[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1968-1970]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, despite the fact that we are just days 
away from the Department of Homeland Security shutting down, we don't 
yet have an agreement to fund a clean bill to keep the Department of 
Homeland Security operating. Unfortunately, we haven't heard from the 
majority that there is interest in addressing this issue this week. I 
think that is very unfortunate.
  We are ready to work to pass a clean full-year bill to fund the 
Department of Homeland Security, and last week we actually asked 
unanimous consent to take up and pass the clean bill that Senator 
Mikulski and I introduced to fund the Department for the rest of the 
year and to then have votes on immigration matters. I think we are 
happy to debate immigration, but we don't believe we should do it on 
the bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security. 
Unfortunately, that unanimous consent was rejected.
  Now, we could pass a clean bill this afternoon, and we should. We 
should stop playing politics with our national security. In just a few 
days, with our Nation dealing with real and dangerous terror threats, 
some Members of Congress have suggested we should shut down the 
Department of Homeland Security. Because of their extreme opposition to 
the President's Executive actions on immigration, they are willing to 
put at risk the security and safety of this country. So I have come to 
the floor today to talk about why we need to put politics aside for the 
security of our Nation and why we need to pass a full-year funding bill 
for the Department of Homeland Security.

[[Page 1969]]

  A short-term budget, which is what some Members of Congress are 
discussing, should be off the table. A short-term budget, a continuing 
resolution, or a CR, means the government is on autopilot, and that is 
extraordinarily bad for business and for security. We need to pass a 
full-year bill.
  If the Department of Homeland Security operates under a short-term 
budget, grants to protect our cities and our Nation's ports from terror 
attacks would be halted, grants to police and firefighters won't be 
awarded, contracts and acquisitions would be postponed, hiring would be 
delayed, and employee training would be scaled back.
  Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson recently said:

       As long as this Department continues to operate on a CR, we 
     are prevented from funding key homeland security initiatives. 
     These include funding for new grants to state and local law 
     enforcement, additional border security resources, and 
     additional Secret Service resources. Other core missions, 
     such as aviation security and protection of federal 
     installations and personnel, are also hampered.

  A little while ago, Senator Booker and I held a conference call with 
Mayor Anisse Parker of Houston, TX, Mayor Michael Nutter of 
Philadelphia, and New York City Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence and 
Counterterrorism John Miller. They talked about how very real and 
dangerous the consequences would be for cities if we don't fund 
Homeland Security. Our big cities and our major urban areas are 
unfortunately top targets for terrorists, and if we don't pass a full-
year funding bill for DHS, a grant program specifically designed to 
help cities plan, prepare for, and defend against possible attacks will 
be halted.
  One of the things that Deputy Commissioner Miller talked about is the 
fact that there have been 16 plots that have been thwarted against New 
York City, and that was done, to a great extent, by programs funded 
through the Department of Homeland Security. At risk is nearly $600 
million in funding to keep our cities safe that will be put on hold. 
Without those resources, cities and the millions who live there are at 
risk; and that is not to mention all of the other small communities 
around this country that are at risk. That is just unacceptable.
  Now, Mayor Nutter, from Philadelphia, talked about how they are not 
able to train first responders because the funding is uncertain. They 
do not know if we are going to get a bill, and so they do not know if 
they can continue to train. He said they do not have reimbursement for 
their fusion centers if we don't get a funding bill for Homeland 
Security. He said: It is not right to put the heavy burden on those on 
the front lines, those first responders who are there in cases of 
emergency.
  Mayor Parker from Houston talked about her employees at the police 
department, at the public health agency, and the Department of Homeland 
Security employees who are affected by our failure to get a funding 
bill. She said right now they are dealing with measles in the city of 
Houston, and it is very important they have public health workers who 
can go out and deal with that epidemic. Yet those health employees are 
going to be at risk if we don't get a clean funding bill. She also 
mentioned the three airports they operate and one of the busiest ports 
in the world, and those are at risk if we can't get a funding bill.
  Our major commercial ports are also targets for terrorism attacks. If 
we don't pass a full-year funding bill for the Department of Homeland 
Security, the Port Security Grant Program will be put on hold, meaning 
nearly $100 million won't be allocated to keep our ports safe 
throughout the Nation.
  One of those programs where we will see a gap is in radiation 
detection. One of the things our investigators do, as they are looking 
at making sure our ports are secure, is to check for radiation, for 
nuclear materials that might be coming in to this country. Yet they 
won't have the instruments, the equipment they need to do that if we 
don't get a clean funding bill.
  Deputy Commissioner Miller talked about, as I said, the 16 terrorist 
plots against New York City that have been thwarted. But he also 
pointed out that at virtually every major New York City event when they 
do the security, whether it is the New York marathon or New Year's Eve 
in New York City, the security that protects those events is funded in 
whole or in part by Department of Homeland Security programs.
  A short-term budget for the Department of Homeland Security would 
mean there are no new grants for police and firefighters in every State 
in the country. I don't mean that is a new program. I mean the grant 
funding doesn't turn over each year. That means our firefighters in New 
Hampshire won't be able to apply for SAFER grants again to make sure we 
have the force we need.
  I heard from our Laconia police chief in New Hampshire last week, and 
he talked about what the impact would be if they can't get that funding 
from the Department of Homeland Security. He told a story about how 
they had been able to save a young man, 22 years old, who was 
snowmobiling and who went through Lake Winnisquam in New Hampshire. The 
reason they were able to save his life was because they had four 
firefighters they could put into water-resistant suits and send them 
out, because they had additional funding through a SAFER grant, giving 
them the ability both to train those firefighters and to make sure 
there was somebody else there directing them and taking that call. So 
there are very real impacts if we fail to get this funding done.
  In the last 2 years, New Hampshire alone has received more than $7 
million in grants to provide training for more than 3,800 first 
responders across our State and another $6 million over that same 
period to help hire more firefighters--firefighters such as those in 
Laconia who saved that 22-year-old young man. Nearly 300 police 
officers in New Hampshire have been given live-action training for 
active-shooter situations in recent years. We were also able to train 
and equip the State police bomb squad and the Nashua bomb squad--Nashua 
is the second largest city in New Hampshire--through those DHS 
resources.
  A short-term budget, a continuing resolution for the Department of 
Homeland Security puts all of these critical support programs in 
jeopardy, and that is why we are hearing from communities across the 
country. That is why last week we got letters from the U.S. Conference 
of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the International 
Association of Emergency Managers, and the International Association of 
Firefighters, all calling on Congress to pass a clean, full-year 
funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. They understand 
that our failing to do that would be disastrous.
  Three previous Department of Homeland Security Secretaries, two 
Republicans and one Democrat, did the same last week. Then on Sunday 
the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial. I ask unanimous consent 
that editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 8, 2015]

                          Can the GOP Change?

       Republicans in Congress are off to a less than flying start 
     after a month in power, dividing their own conference more 
     than Democrats. Take the response to President Obama's 
     immigration order, which seems headed for failure if not a 
     more spectacular crack-up.
       That decree last November awarded work permits and de facto 
     legal status to millions of undocumented aliens and dismayed 
     members of both parties, whatever their immigration views. A 
     Congressional resolution to vindicate the rule of law and the 
     Constitution's limits on executive power was defensible, and 
     even necessary, but this message has long ago been lost in 
     translation.
       The Republican leadership funded the rest of the government 
     in December's budget deal but isolated the Department of 
     Homeland Security that enforces immigration law. DHS funding 
     runs out this month, and the GOP has now marched itself into 
     another box canyon.
       The specific White House abuse was claiming prosecutorial 
     discretion to exempt whole classes of aliens from 
     deportation, dumping the historical norm of case-by-case 
     scrutiny. A GOP sniper shot at this legal overreach would 
     have forced Democrats to go on record, picked up a few 
     supporters, and perhaps even imposed some accountability on 
     Mr. Obama.

[[Page 1970]]

       But that wasn't enough for immigration restrictionists, who 
     wanted a larger brawl, and they browbeat GOP leaders into 
     adding needless policy amendments. The House reached back to 
     rescind Mr. Obama's enforcement memos from 2011 that 
     instructed Homeland Security to prioritize deportations of 
     illegals with criminal backgrounds. That is legitimate 
     prosecutorial discretion, and in opposing it Republicans are 
     undermining their crime-fighting credentials.
       The House even adopted a provision to roll back Mr. Obama's 
     2012 order deferring deportation for young adults brought to 
     the U.S. illegally as children by their parents--the so-
     called dreamers. The GOP lost 26 of its own Members on that 
     one, passing it with only 218 votes.
       The overall $40 billion DHS spending bill passed with these 
     riders, 236-191, but with 10 Republicans joining all but two 
     Democrats in opposition. This lack of GOP unity reduced the 
     chances that Senate Democrats would feel any political 
     pressure to go along.
       And, lo, on Thursday the House bill failed for the third 
     time to gain the 60 votes needed to overcome the third 
     Democratic filibuster in three days. Swing-state Democrats 
     like Indiana's Joe Donnelly and North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp 
     aren't worried because they have more than enough material to 
     portray Republicans as the immigration extremists.
       Whatever their view of Mr. Obama's order, why would 
     Democrats vote to deport people who were brought here as kids 
     through no fault of their own? Mr. Obama issued a veto threat 
     to legislation that will never get to his desk, and he must 
     be delighted that Republicans are fighting with each other 
     rather than with him.
       Restrictionists like Sens. Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions are 
     offering their familiar advice to fight harder and hold firm 
     against ``executive amnesty,'' but as usual their strategy 
     for victory is nowhere to be found. So Republicans are now 
     heading toward the same cul de sac that they did on the 
     ObamaCare government shutdown.
       If Homeland Security funding lapses on Feb. 27, the agency 
     will be pushed into a partial shutdown even as the terrorist 
     threat is at the forefront of public attention with the 
     Charlie Hebdo and Islamic State murders. Imagine if the 
     Transportation Security Administration, a unit of DHS, fails 
     to intercept an Islamic State agent en route to Detroit.
       So Republicans are facing what is likely to be another 
     embarrassing political retreat and more intra-party 
     recriminations. The GOP's restrictionist wing will blame the 
     leadership for a failure they share responsibility for, and 
     the rest of America will wonder anew about the gang that 
     couldn't shoot straight.
       The restrictionist caucus can protest all it wants, but it 
     can't change 54 Senate votes into 60 without persuading some 
     Democrats. It's time to find another strategy. Our advice on 
     immigration is to promote discrete bills that solve specific 
     problems such as green cards for math-science-tech graduates, 
     more H-1B visas, a guest-worker program for agriculture, 
     targeted enforcement and legal status for the dreamers. 
     Democrats would be hard-pressed to oppose them and it would 
     put the onus back on Mr. Obama. But if that's too much for 
     the GOP, then move on from immigration to something else.
       It's not too soon to say that the fate of the GOP majority 
     is on the line. Precious weeks are wasting, and the 
     combination of weak House leadership and a rump minority 
     unwilling to compromise is playing into Democratic hands. 
     This is no way to run a Congressional majority, and the only 
     winners of GOP dysfunction will be Mr. Obama, Nancy Pelosi 
     and Hillary Clinton.

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. The Wall Street Journal wrote:

       DHS funding runs out this month, and the GOP has now 
     marched itself into another box canyon. If Homeland Security 
     funding lapses on February 27, the agency will be pushed into 
     a partial shutdown even as the terrorist threat is at the 
     forefront of public attention with the Charlie Hebdo and 
     Islamic State murders. Imagine if the Transportation Security 
     Administration, a unit of DHS, fails to intercept an Islamic 
     State agent en route to Detroit?

  Well, the Wall Street Journal is right. These are dangerous times. 
Our Nation is on high alert for terror threats after the attacks in 
Paris and Ottawa and Sydney that have shocked the world in recent 
months. We don't have the luxury of playing politics with Homeland 
Security funding. We are trying to keep pace with threats that can 
occur at any time, anywhere, with little or no warning. We have to be 
prepared.
  It is not just security grant programs for State and local first 
responders that would get shortchanged if we fail to pass a full-year 
bill. Border security, maritime security, and nuclear detection 
activities would be underfunded as well.
  Under a short-term budget, Immigration and Customs will not have the 
funding they need to meet their legal mandate to have 34,000 detention 
beds in place for immigration detainees.
  Under a short-term budget, there is no additional funding for ICE--
Immigration and Customs--to hire additional investigators for anti-
trafficking and smuggling cases to combat the influx of unaccompanied 
children at the southern border.
  Under a short-term budget, there is no funding to address Secret 
Service weaknesses identified by the independent Protective Mission 
Panel in response to the White House fence-jumping incident.
  Under a short-term budget, aging nuclear weapon detection equipment 
will not be replaced, causing gaps that could allow our enemies to 
smuggle a nuclear device or dirty bomb into the country.
  A short-term budget would delay upgrades to infrastructure that allow 
for emergency communications among first responders.
  A short-term budget would delay the contract for the Coast Guard's 
eighth national security cutter--a cutter we need for maritime 
security. Life-extending maintenance work on the important 140-foot 
icebreaking tugs, 225-foot oceangoing buoy tenders, and the Coast 
Guard's training vessel would be scaled back. The deep freeze on the 
Great Lakes in 2014 cost the shipping industry $705 million and 3,800 
jobs. Upgrading the Coast Guard's 140-foot icebreaking fleet is 
critical to dealing with these conditions.
  A short-term budget would prevent Customs and Border Protection from 
awarding contracts for new remote video surveillance systems to detect 
border crossings and track threats.
  Funding DHS should not be controversial. Playing politics and 
threatening to cut off critical programs that protect the country from 
terror attacks would result in consequences we can't afford. We should 
work together to pass a full-year, clean funding bill to continue the 
important work the Department of Homeland Security does every day to 
keep Americans safe.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

                          ____________________