I didn't know we had a time limit.
  By a 50-point margin voters want to pass legislation making it harder 
to hire workers now illegally in the country--71 to 21. They want us to 
protect American workers, to make it harder for businesses to hire 
people unlawfully in the country. We are not doing any of that. The 
President has given an Executive order that provides 5 million people 
with work authorizations, Social Security cards, Social Security 
numbers, and the right to take any job in America when we have a 
shortage of jobs in America.
  Female voters support this action by a 3-to-1 margin. Hispanic voters 
support the measure by a 19-point margin, 56 to 37 percent. I would say 
blue-collar voters, people who go to work every day, strongly oppose 
the President's action by more than a 3-to-1 margin. One in three Obama 
voters opposes his Executive action, overall.
  We are not going to stop. President Obama does not have the authority 
to do this. It is a challenge institutionally to this body. No matter 
what you feel about amnesty or providing benefits for people here 
unlawfully, it is Congress's job, and we have to face up to it and 
wrestle with it.
  Some say that if we don't approve it, then we are not facing up to 
it. I don't agree. I think it is worth discussing and voting on it. So 
far Congress has rejected the President's ideas of how it should be 
handled. I think they will continue to do so. The American people 
overwhelmingly want the Congress to defend their interests, to defend 
their right to work, to defend their declining wages, and to do 
something about the wages that are declining, to do something about the 
difficulty their children have in finding a decent job--even

[[Page 1805]]

college graduates. We don't have a shortage of workers in this country; 
we have a shortage of jobs in this country. That is absolutely clear.
  We can do this country a great service, and we can do the struggling, 
hurting middle-class workers a great service if we slow down a bit in 
this unlawful immigration flow. We have a generous lawful flow. Let's 
end the lawlessness and protect them, and maybe their wages will begin 
to rise, for a change, instead of falling, as they have done for a 
decade.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President. First, let me say to my 
friend from Alabama, I couldn't agree more that we need to focus on 
jobs. There is no question about it.
  I couldn't agree more that we need to have a legal immigration system 
that works and that protects Americans first, in terms of jobs, people 
who are here legally, whether it is those working in agriculture, 
whether it is those working in manufacturing or any other part of our 
economy. We can very quickly, if the new majority wants to, bring an 
immigration bill and address it. I think there are 68 of us, if I 
remember right, who voted for a pretty big bipartisan effort last year, 
a major effort to actually fix a very broken system. There were 
important protections in there for American workers. It is something 
that would have been incredibly important to get done and to put those 
prohibitions in. So this is not about that.
  It is very simple. The majority could very quickly pass the funding 
for Homeland Security to keep us safe and immediately go to the issue 
of immigration, and I would support it wholeheartedly, as would 
colleagues on this side of the aisle.
  Here is what we don't support: holding the security of our country 
hostage while others debate policy, frankly, that was already agreed to 
by the majority of the Senate last year. Regardless of your feelings 
about the immigration policies, if you ask folks at this time, when 
terror threats are all around us, do they want games being played with 
the funding of our homeland security, the answer would be no--a 
resounding no.
  So let's get on with the business in a bipartisan way of funding our 
national security effort, and then let's immediately go to a vigorous 
and important debate about immigration. I would agree that should be 
done as soon as possible.
  Since the attacks of 9/11 in 2001, we have had a Department of 
Homeland Security that we organized and put together to play a critical 
role in protecting America against acts of terror. Make no mistake, as 
I said, we have terrorist threats all around us, yet, unfortunately, 
our Republican colleagues are willing to shut down our Homeland 
Security Department to make a political point.
  Yesterday ISIS released a video showing the horrendous burning of a 
Jordanian pilot. It was unbelievable. But while that is happening, the 
Senate can't pass a Homeland Security funding bill. We need to pass a 
Homeland Security bill. Colleagues who are fighting about immigration 
are willing to shut down Homeland Security in order to make a point 
with the President.
  This past weekend ISIS beheaded a Japanese contractor. Yet 
Republicans are willing to shut down Homeland Security to make a point. 
Last week at a hotel in Libya an American was killed in an attack by 
ISIS. Yet colleagues on the other side of the aisle are willing to shut 
down Homeland Security in order to make a political point. Last month 
11 people were killed in a terrorist strike against America's oldest 
ally, France. Yet Republicans are willing to shut down Homeland 
Security.
  In November, a Canadian soldier was killed in an attack near the 
Canadian Parliament, just 60 miles from the U.S. border. Michigan is on 
that northern border. Yet Republicans are willing to shut down Homeland 
Security. In fact, we heard Republicans in the House say it wouldn't be 
that big of a deal to shut down Homeland Security. Really? Anybody who 
reads the paper or watches the news can see what is happening every day 
around us, and Republicans in the House say it wouldn't be a problem to 
shut down Homeland Security? That is stunning.
  Detroit, MI, has the busiest northern border crossing in the country. 
It is the busiest northern border crossing for commerce, products, and 
people. We rely on our Customs and Border Patrol every single day. 
Customs and border security, airport security, and police and 
firefighters are on the frontlines every day protecting us. Let's not 
forget about the Coast Guard. All those folks are on the frontlines 
protecting our families in America. That is what we are debating.
  Do we want to play games with that? Do we want to hold Homeland 
Security hostage because of a debate with the President on another 
issue or do we fund Homeland Security and then have that debate? We can 
do it immediately--the same day. We could fund Homeland Security and 
then the Republican leader could immediately call up any bill he wants 
on immigration and then have that debate. Unfortunately--with terrorist 
threats all around us--Republicans are willing to shut down Homeland 
Security.
  Boko Haram is gaining strength in West Africa and hoping to inspire 
attacks against Americans. We know what they have done. Yet here we are 
debating whether Homeland Security is going to be shut down.
  In the months to come, we will need all of the hard-working men and 
women who work in every part of that agency to be full speed so they 
can protect us. Unless Republican colleagues are willing to support a 
spending bill and get that done right away, we are going to see the 
Department of Homeland Security management and headquarters stop 
functioning. Some 30,000 employees will be furloughed. People will be 
asked to work without pay--talk about jobs for people.
  In Detroit alone--and all over Michigan--we get firefighter grants. 
The budget has already started, and we have 150 firefighters in the 
city of Detroit alone whose ongoing funding has been stalled. We have 
firefighters all across Michigan. We have very important law 
enforcement grants all over Michigan that at the moment are on hold and 
can't go forward.
  We are talking about disrupting programs used to detect weapons of 
mass destruction and the training of local law enforcement officers who 
are on the frontlines of our defense. This makes no sense.
  It would be one thing if Republican colleagues were in the minority 
and they felt the only way we could have the debate they want to have 
is to tie the two together, but that is not the case. Republican 
colleagues are in the majority. We can pass Homeland Security 
together--100 to 0--and then get on to whatever immigration debate the 
majority wants to have or whatever else they would like to debate. We 
don't have to hold the Homeland Security funding hostage in order to do 
it.
  This past August our Defense Secretary said of ISIS:

       They are as sophisticated and well-funded as any group we 
     have seen. They're beyond just a terrorist group.

  When we think about it, we are talking about a well-funded terrorist 
group at the same time we are debating whether to fund our Homeland 
Security agencies that keep us safe from ISIS and other terrorist 
threats.
  I implore Republican colleagues to join with us, regardless of the 
passion on this other issue. We can debate it. It can be addressed.
  There are Republican majorities in the House and Senate that can 
debate the President's actions or debate anything for that matter, but 
we can certainly debate immigration at any moment. We do not have to 
hold the funding for the national defense of our homeland hostage to do 
it.
  I encourage my colleagues to get on to the business of passing the 
funding.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.

                          ____________________