[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1962-1964]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I come to the floor, and I have been 
trying to get time to do this, because I stand here in amazement that 
after the Republicans took over on January 6--after they won big in 
November and they took over the Senate on January 6--it took them 1 
month to threaten a government shutdown of the Department of Homeland 
Security. Unbelievable. It took them 1 month to get into a situation 
where we are threatened with a shutdown of the Department of Homeland 
Security. It is unbelievable to me because we know the threat of 
terrorism that is all around us, and playing politics with this is 
absolutely uncalled for.
  Why did they do that? They did that because the President under his 
authority said we shouldn't deport immigrants who were raised in 
America. That is what they didn't like.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for up 
to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. With terrorists all around us, Republicans are playing 
politics with the critical funding for the Department of Homeland 
Security and threatening a shutdown. It took them exactly a month in 
power to do that because they didn't like the fact that the President, 
who is in line with Presidents of both parties, issued an Executive 
order. By the way, President Obama has issued the fewest number of 
Executive orders in the history of any President. I never heard one 
Republican complain when Ronald Reagan did a number of Executive orders 
or George Bush did Executive orders, all on immigration. And I have 
those, for the record. But they didn't like this. I guess they would 
rather deport these DREAMers.
  One of my colleagues said they are more scared of the DREAMers than 
they are of ISIL--a joke. What are they afraid of? Some child who was 
brought here at 3 years of age, went to school, is holding down a job, 
doing great? Those are the people the President's Executive order is 
affecting. They are in my State, they are in Texas, they are in 
Arizona, they are all over the country. If there is anyone swept up in 
that who is not a good citizen, they don't get to have this benefit, 
which, by the way, does not include citizenship. It just says action on 
your deportation is deferred.
  I would say to anyone within the sound of my voice, if anyone from 
your family ever came here from another country, think about what they 
are doing. Think about what they are doing.
  It will cost billions of dollars to deport these students. Then, by 
the way, they don't take up an immigration bill. If the status quo 
prevails, you are talking about deporting 11 million people. You have 
got to be kidding. We had an independent analysis done by USC which 
shows how important it is to resolve this immigration issue, and what a 
boon it is to our society if we do so.
  Well, the Republicans are stomping their feet. They never said 
anything when Ronald Reagan issued an Executive order on immigration. 
They never said anything when George Herbert Walker Bush did it. They 
never said anything before. But when this President does something that 
I think is very wise to make sure we keep these young people here, they 
threaten to shut down the Department of Homeland Security.
  Now let's talk about what that means. You would stop command-and-
control activities at the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. 
You disrupt important programs that protect weapons of mass destruction 
and train local law enforcement. You force critical frontline personnel 
such as Border Patrol agents to work without pay.
  Now maybe my colleagues would like to work without pay. Go for it. 
Most of us need our pay to live. Imagine the Border Patrol agents and 
TSA agents who work every day to support their families--they don't get 
paid.
  It would jeopardize the safety of my constituency. During the last 
fiscal year California received over $200 million in crucial grant 
money that enabled State and local authorities to respond to national 
security threats and prepare for natural disasters. The Republicans are 
putting this crucial funding in jeopardy.
  Let's be clear: Even if they back off their threat to shut down the 
government by shutting down Homeland Security, if they back off and 
say, well, let's just fund it at last year's level, let me tell you, we 
will not see those safety grants.
  Last year, Texas, for example, received $105 million from these 
grants. You cannot go home and tell your Governor, too bad, we are 
stepping out. You step up. It doesn't work like this. We are one Nation 
under God. We have to protect our people.
  I will tell you what else is threatened. Even if they back down and 
let the government stay open but they fund it at last year's level, 
firefighting grants such as the Assistance to Firefighters Grant 
Program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response 
Grants Program would be delayed. These programs are vital to 
California. We have a nearly year-round fire season. Last year 
California firefighters received $20 million in fire grants that 
allowed fire departments all over our State to purchase necessary 
equipment.
  Let me tell you, I have been to fire scenes I will never forget where 
we have lost firefighters. They need equipment that saves their lives. 
They are so great, but the wind changes and they find themselves in a 
canyon, and if they don't have the right equipment--horrific results.
  We also received $50 million in SAFER grants last year that allowed 
fire departments to hire and train firefighters. Sometimes you are in a 
situation and if you haven't been trained on how to respond, it puts 
your life and other lives in jeopardy.

[[Page 1963]]

  Other States such as Ohio received a total of $33 million in fire and 
safety grants last year.
  I have to say, this kind of threat, after what we saw the last time 
Republicans threatened a shutdown, makes no sense at all. We need a 
clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill. When I say that, I 
hope people understand I don't mean scouring the bill. What I mean is 
keep extraneous issues off the bill. We all have our pet peeves. 
Listen, a lot of people don't like the fact that the DREAMers are 
staying here. They want to deport them. Introduce the bill to deport 
the DREAMers, bring it to the floor--have at it.
  I will talk about what it would have been like for me, whose mother 
was born in Europe, and it took her a while to get her naturalization 
papers, if she was ripped out of my life. You know, I thought we had 
family values around here. We need a clean bill.
  If you want to deport all the undocumented people--11 million--who 
are living in your communities and a lot of times fearful, that is a 
position you can defend. Defend it. Explain why we should spend 
billions deporting these people. Put up your solution. Don't try to 
kill a bill by holding it hostage to your demands.
  We had an immigration bill this past year. It was terrific, it was 
bipartisan. Let's go for it. Let's go for it again. Let's have a 
debate. Oh, no. They are in power for 30 days and they are already 
threatening a government shutdown of the Department of Homeland 
Security. I tell you, this is no way to run the greatest Nation in the 
world.
  These programs are critically important and are we going to turn our 
back on those who keep us safe?
  TSA officers would not be paid during a DHS shutdown. The agency that 
seized a record 2,212 firearms last year from passengers' carry-on 
luggage (of which 83% were loaded)--would be doing their important work 
keeping the traveling public safe without pay.
  And communities that are relying on federal FEMA funding to help them 
get back on their feet, after disasters have shattered their lives, 
will have to wait to be reimbursed during a shutdown.
  California emergency officials expect slowdowns in ongoing disaster 
recovery operations like the RIM Fire and Napa Earthquake.
  By failing to pass a clean DHS funding bill, we're putting the safety 
of our cities and our citizens at risk. The United States Conference of 
Mayors agrees--they are urging us to pass a clean DHS bill to keep our 
cities functioning.
  Unless Republicans stop catering to their extreme Tea Party wing, 
critical programs that protect us from terrorists will be undermined or 
frozen just weeks after the horrifying attack in Paris and evidence 
that our enemies are willing and able to launch cyberattacks against 
us.
  Republicans would rather tear families apart than provide critical 
funding for the homeland security infrastructure that was built 
following 9/11. It's clear that Republicans hate DREAMers more than 
they hate ISIS.
  The Republicans' extreme anti-immigrant amendments would have a 
chilling effect on the Latino community, instill fear of deportation 
for victims of domestic and sexual violence, and subject DREAMers, who 
are peacefully contributing to our economy and community, to 
deportation and exploitation. These are young men and women who have 
been living in the U.S. since they were children and came here by no 
fault of their own. They consider themselves just as much a part of the 
fabric of their communities--and this country--as their classmates and 
peers.
  Specifically, the Republican amendments would prevent the 
implementation of President Obama's DACA initiatives, which would 
enable many unlawfully present young people who came to the United 
States as children to apply for ``deferred action,'' a temporary relief 
from removal not permanent immigration status--and work authorization.
  It would also prevent the implementation of President Obama's DAPA 
initiative, which would enable the parents of U.S. citizens or green 
card holders who have lived here for years to apply for deferred action 
and work authorization as long as they pay fees, have not been 
convicted of a serious crime, and submit to a background check.
  It would prevent ICE from using its expertise to set immigration 
enforcement priorities, to focus on the most serious public safety 
threats, as it has done for years.
  It would put domestic violence survivors in danger by taking away 
their ability to stay in the United States and obtain the help that 
they need and ensure that the perpetrators of this violence are 
punished.
  DACA and DAPA will strengthen community policing, improve community 
safety, and help more immigrant women come forward sooner to protect 
their children and themselves from domestic violence. Immigration law 
already provides abused women an opportunity to apply for protection. 
Why would we want to potentially curtail these protections from the 
women and children who need them the most?
  Specifically, President Obama's Executive Actions on Immigration will 
improve California's economy with an $11.7 billion increase in GDP over 
the next 10 years, by giving California a boost in productivity from up 
to 1.5 million more people who could pay taxes and contribute to the 
state's economy.
  This will increase the average wages of U.S. born workers across the 
country by $170 a year and raise the Nation's gross domestic product by 
up to $90 billion over the next decade by expanding the labor force and 
giving immigrant workers the flexibility to seek new jobs.
  Let's come together. We had a really good meeting of the minds in a 
lovely setting last week, and a lunch. We agreed these differences are 
not personal and it is fine that we have them. I don't mind. That is 
healthy in a society. We want to have differing views. That is what 
makes everyone in our country feel represented. The fact that I have 
certain views and the Presiding Officer may have a different view is 
fine. What isn't fine, in my view, is using your views to hold the 
Department of Homeland Security funding hostage. Too much is at stake.
  This Chamber is empty. We are not doing a darn thing. We even have 
Republicans on our side and saying, no, this is not the right way to 
go.
  Why don't we do this: Why don't we fund the Department of Homeland 
Security--it went through the entire process--and then make an absolute 
commitment, which the Republicans have the ability to do, to take up 
immigration reform. Then let's debate it. Let's hear why some of my 
friends on the other side want to deport the DREAMers. Let's find out 
why they don't want to do much about keeping families together. That is 
fine. Let's debate it. Let's move on. But let's not hold hostage the 
Department of Homeland Security funding to some ideological debate on 
immigration, which should stand on its own and have the focus it 
deserves.
  Frankly, I hope we will begin with these unanimous consent requests--
I won't do it today because I haven't warned anybody I want to--but 
fulfill the Department of Homeland Security and then immediately go to 
immigration reform where we can hash it out and become the deliberative 
body we are supposed to be.
  Nobody is here. We are not doing anything right now, because we are 
stopped dead because of this dispute that has nothing to do with 
homeland security, in my view.
  The American people agree across the board on this. You shouldn't 
attach irrelevant legislative matters on a funding bill. They have a 
funding bill. They have a job to do. In this case it is protecting 
Americans from terror, OK? That is over here, and over here is a very 
legitimate debate on immigration policy, and one that deserves the full 
time of this United States Senate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document entitled 
``Executive Grants of Temporary Immigration Relief, 1956-Present'' be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 1964]]



     Executive Grants of Temporary Immigration Relief, 1956-Present

       1956 (Eisenhower) Paroled orphans for military families who 
     wanted to adopt them; 1956-1958 (Eisenhower) Paroled 
     Hungarians who escaped the Soviets; 1959-1972 (Eisenhower, 
     Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon) Paroled Cuban asylum seekers who 
     fled the Cuban revolution; 1962-1965 (Kennedy, Johnson) 
     Paroled Chinese who fled Hong Kong; 1975-1979 (Ford, Carter) 
     Paroled Indochinese from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos; 1976 
     (Ford) Extended Voluntary Departure for Lebanese; 1977 
     (Carter) Temporarily suspended expulsion of immigrants who 
     were being deported because of an error by the State 
     Department; 1977-1982 (Carter, Reagan) Extended Voluntary 
     Departure for Ethiopians; 1977-1980 (Carter) Paroled Soviet 
     refugees; 1978 (Carter) Extended Voluntary Departure for 
     Ugandans; 1979 (Carter) Extended Voluntary Departure for 
     Nicaraguans; 1979 (Carter) Extended Voluntary Departure for 
     Iranians; 1980 (Carter) Extended Voluntary Departure for 
     Afghans; 1980 (Carter) Paroled Cubans and Haitians during the 
     Mariel boatlift.
       1981-1987 (Reagan) Extended Voluntary Departure for Polish 
     after martial law declared in Poland; 1987 (Reagan) Directed 
     the Immigration and Naturalization Service not to deport 
     Nicaraguans and to grant them work authorizations if they 
     demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution, even if they 
     had been denied asylum; 1987 (Reagan) Deferred deportation 
     for unauthorized children of noncitizens who applied to 
     legalize; 1989 (Bush Sr.) Deferred deportation for Chinese 
     nationals following Tiananmen Square; 1989 (Bush Sr.) Paroled 
     Soviets and Indochinese, even though they were denied refugee 
     status; 1990 (Bush Sr.) Formalized Deferred Enforced 
     Departure for Chinese nationals following Tiananmen Square; 
     1990 (Bush Sr.) Deferred deportation of unauthorized spouses 
     and children of those legalized under the immigration reform 
     law; 1991 (Bush Sr.) Deferred deportation of Persian Gulf 
     evacuees after the Kuwait invasion; 1992 (Bush Sr., Clinton) 
     Deferred deportation of some El Salvadorans, even though 
     their Temporary Protective Status had expired; 1994 (Clinton) 
     Paroled Cubans into the U.S.; 1997 (Clinton) Deferred 
     deportation for Haitians in the U.S. that were here prior to 
     1995; 1997 (Clinton) Deferred deportation to noncitizens who 
     might gain relief under the Violence Against Women Act.
       1998 (Clinton) Suspended deportations to El Salvador, 
     Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua after Hurricane Mitch; 
     1999 (Clinton) Deferred deportation for Liberians; 2002 
     (G.W. Bush) Expedited naturalization for green card holders 
     who enlisted in the military; 2005 (G.W. Bush) Deferred 
     deportation for foreign academic students affected by 
     Hurricane Katrina; 2006 (G.W. Bush) Enabled Cuban doctors 
     conscripted abroad to apply for parole at U.S. embassies; 
     2007 (G.W. Bush) Deferred deportation for Liberians whose 
     Temporary Protective Status had expired; 2009 (Obama) 
     Deferred deportation for Liberians; 2009 (Obama) Extended 
     deferred deportation to widows and widowers of U.S. citizens 
     and their unmarried children under 21; 2010 (Obama) Allowed 
     parole-in-place to spouses, parents and children of U.S. 
     citizen members of the military; 2010 (Obama) Paroled Haitian 
     orphans being adopted by U.S. citizens; 2011 (Obama) Extended 
     deferred deportation to Liberians; 2012 (Obama) Deferred 
     action for childhood arrivals (DACA); 2013 (Obama) Revised 
     parole-in-place policy to spouses, parents and children of 
     members of the military; 2014 (Obama) Expedited family 
     reunification for certain eligible Haitian family members 
     (HFRP).

  Mrs. BOXER. With that, I yield back my time.

                          ____________________