[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1958-1961]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, funding for the Department of Homeland 
Security runs out in 17 days. Rather than working with Democrats to 
pass a clean Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, many 
Republicans are prioritizing politics over our national security.
  With threats emerging every day both at home and abroad, casting 
doubt on future funding for the Department of Homeland Security is a 
terrible idea. Shutting down DHS has real

[[Page 1959]]

consequences, especially in border States such as New Mexico. A DHS 
shutdown would threaten public safety, hinder interstate commerce, hurt 
our economy, and jeopardize critical funding for State, local, and 
tribal government activities.
  Some of my Republican colleagues are willing to let these 
consequences happen because they have an immigration policy 
disagreement with the President. That is no way to govern, and it is 
not real leadership.
  As a border State, New Mexico plays a critical role in protecting our 
homeland. DHS Customs and Border Protection agents and officers at New 
Mexico's two ports of entry at Columbus and Santa Teresa are 
responsible for maintaining our security and for screening vehicles and 
would-be crossers. These public servants put in long hours in order to 
keep all of us safe. They apprehend drug smugglers, human traffickers, 
and gang members. They also play a direct role in facilitating critical 
trade and interstate commerce between the United States and Mexico. 
That impacts our economy in New Mexico, particularly in Hidalgo, Luna, 
and Dona Ana Counties.
  New Mexico is a growing international trade center and the Columbus 
and Santa Teresa ports of entry are key to growing the diversity of my 
State's economy.
  Recently, a House Republican said that if we run out of DHS funding, 
``it's not the end of the world.'' I disagree, and so do many of my 
constituents.
  Let me be clear about what a DHS shutdown would mean for New Mexico. 
It would impact our Southeast Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 
in Artesia. This facility trains our Customs and Border Protection 
agents and officers. It would also compromise sheriff and city police 
departments across the State who use DHS funding to increase personnel 
and purchase equipment. Moreover, DHS helps fund some of our most 
important security programs such as the New Mexico All Source 
Intelligence Center, a public safety partnership based out of Santa Fe 
that is designed to collect, analyze, and disseminate intelligence.
  A shutdown would also risk important DHS grant funding for New Mexico 
at the Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. This 
agency works closely with DHS to aid communities after natural 
disasters. In times of crisis, DHS works hand-in-glove with the State 
of New Mexico.
  For example, last year severe thunderstorms and floods caused 
disruption of oil and gas development, agricultural losses, and 
extensive damage to critical infrastructure across New Mexico, hitting 
counties such as Colfax, Eddy, Lea, Lincoln, Otero, San Miguel, Santa 
Fe, and Sierra.
  FEMA, an agency under DHS, worked collaboratively to help these 
communities rebuild and recover. In fact, since 2002, New Mexico has 
received more than $238 million in DHS grant funds. These resources 
provide statewide hazard mitigation assistance and help repair damaged 
roads, bridges, and low-water crossings after these disasters.
  As current cabinet secretary-designate for the New Mexico Department 
of Homeland Security and Emergency Management Mitchell Jay puts it, a 
DHS shutdown would:

     . . . have a very negative effect. We'll lose our grant 
     funding for local and State emergency managers. We fund a 
     portion of their salaries through DHS grants, and we can't, 
     nor can the counties and municipalities, afford to absorb 
     those costs at this time. . . . We can't afford to lose our 
     emergency managers, they're key representatives in our 
     communities who help develop mitigation plans for all types 
     of emergencies. They're our first line of defense should any 
     emergencies occur at the local level.

  These examples are just a glimpse at the security, economic, and 
emergency risks of allowing DHS funding to expire.
  Former Department of Homeland Security Secretaries Tom Ridge, Michael 
Chertoff, and Janet Napolitano joined in a bipartisan call for Congress 
to act swiftly and remove uncertainty from an agency in charge of 
keeping us safe.
  A Department of Homeland Security shutdown would also either furlough 
DHS employees or require many of them to work without a paycheck. That 
means men and women who work tirelessly to keep our Nation safe would 
have to live with the uncertainty of whether they are able to support 
their families.
  DHS workers don't deserve that. They shouldn't be collateral damage 
in an ongoing ideological battle here in Washington, DC. I would like 
to believe a debate such as this would be about the merits of DHS 
funding and the DHS funding bill, but unfortunately that is not the 
case. This debate is about Republicans picking a political fight with 
the President over an immigration system we all recognize is broken. As 
a way to vent their frustrations, Republicans are unfairly targeting 
undocumented students known as DREAMers. At times such as this, one is 
forced to wonder if some on the far right fear DREAMers more than ISIL. 
But we are not a country that kicks out our best and brightest 
students. We are not a nation that separates families.
  I have met many DREAMers over the past 10 years in New Mexico. They 
are smart, they are hardworking, and most of them don't know how to be 
anything but an American. They grew up here, and they want to give 
back. I have heard their stories. I have read their letters.
  For example, there is a bright young New Mexican named Yuri. Her 
family emigrated from Mexico to the United States when she was 2 years 
old. As a student at Highland High School in my neighborhood in 
Albuquerque, Yuri volunteered in our community. She served as student 
body president. She graduated in the top 10 percent of her class, and 
she received the 2013 Sandia National Laboratories scholarship.
  In 2013, she was approved for Deferred Action for Childhood 
Arrivals--known as DACA--and is currently studying chemical engineering 
at the University of New Mexico. She wants to use her degree to enter 
the medical field.
  Less than 2 years ago, after much debate and compromise, the Senate 
passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill. That bill would have 
modernized our immigration system to meet the needs of our economy. It 
would have provided an accountable pathway to earn citizenship for the 
undocumented workers currently living in the shadows in our country. It 
would have dramatically strengthened security at our borders.
  Accountable immigration reform received 68 votes in this body and 
demonstrated the kind of legislation and the kind of leadership that is 
possible when we work together. The American people are frustrated with 
the gridlock here in Washington, DC. Frankly, I don't blame them. We 
need pragmatic solutions to fix our immigration system, but withholding 
DHS funding and jeopardizing our national security is not a solution. 
In fact, I would say it is emblematic of what is broken. Instead of 
focusing on deporting some of our country's brightest students, I would 
urge my Republican colleagues in the House and in the Senate to direct 
their attention to the real threats our country faces--the gang 
members, the drug traffickers, the cyber hackers, and the terrorists. 
Let's work together to make sure the Department of Homeland Security is 
adequately funded.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to urge the Senate to take up a 
clean Homeland Security appropriations bill and pass it without further 
delay. I know we have had several votes on the floor on proceeding to 
the bill, but I would urge the leadership to make it clear that we 
stand on record for a clean Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  We have an obligation to protect the American people. Given the 
terrorist threat we face both at home and abroad, it is irresponsible 
to continue to fund the Department of Homeland Security with short-term 
budgets and bring them to the edge of an agency

[[Page 1960]]

shutdown. We also should not force hard-working Federal workers to 
stand in the crossfire between Congress and the President.
  Providing the resources our Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
officers need to carry out their vital around-the-clock mission should 
not be caught up in partisan political disagreements. We need a clean 
appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security.
  We face a dangerous world today in light of recent terrorist attacks 
throughout Europe, Asia, and North America, and the ongoing threat of 
ISIS. I know I express the views of all Members of the Senate in 
expressing our deep condolences and prayers for the Kayla Mueller 
family as we learn today of her fate at the hands of ISIS. ISIS is 
actively recruiting foreign fighters, who are being radicalized and 
then returned to their home countries, including countries in Europe 
and North America.
  We need to fully fund without further delay, uncertainty, or another 
short-term budget the critical homeland security, law enforcement, and 
intelligence activities and programs of the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  Mr. President, we are now 4 months into the fiscal year. One-third of 
the fiscal year is already over for the Department of Homeland 
Security. We should not keep funding DHS on short-term budgets. No 
agency or private business, for that matter, can effectively implement 
a budget and carry out its mission under this type of financial 
tightrope. How would you like to run a business not knowing whether 
your budget is going to be there starting March 1? How do you plan? How 
do you make commitments for the year to carry out your mission when you 
don't know whether you are going to have the budget support starting 
March 1 or whether it is going to be continued on a continuing 
resolution, whether you are going to have to go through a government 
shutdown or whether you are going to have a budget? You can't run an 
agency that way.
  DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson has stated that if Congress continues to 
fund his agency on short-term budgets, it will harm its mission and 
programs at the agency. We created the Department of Homeland Security 
in response to the devastating attacks on our country on September 11.
  For example, short-term funding may limit more aggressive 
counterterrorism efforts, weaken our cyber security protections against 
hackers trying to corrupt or steal our data, delay enhancements to 
aviation security, slow down new border security initiatives, and defer 
new grants to State and local law enforcement. DHS may have to delay or 
postpone contract awards and new acquisitions, which also hurts small 
businesses and our economy. DHS will have to scale back employee 
training and postpone the hiring of new personnel.
  We have broad bipartisan support on almost all aspects of this $40 
billion Homeland Security funding measure. This legislation funds 
critical agencies, including the Coast Guard; the Transportation 
Security Administration, TSA; the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
FEMA; the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office; and the Secret Service, 
just to mention a few of the agencies that come under the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  Three former heads of the Department of Homeland Security, both under 
Democratic and Republican administrations, recently wrote a letter to 
Congress urging us to pass a clean Homeland Security appropriations 
bill and avoid another short-term funding measure or, worse yet, a 
government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security at the end 
of February.
  Let me quote from a part of the letter from former Homeland Security 
Secretaries Ridge, Chertoff, and Napolitano, again representing both 
Democratic and Republican administrations:

       [W]e write to you today to respectfully request that you 
     consider decoupling critical legislation to fund DHS in FY 
     '15 from a legislative response to President Obama's 
     executive action on immigration . . . The President has said 
     very publicly that he will ``oppose any legislative effort to 
     undermine the executive actions that he'' has taken on 
     immigration. Therefore, by tethering a bill to fund DHS in FY 
     2015 to a legislative response to the President's executive 
     action on immigration, the likelihood of a DHS shutdown 
     increases.

  The letter continues:

       We do not question your desire to have a larger debate 
     about the nation's immigration laws. However, we cannot 
     emphasize enough that 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 . . . It is imperative that we ensure that 
     DHS is ready, willing and able to protect the American 
     people. To that end, we urge you not to risk funding for the 
     operations that protect every American and to pass a clean 
     DHS funding bill.

  That is from a letter from three former Secretaries of the Department 
of Homeland Security who worked for both Democratic and Republican 
administrations.
  Mr. President, what if Congress allows DHS funding to lapse on 
February 27? That is the end of the current funding resolution. We 
would then ask critical frontline personnel, such as Border Patrol 
agents and air marshals, to work without pay. That is insulting to 
those law enforcement officers who are putting their lives on the line 
to keep Americans safe every day. That is insulting to the families of 
those law enforcement officers who depend on a steady paycheck to make 
ends meet. And that is insulting to the American people, who deserve 
nothing less than world-class service from government officials.
  I must tell you that we have gone through government shutdowns 
before. It hurts people, no question about it. But guess who gets hurt 
the most. The taxpayers of this country. It ends up costing us more. We 
don't save taxpayer dollars. It ends up costing more, jeopardizing the 
mission, and putting individual families at risk.
  Let me cite one example that many of our States and localities know 
very well. It is the Emergency Management Grant Program. Many local 
fire, police, and emergency management officials rely on funding from 
the Homeland Security Grant Program, which provides funds to States, 
territories, and other local governments to prevent, protect against, 
and respond to potential terrorist attacks and other hazards. This is a 
program local governments rely upon. They do not know whether they are 
going to get any of these funds after March 1. How do they plan? Local 
officials as well rely on funding from FEMA's emergency management 
performance grants. These grants help them to prepare for the 
unexpected, whether it is a natural disaster or some type of terrorist 
activity. It allows them to be prepared. We require this training, and 
it is 50 percent Federal funds and 50 percent local funds. How do they 
make arrangements to set up this training if they do not know whether 
the Federal funds are going to be there?
  I can speak for the State of Maryland. We have a very tough budget. 
Our Governor is trying to figure out how he is going to make ends meet. 
He doesn't have the resources to advance the Federal share. That is no 
way for us to work in federalism with our local governments when we 
have a partnership to keep everyone safe.
  I can mention many other programs that are in jeopardy of not being 
funded if we don't pass a clean bill, but let me just in conclusion 
address the issue of immigration.
  Due to many extraneous amendments that were added by the House to the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill, we have this challenge here in 
the Senate. The President has made it clear he will veto any bill that 
expressly limits his authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion on 
immigration matters.
  While we agree that our current immigration system needs 
comprehensive reform, including border security enhancements, this 
appropriations bill is not the place for that debate. No matter what 
side of this debate you are on, most of us agree that the American 
immigration system is badly broken. Comprehensive immigration reform is 
long overdue. We need a balanced immigration system that is fair.

[[Page 1961]]

  My strong preference is that Congress send the President a 
comprehensive immigration reform bill that he can sign into law. This 
would provide a more thorough and more permanent solution than 
Executive action. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill in the last 
Congress, and I am sure we can do so again. My hope is that the House 
will take it up soon so we can come together in a bipartisan way, 
reconcile our differences, and pass comprehensive immigration reform as 
a separate bill.
  Funding for the Department of Homeland Security expires Friday, 
February 27, which is now less than 3 weeks away. We are not scheduled 
to be in session one of those weeks because of the district work 
period. The Senate should act now to pass a clean Homeland Security 
bill and send it to the President without further delay. That is in the 
best interest of the American people.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The Senator from Texas.

                          ____________________