[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1831-1834]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for the second time in 2 days our friends 
across the aisle have killed important funding for the Department of 
Homeland Security, a bill worth about $40 billion that

[[Page 1832]]

was passed by the House of Representatives and sent over for the Senate 
to consider.
  I continue to be amazed, watching Member after Member across the 
aisle come down here and vote to block this important piece of 
legislation, and then, in the same breath, accuse the majority of 
threatening to shut down the government. It strikes me as surreal. They 
are the ones filibustering the funding for the Department of Homeland 
Security, and they are claiming we are trying to shut down the 
government.
  I know it is sometimes hard to explain what happens in the Halls of 
Congress and Washington, DC, but my folks back home can't understand 
how they can block something and then claim they are for it--and then 
the people who are actually advocating for the passage of this funding, 
claiming somehow we are going to shut down the government. It just 
doesn't make any sense, and it is the kind of double talk I think 
people have come to despise and associate with Washington, DC, and 
Congress.
  That is one reason voters so overwhelmingly repudiated the status quo 
on November 4 and said: We want new management, and we don't want 
business as usual in Washington, DC.
  Speaking of saying one thing and doing another, on this side of the 
aisle we pointed out some of the tough talk from some of our friends on 
the other side of the aisle, Senate Democrats, last fall when the 
President made clear he intended to follow through on a series of 
unilateral immigration actions that he, himself, on 22 different 
occasions had said he did not have the authority to take.
  Indeed, it is my view this is unconstitutional. He can't pass or make 
a new law without following the constitutional pathway, which requires 
Congress to consider it, vote on it--both Houses--and then send it to 
the President for signature. For the President just simply to make it 
up out of whole cloth is dangerous, to say the least.
  I guess if the President doesn't like any other aspect of our laws, 
this President--or any future President--might claim the sole authority 
to change it without following the procedures laid out in the U.S. 
Constitution.
  I know what the President did last fall in this Executive action on 
immigration makes a number of our colleagues across the aisle 
uncomfortable because they are quoted in the newspaper as saying so. 
But now somehow in this mind meld going on, on the minority side, they 
now are walking in lockstep, voting against proceeding to consider this 
Homeland Security appropriations bill, even though, by my count, at 
least seven Democrats expressed deep concern with the President's 
unconstitutional action.
  Here is what the Senator from West Virginia said, talking about the 
President:

       I wish he wouldn't do it.

  The junior Senator from Minnesota said:

       I have concerns about executive action.

  The same kind of concerns I have just expressed.
  The senior Senator from Missouri felt the same way, saying about the 
President's unilateral action:

       How this is coming about makes me uncomfortable, [and] I 
     think it probably makes most Missourians uncomfortable.

  It made the President of the United States uncomfortable, so 
uncomfortable on 22 occasions he said he couldn't do it--and then he 
did it.
  It makes me extremely uncomfortable, too, and it certainly makes the 
vast majority of the people I represent back in Texas uncomfortable as 
well.
  We are a nation of laws. I know we say that all the time, but it is 
one of the things that distinguishes us from so much of the rest of the 
world where, no matter who you are--whether you are the President of 
the United States or the most humble person in the country--the rules 
apply to you equally. That is what it says over the top of the Supreme 
Court Building. Look at the front of the building. It says, ``Equal 
Justice Under Law.''
  The idea that the President can--after 22 times saying he didn't have 
the authority--become a law unto himself and try to get away with it is 
just unprecedented and it is dangerous.
  Despite the fact that many of our colleagues on the Democratic side 
have said what the President did made them feel uncomfortable, they 
apparently lost their sense of discomfort when they voted in lockstep 
to block this funding bill.
  In order to justify their filibuster, a number of Senate Democrats 
have said: I don't like the bill the House sent over because it has 
some things in it that I don't like. I like the funding, but I don't 
like the spending restrictions.
  I know the Presiding Officer understands as well that we can't change 
a piece of legislation in the Senate unless we vote to get on the bill. 
It is the same thing as saying you can't finish a journey until you 
start it, and our friends across the aisle are unwilling to even start 
that journey.
  To state the obvious, if our friends in the minority would like to 
change the Department of Homeland Security funding bill, they ought to 
stop blocking it from being debated and amend it. If they have ideas, 
let's bring them to the floor.
  One of the things that has distinguished this 114th Congress from the 
way things ran last year is we have actually had an open amendment 
process. Indeed, we found out in the first month of this year and this 
new Congress that we had more votes than all of last year combined.
  So there is going to be an opportunity for anybody with a better idea 
to come down and get a vote. But this whole idea of saying, I am not 
even going to participate in the process and--worse than that--I am 
going to block a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security 
because I don't like what is in it is just--well, it is just impossible 
to explain.
  We know some of our colleagues on the other side are using this to 
play games because they basically have admitted it.
  Just yesterday in the Huffington Post, the senior Senator from New 
York, a member of the leadership of his own party, said that ``it is 
really fun to be in the minority.'' That strikes me as extraordinarily 
cynical because we were not sent to play games, particularly with 
matters as important as homeland security. That is not what the 
American people sent us to do, and that is certainly not what they 
ratified or what they voted for on November 4.
  They rejected business as usual in Washington, DC, and they said: 
Let's do something different, and we may not necessarily endorse 
everything that Republicans stand for, but, boy, we are sure going to 
give them a chance to show that they can do better than the management 
in the 113th Congress.
  I think we began to make some positive steps in the right direction, 
particularly with passing important legislation.
  We passed three important pieces of legislation in the 114th 
Congress: the veterans suicide bill that we voted on earlier this week, 
we have passed the terrorism risk insurance bill, and we passed, as the 
Presiding Officer knows, a very important piece of legislation to our 
economy and job creation and energy security known as the Keystone XL 
Pipeline. That is not bad. That is not bad.
  We would like to do what I think falls in the category of governance 
101, something that is pretty basic. We have to pay to keep the 
government functioning and particularly the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  I know our friends on the other side of the aisle say: We don't like 
the bill the way it is, and we don't like the tools that are being used 
by the majority party to rein in the President's Executive action. 
Well, I am not going to make any apology for that because what the 
President did was unconstitutional. It was illegal. He has no authority 
to do that on his own. Again, it is not just me saying that. It is not 
just my opinion. It is his opinion. How cynical. How cynical.
  I guess he figures he is going to get away with it, and our friends 
on the other side of the aisle are going to be the enablers, to enable 
the President to

[[Page 1833]]

get away with something he said he didn't have the authority to do on 
22 times.
  I sure wouldn't want the folks back home to see me in that same 
light. I would have a hard time explaining to my constituents back 
home, saying, yes, I am helping the President do something that he said 
was illegal and he didn't have the authority to do, and we are going to 
play games by blocking important funding for the Department of Homeland 
Security in order to facilitate him getting away with it.
  That is a cynical game and it is dangerous, particularly in the 
threat environment we are living in.
  So I come to the floor for the third time this week to ask our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle--especially those who have 
boldly stood up to their own President, a member of their own party, 
the leader of their own party, a few short months ago--to ask them to 
stand up again and to tell the President and to tell their own 
leadership that we want to have a Senate that actually works, where the 
minority and the majority get to participate through an open amendment 
process. But we are going to respect the Constitution, we are going to 
respect this institution and, yes, we are going to respect the role of 
the Presidency under our Constitution enough to rein in this 
President's overreach, and we are not going to jeopardize funding for 
the Department of Homeland Security and allow that to be held hostage 
to the President's unconstitutional act.
  Mr. President, 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. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, earlier this week we learned about the 
young Jordanian pilot who was horrifically burned alive in a cage at 
the hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL. This is 
the same group that haunts us with images of beheadings and mass 
murders week after week and enslaves women into servitude. It is the 
same group that recently declared it is determined to ``reach 
America.''
  My friends, we live in a world that is scary. And it is not just 
ISIL. It is the lone wolves who gather ammunition and equipment and 
carefully draft plans to attack us where we work, such as the attack we 
saw last year in Ottawa and last month in Paris, as well as the 
individual from Ohio who was planning to attack the Capitol right here 
in Washington, DC.
  It is pandemics such as Ebola. It is the criminals trying to traffic 
illegal drugs and human beings across our borders and through our ports 
of entry. It is those individuals trying to sabotage our airplanes and 
our trains. It is those people trying to attack our computer networks 
and critical infrastructure.
  But thanks in large part to the work of the Department of Homeland 
Security and its employees, Americans are safe--at least a lot safer 
than we otherwise would be. Our airplanes and our airports are 
protected 24/7. Our borders and our ports throughout our country are 
secure. Trafficking of illegal drugs and human beings is better 
controlled, and our critical infrastructure networks are better 
protected.
  For anybody who thinks it makes sense to put the Department of 
Homeland Security out of business, to put it on the sidelines at this 
point in time in this world in which we live, I ask: Have we lost our 
minds? I hope not. I hope not. Yet today, here in the Congress, we are 
locked in a political debate about whether we fund that very agency 
that is charged with keeping Americans safe--those who live here with 
us--from the Islamic State and any other number of additional threats. 
That is irresponsible and shameful behavior. In order for the 
Department of Homeland Security to officially and effectively carry out 
its critical role in combating the multiple and ever-changing threats 
our country faces, the Department needs fiscal certainty and the full 
support of this Congress.
  Throughout this week I joined nearly half of my Senate colleagues to 
reject the House funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, 
H.R. 240, which contains riders that block the President's recent 
immigration actions. Many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
have significant concerns with these amendments, and the President has 
promised he would veto this bill if these amendments were not stripped 
from it.
  My colleagues' insistence that we accept these House amendments is 
jeopardizing timely enactment of a vital and bipartisan Homeland 
Security funding bill and threatens to prolong the crippling budget 
uncertainty the Department of Homeland Security has been operating 
under since last year.
  On top of that, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office, this House bill with the amendments would increase deficits 
over the next 10 years by a total of $7.5 billion. Instead of helping 
our Nation move forward with our economic recovery and our deficit 
reduction, this bill would move us backwards.
  I understand why some of our colleagues are upset about the 
President's immigration policies. We can and we should have a debate 
about those concerns. We started the process just yesterday in the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, where I serve 
as ranking member.
  Let me remind my colleagues that we wouldn't even be here having this 
conversation today or at that hearing yesterday if Congress had 
finished the job we began some 2 years ago in the Senate, right here on 
this floor. As most of my colleagues in this Chamber will recall, two-
thirds of the Senate came together in 2013. We passed by a wide margin 
a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Was it perfect? No, but we 
took significant steps to fix our badly broken and outdated immigration 
system and to enhance the security of our borders.
  At the same time, the bill would have reduced our budget deficit by 
nearly $1 trillion--$1 trillion--over the next 20 years, according to 
the Congressional Budget Office. Let me repeat that. Comprehensive 
immigration reform adopted here by a two-thirds vote would reduce our 
deficit by nearly $1 trillion over the next 20 years. We demonstrated 
almost 2 years ago that we can debate our Nation's immigration policies 
in a thoughtful way in the Senate, and, I think, over in the House. 
There is no reason why we can't do it again. We need to have this 
debate on the Senate floor as we did last Congress.
  We need to have this debate in committees as we did in the last 
Congress. We need to have this debate in our towns and States across 
America as we did in the last Congress. But we should not have this 
debate while we are deciding the fate of the budget of the Nation's 
most critical national security agency, the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  I am not the only one who thinks so. All three former Department of 
Homeland Security Secretaries--Republicans Tom Ridge and Michael 
Chertoff and Democrat Janet Napolitano--wrote to the Republican 
leadership last week and this is what they said:

       We do not question your desire to have a larger debate 
     about the Nation's immigration laws. However, we cannot 
     emphasize enough that the DHS's responsibilities are much 
     broader than its responsibility to oversee the federal 
     immigration agencies and to protect our borders. . . . And 
     funding for the entire agency should not be put in jeopardy 
     by the debate about immigration.

  The Washington Post's editorial board has also weighed in. Last week, 
here is what they wrote:

       If congressional Republicans want to attack those--

  Talking about immigration--

     actions responsibly, with discrete legislation, they are free 
     to try. . . . However, it is another thing to wield their 
     frustration over immigration as a cudgel, holding hostage an 
     entire department of government that is critical to the 
     nation's security. That is as irresponsible as it is 
     politically ill-advised.

  I could not agree more. We need to focus now on doing the job we were 
sent here to do--to provide the funding necessary to keep America safe 
in an ever more dangerous world. Once we

[[Page 1834]]

have done that, we should engage in an urgent debate on how to amend 
America's immigration policies for the 21st century.
  If we choose instead to continue down this irresponsible path toward 
a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, we will actually put 
America at greater risk. Why would we do that? Why would we do that?
  If we allow the Department of Homeland Security to shut down, here is 
what is going to happen--a few things that will happen. First of all, 
over 50,000 TSA security screeners keeping terrorists off of airplanes 
are going to go without pay. We want them to do their jobs, but we are 
just not going to pay them for it. Over 40,000 Customs and Border 
Protection officers needed to keep our borders secure are going to go 
without pay, too. We want them to do their jobs. We are not going to 
pay them, either.
  In addition, over 13,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, 
enforcing our immigration laws and combatting human and drug 
trafficking, are going to go without pay too. We want them to do their 
jobs. We are not going to pay them, either. Essentially, a large part 
of our Federal homeland security personnel would be working on an IOU. 
Now you say: How is that fair? How is that fair? Well, it is not. Even 
if we avoid a shutdown but continue to keep the Department on a 
continuing resolution, we prevent the men and women who work there from 
doing their jobs as effectively and as efficiently as they can.
  For example, we will not be able to replace obsolete surveillance 
technology along the high-risk areas of our border with Mexico. Our 
Nation will have significantly fewer resources to respond to any future 
surges of unaccompanied minors along the Southwest border. Morale will 
continue to degrade at the Department, which already ranks dead last 
for morale among other major Federal agencies. This is not how we want 
to be treated. It is no way for us to treat the men and women who are 
working around the clock to keep us safe.
  It is also an egregious waste of money. As we have learned over the 
years, crisis budgeting costs taxpayers millions of dollars. This 
latest situation is no exception. Employee hiring and research efforts 
at the Department would come to a halt. The contracts for a variety of 
security projects would be stalled and would need to be renegotiated, 
in all likelihood at a higher cost to taxpayers.
  For example, a continuing resolution would delay a $600 million 
contract to build a national security cutter that the Coast Guard 
urgently needs--keep it from being awarded. This cutter is critical to 
stopping the illegal trafficking off of our shores and ports of entry, 
including illegal immigration and drug and human trafficking. That is 
just one example.
  As any business owner would tell us, this is not the way to run a 
business. It is certainly no way to run a vital national security 
agency of the United States.
  So how are we going to remedy this situation? Fortunately, we have a 
solution sitting right in front of us, the bill that Senators Mikulski 
and Shaheen have introduced. It is S. 272. It is a clean fiscal year 
2015 appropriations bill, which both Democrats and Republicans agreed 
to just this past December, 2 months ago. This measure provides the 
stable full-year funding that the Department of Homeland Security and 
our national security need without demanding a ransom.
  In closing, I want to urge, as strongly as I can, my colleagues in 
this Chamber, in this body, to join me in doing the right thing. 
Support passage of this clean full-year appropriations legislation for 
the Department of Homeland Security. Reject the amendments approved by 
the House. Once we have done that, let's begin a fulsome and badly 
needed debate that will enable us to hammer out a thoughtful, 21st 
century immigration policy for America, a policy that is fair, a policy 
that will significantly reduce our Nation's budget deficit, and a 
policy that will strengthen the economic recovery in this country that 
is now underway.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

                          ____________________