[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1919-1921]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, last Wednesday, President Obama made a 
statement that is troubling to me. I think those of us who believe in 
Executive leadership and honest leadership, where leaders talk directly 
to the people about the serious problems we face, have to be troubled 
by this trend with this administration. Sometimes it makes me fear for 
the future of the Republic. He accused Republicans of ``defunding the 
very operations that are involved in making sure we've got strong 
border security.'' He said Republicans are blocking funding of that. 
Nothing could be further from the truth.
  The House of Representatives--the Republican House--has passed a bill 
with $40 billion, funding fully, as basically the President requested, 
all the agencies in the Department of Homeland Security. It has one 
little catch to it; it bars the President from taking money from the 
Department of Homeland Security that is supposed to be used to enforce 
the law and using that to grant amnesty and to undermine the

[[Page 1920]]

law. The House bill is not in any way undermining the security of the 
United States of America, the ability for Homeland Security to protect 
us from terrorists. In fact, it strengthens that ability because it 
keeps the money there and uses it for those purposes, whereas right now 
the President is spending over $100 million to create a structure 
across the river that would hire 1,000 new people in Homeland Security 
to process amnesty applications for people who violated the law and to 
give them the right to have earned income tax credit benefits, a Social 
Security card, the ability to take any job in the American economy that 
maybe an unemployed American would like to have or a recent immigrant 
with a green card would like to have. No, this person who entered the 
country now unlawfully gets to take that job under this policy. 
Congress did not fund that. But it funded the laws of the agency. The 
President, as he said himself 20 times, had no power to do this.
  So what is happening now in the Senate, colleagues? Our Democratic 
colleagues now unanimously, it appears, are blocking even moving to the 
bill that funds Homeland Security. So I ask, with all sincerity, how 
can it be said that the Republicans are failing to fund the operations 
making sure we have strong border security? How can that be made a 
statement by the President of the United States?
  I think we need to keep talking about that. We should not allow these 
modern-age politicians to go to the American people with false stories 
about what is happening. The Democratic Members of this Senate are 
systematically blocking the bill we would like to see come to the floor 
that fully funds Homeland Security. They have been given the right, as 
Senator McConnell has repeatedly stated--which Senator Reid never did--
they have been given the right to offer any amendments they would like 
that are relevant and germane to the bill. So I would say this is a 
most serious thing with me, and I believe the American people need to 
understand it.
  The House bill will not deny a single penny of funding for legitimate 
lawful operations of Homeland Security. It will be spent on enforcing 
the law, enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act that was 
actually passed by Congress.
  What the President is attempting to do is to create and execute a law 
Congress rejected. He asked the House to pass this law and the House 
said, no, they did not agree with this policy and rejected it. So he is 
executing it anyway.
  Senate Republicans have attempted to move the bill to the floor three 
times, and each time it has been blocked by our Democratic colleagues 
because the bill does not fund the President's unlawful Executive 
amnesty that he admitted 20 separate times he did not have the power to 
do.
  Congress, colleagues, is supposed to spend the taxpayers' money 
wisely. Congress should not fund any program, no matter how much the 
President wants it, that they believe is bad policy. More importantly, 
more clearly, no Senator should vote to fund a Presidential policy that 
violates the law, that violates the Constitution, that distorts the 
relationship between the Congress, which makes laws, and the President, 
who is supposed to execute only the laws Congress makes. So that is 
where we are at this point.
  The President is not entitled to spend taxpayer money to implement a 
system of immigration that Congress has rejected. An article in 
yesterday's Washington Times is further indication of where we are in 
this world of politics. It was reported that the Department of Homeland 
Security is spending taxpayer money to set up hotlines for illegal 
immigrants to call in to with any complaints they may have about 
immigration law enforcement officers if they think the officers have 
violated their ``rights'' under President Obama's Executive amnesty--
not violating their rights under law--but the President has told them 
this and sent out this message to the stakeholder groups.
  Now who are the stakeholder groups? I suppose they are the activist 
groups. That is how they refer to them: stakeholders. So they send out 
this message: If you are not happy with the way the Federal agency is 
executing my policy but indeed those agencies are attempting to enforce 
the law as written, then you have a ``right'' to call in to this 
hotline, and I will get on them, and I will see that they do it.
  So how do the officers feel about this? National Border Patrol 
Council vice president Shawn Moran said this in a response. First, let 
me tell you, the Border Patrol officers in the USCIS--the Citizenship 
and Immigration Services officers--have opposed the President's 
Executive amnesty. Their association has laid out how it will make the 
problem worse, it will increase the risk of terrorist attacks, and 
otherwise further degrade the integrity of our legal system. They have 
been clear about this. We ought to listen to them. They enforce that 
law repeatedly. That is their duty. They have opposed bills that they 
think may look good on the surface but once they have read them and 
found out the bill will not work effectively, they speak out against 
that, which is very helpful, and I am glad they do.
  Well, this is what Mr. Moran said:

       Instead of supporting our agents, this administration had 
     decided it is more important to find new ways to solicit 
     complaints and invite ridicule against them.

  The American people have to know that the Obama administration's 
dereliction of duty relating to our immigration system did not begin 
with this recent decree. From the day he took office, the President has 
relentlessly and systematically, colleagues, friends, the American 
people, dismantled immigration enforcement. It is far more serious than 
you would imagine.
  My office has compiled a 49-page baseline timeline of nearly 200 
specific entries and events that occurred since 2009 detailing how the 
law of the United States has been undermined by directives and orders 
from the President of the United States. It is step by step. This one 
person alone, the President, has acted against the will of the American 
people and undermined the law in America.
  Just briefly, I will mention the first event that came to my mind. 
When he took office in early 2009, I believe in the State of 
Washington, the officers, doing their duty, enforcing the law that says 
a business cannot hire somebody unlawfully in America, investigated a 
business in Washington, discovered quite a number of people unlawfully 
in America, and were to commence action against the business for 
violating plain law that is still on the books and has not been 
repealed. And what happened? Immediately, the President intervened. He 
told them: No. Do not do this. And he told the activist groups--the La 
Razas and the other activist groups that were engaged in pushing him on 
this issue--essentially, he told them: Look, I am going to honor the 
promise I made to you during the campaign--that is the way I would 
interpret it--not to allow this kind of lawful activity to happen in 
the future.
  So from day one, the law officers of our country got a clear message. 
What was the message? If you go out and enforce the law, you will get 
in trouble. If you do not say anything and do not do anything and stay 
back and lay back and not enforce the law, everything will be OK. That 
began the situation.
  Here are just some of the highlights that I circled and looked at.
  This was the Bellingham, WA, case I just mentioned, detaining 28 
illegal immigrants who were using false, fake Social Security 
documents.
  On January 29, 2009, in April of 2009, and June of 2009, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano delays the E-Verify 
deadlines. E-Verify is a system by which businesses are supposed to 
check a person's Social Security Number to find out if it is valid 
before they hire them. Many times we know people have used false Social 
Security Numbers to get work. She delayed that. Then she delayed it 
again in April, and delayed it again in June.
  In June of 2010, the ICE union--the Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement officers--they are three basic groups:

[[Page 1921]]

the ICE group, there is the Border Patrol group, and the Citizenship 
and Immigration Services group that processes the paperwork. The ICE 
union cast a unanimous vote of ``no confidence'' in the agency Homeland 
Security leadership, including ICE Director John Morton and Assistant 
Director Phyllis Coven, citing ``the growing dissatisfaction and 
concern among ICE employees'' that they ``have abandoned the 
Agency's''--ICE's--``core mission of enforcing United States 
Immigration Laws and providing for public safety, and have instead 
directed their attention to campaigning for programs and policies 
related to amnesty.''
  He said the policy of this government--not what we as sworn officers 
are supposed to be enforcing, but the policy of our leaders is to spend 
all their time campaigning for policies related to amnesty and 
undermining enforcement.
  ICE officers went so far, colleagues, as to file a lawsuit in Federal 
court contending they were being ordered to violate the law by their 
supervisors. A judge expressed sympathy for them but eventually decided 
they didn't have standing to proceed with the case, but I think it is 
still on appeal.
  In 2011, at a roundtable with amnesty advocates, President Obama 
admitted his deportation statistics were misleading. Indeed, they have 
been. They claim they have increased deportation, but that is totally 
incorrect. They finally had to admit it.
  In February of 2012 President Obama slashed the budget for the 287(g) 
Program, a program that I helped advocate for and moved forward when I 
came to the Senate 10 years ago. It simply says the Federal Government 
will work with State and local law enforcement officers to train them 
in the things they can legally do to help the Federal officers enforce 
the law. It is a perfectly sensible program, and it is very popular. A 
number of States have taken quite a step toward it. It was working in 
an effective way, and they canceled it after he took office.
  They announced the delay in the biometric entry-exit visa system in 
February of last year. An inspector general audit revealed declines in 
workplace enforcement of substantial amounts as a direct result of 
White House policies, and they admit the Obama administration 
manipulated deportation data.
  In March of last year a new report revealed that the ICE officers----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 10 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair, and I ask unanimous consent for 1 
additional minute to wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. It was revealed that ICE released 68,000 convicted 
criminals in 2013. These are convicted criminals.
  In May of last year the Deputy Chief of Border Patrol revealed that 
the border surge was incentivized by the administration's policies.
  As I said, there are 49 pages of this.
  I would point out that we are ready to bring the bill to the floor 
and allow amendments to the legislation passed by the House that fully 
funds Homeland Security and ensures that the money is spent for 
enforcement and not to dismantle the law.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________