[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2068-2072]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Barry Goldwater Statue Dedication

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, along with my colleagues I just had the 
opportunity to be at the unveiling of the statue of Senator Barry 
Goldwater in Statuary Hall.
  I had the privilege of serving with Barry Goldwater. We traveled 
together many times. He came to Vermont at different times with me, and 
we became very close friends. It was interesting to watch Senator 
Goldwater form alliances across the aisle with different people. But I 
remember expressly one very personal thing.
  I was very close to my father, and my father passed away late one 
evening in Vermont. The next morning, the first two telephone calls my 
mother received were condolences. One was from Barry Goldwater, and one 
was from Ted Kennedy. The two had both talked before they called. I 
mention that because that was the type of people they both were. It had 
nothing to do with ideology; it was who they were.
  In 1980 I had the second closest election in America. Somebody 
suggested to me that it must be because of my philosophy. I thought 
probably, but I can't figure it out. So I called up the man who had the 
closest election in 1980, the year of the Reagan sweep.
  I said, ``Senator Goldwater, what is the message we are being sent?''
  Barry laughed and said, ``We have to change our luck.''
  He suggested that he move into the office of the retiring Senator Abe 
Ribicoff of Connecticut, a Democratic Senator from New England. He 
said, ``I am going to move into his office and change my luck. You 
better be strong enough to move into mine.''
  I suggested that I didn't have quite the seniority to do that. He 
said, ``I will arrange your move next week.'' He did.
  When I was sworn in for my second term in January of 1981, I was in 
that office. I have stayed in Senator Barry Goldwater's office ever 
since. I have stayed there now for--well, I am in my 35th year in 
Senator Goldwater's office, and I consider it a matter of pride, and I 
consider it a matter of pride to have served with him.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  AUMF

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President. I would like to touch on two topics. The 
first is that today the President has submitted a request for 
authorization for use of military force with regard to ISIL, or ISIS, 
as some call it.
  First, I think it is good news that the President has made that 
submission, and I think he is right when he says the country is 
stronger when both Congress and the President act together.
  I would say there is a pretty simple authorization he could ask for, 
and it would be one sentence, and that is, ``We authorize the President 
to defeat and destroy ISIL.'' And that is what I think we need to do.
  I look forward to reading through his submission. I understand it 
contains a time limitation. It does not contain geographic limitations. 
It contains some language that supposedly will make people feel more 
comfortable about the use of ground troops.
  An authorization to use force that has limitations built into it is 
really quite unprecedented. We did some research, and the Congressional 
Research Service said that there really were only two previous 
authorizations that have limited the President in terms of the use of 
force to be used or the duration of the conflict. One was in 1983 in 
Lebanon, and one was in 1993 in Somalia. Both of those were 
peacekeeping missions, so it made sense to limit the peacekeeping 
mission to use of force. But it appears that never before in certainly 
modern history has the Congress of the United States authorized the 
President to take on and defeat an enemy but has done so with 
limitations on the time or geography or anything of that nature. That 
is an important point for us to understand because under no 
circumstances can ISIL stay. What we need to be authorizing the 
President to do is to destroy them and to defeat them and allow the 
Commander in Chief--both the one we have now and the one who will 
follow--to put in place the military tactics necessary to destroy and 
defeat ISIS.
  It is important to point out that circumstances on the ground might 
rapidly change. They already have. For example, when this began--if you 
look back a year and a half ago, if I had stood on the floor and given 
a speech about defeating ISIL or ISIS, no one would have known what I 
was talking about because at the time most Americans and most Members 
of Congress had no idea what that was. That is how quickly this has 
developed into a threat.
  I would remind everyone that when they actually crossed over from 
Syria into Iraq, the President called them the JV team. Even today the 
facts on the ground continue to evolve very rapidly. For example, we 
now know through open source reports that ISIL has now established a 
presence in Derna, Libya, which gives them access to a port facility, 
and it is a completely uncontested space. There is no government 
shooting at them. There are no airstrikes. There is no one coming after 
them there. They can do whatever they want in Libya, and they are doing 
it. They are using it as a place to train, a place to recruit, a place 
to resupply, a place to raise money, and they have access to a port 
that allows them to bring all these things in.
  There have also been open source reports of groups in Afghanistan 
beginning to pledge allegiance to ISIS. In fact, in at least four 
different countries in north Africa, there are now groups who have 
pledged allegiance to ISIL. So while we continue to focus on the 
conflict with relation to Iraq and Syria, we cannot overlook the fact 
that they are sprouting affiliates throughout the entire region.
  I think that after the brutal murder of numerous Americans--we saw 
last week what happened to the Jordanian pilot--I don't have to spend 
much time convincing people how dangerous this group is. What we don't 
hear enough about is the atrocities being committed on a daily basis on 
the ground, what they are doing to the Sunni population, for example, 
of areas they have now conquered, the brutality, the way

[[Page 2069]]

they enforce sharia law with brutal tactics, not to mention the brutal 
stories we have heard of women being sold off or given away as brides 
to ISIL fighters, children trafficked into slavery, entire populations 
slaughtered, and fighters who were captured and killed in mass 
killings. This is what this group envisions for the world.
  The goals of this group are not simply to govern what we knew once as 
Iraq or Syria or Libya or any other country; their ultimate goal is for 
the entire world--including where we stand today--to one day live under 
their mandate, under the rules they have established, under their 
radical version of Sunni Islam. You may say that is far-fetched, and it 
may be today, but that is their clear ambition--to spread their form of 
radical Islam everywhere and anywhere they can. They openly talk about 
this.
  This group needs to be defeated. I wish we had taken this group on 
earlier. I wish, in fact, that we had gotten involved in the conflict 
in Syria earlier and equipped moderate rebel elements, non-jihadist 
rebel elements on the ground so that they would have been the most 
powerful force there. The President failed to do that in a timely 
fashion, and as a result a vacuum was created, and that vacuum was 
filled by this group who has attracted foreign fighters from all over 
the world to join their ranks.
  Now we are dealing with this problem, but I would argue better late 
than never. Had we dealt with this a year and a half ago or 2 years 
ago, it wouldn't have been easy, but it would have been easier. But it 
is important to deal with it decisively now. We can debate the tactics, 
but it is the job of the Commander in Chief, in consultation with his 
military officials who surround him and advise him, to come up with the 
appropriate tactics to defeat the enemy.
  For our purposes--very straightforward--ISIL is the enemy. They need 
to be defeated, and we should authorize this President and future 
Presidents to do what they can and what they must to defeat ISIS and 
erase them from the equation.


                               Venezuela

  Mr. President, I also wish to take a moment to talk a little bit 
about what is happening in Venezuela. Tomorrow, February 12, will mark 
the 1-year anniversary since students and others across Venezuela took 
to the streets in peaceful demonstrations and demanded a better 
government and a better future than the current one, which is corrupt 
and incompetent and provides no leadership to the country.
  Tomorrow also marks the 1-year anniversary since the Venezuelan 
Government, under Nicolas Maduro, responded with a violent crackdown 
that left dozens of people dead, thousands injured, and hundreds in 
jail as political prisoners. There have been at least 50 documented 
cases of torture by government forces on peaceful demonstrators, and 
more than 1,700 individuals await trial today in Venezuela before a 
judiciary that is completely controlled by Maduro's government. This 
includes Leopoldo Lopez, who has been languishing in the Ramo Verde 
prison for almost a year.
  In the year since the people took to the streets demanding more 
opportunity, accountability, and more freedom, the basic necessities 
have vanished from the shelves. It is one of the richest nations in the 
hemisphere, and its economy is in shambles.
  Venezuela is also plagued with one of the world's highest murder 
rates, rampant corruption related to state assets, a 57-percent 
inflation rate, a junk rating on the global bond market, and 
unprecedented scarcity of goods as basic as toilet paper. Lately, 
things have gotten so bad in Venezuela under Maduro that they are no 
longer just kidnapping people. As the Diario las Americas, which is a 
newspaper in Miami, reported earlier this week, people are now 
kidnapping dogs and other pets in Venezuela and holding them for 
ransom. That is how bad things have gotten.
  Why is this happening? Why has the cradle of Latin American 
independence--a country blessed with oil and energy wealth, with 
talented and hard-working people--become a failed state?
  For starters, because it is modeling its economy after Cuba, which 
itself is a failed state.
  Second, for years Venezuela has been in the grips of incompetent 
buffoons, one after another. First it was Hugo Chavez and now Nicolas 
Maduro. They have squandered the nation's riches.
  Third, the country is being run by corrupt individuals. Just last 
week reports came out alleging that the speaker of the national 
assembly, Diosdado Cabello, is himself a drug kingpin.
  Fourth, even with all the oil wealth Venezuela has squandered, it 
still possesses some of the largest oil reserves on the planet, but oil 
prices are dropping. In a country such as Venezuela where innovation 
and entrepreneurship are stifled, where wealth and power are 
concentrated in the government and its cronies, the entire economy is 
the oil industry. Ninety-six percent of Venezuela's export revenues 
come from oil.
  So I am proud that in December the Senate and the House passed and 
the President signed a bill that sanctions human rights violators in 
Venezuela. It mandates that their assets be frozen and visa 
restrictions be placed upon them if they are involved in human rights 
violations. That is going to be critical going forward. As things get 
worse, more people in Venezuela will take to the streets, and the 
national guard in the country--which is nothing but armed thugs working 
on behalf of the Maduro government--will be tempted to crack down on 
people violently. So our legislation would impose visa sanctions and 
asset sanctions on individuals responsible for these human rights 
violations.
  The good news is that the President has moved forward with some of 
these visa restrictions, and that is a very positive step. America 
should not be and cannot be a playground for Venezuela's human rights 
violators. But the financial sanctions part of the bill are long 
overdue. They are urgently needed because things are only going to get 
worse in Venezuela. People are only going to get more desperate. They 
are only going to speak out more. They are only going to demand freedom 
more. And I suspect, although I hope I am wrong, that the response from 
the Venezuelan Government will be more violence and more crackdowns on 
the people of their own nation.
  If, God forbid, they use lethal force against their own people--which 
is a right they have reserved for themselves, a right the government 
has approved and has given authority to the national guard to use--we 
cannot simply stand by and watch as innocent people are killed or 
injured because the regime believes there will be no consequences.
  So today I wanted to come here for a few moments and urge the 
President to do what I asked him to do in a letter last week, and that 
is to not sit idly by on the Venezuelan sanction law he signed last 
year but to use it--to use it immediately and decisively to make clear 
that the United States of America will not stand for repression taking 
place in Venezuela and that we will use the tools of our economy and 
the power we have given the President to punish those responsible for 
committing human rights violations in Venezuela against the people of 
that great nation.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Department of 
Homeland Security and the necessity to fund it.
  Earlier today the President submitted a document for the 
authorization of use of military force to the Congress. I take the 
President's request very seriously. I look forward to the analysis that 
will be done by the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services 
Committee, and debate on the floor.
  Why did the President send it and why did so many in the Congress 
call for it? It is because everybody says that we have to do something 
about ISIL. You know what. I think we do have to do something about 
ISIL. What a ghoulish, barbaric terrorist group. There is no doubt 
there has to be an international effort to strike them

[[Page 2070]]

from the planet and that the United States has to be a part of it.
  But what comes out when we talk about ISIL is the need to have a 
strong, robust counterterrorism effort. If we are going to fight 
counterterrorism, we must fund the agency that has the principal 
responsibility for protecting the homeland.
  The Department of Defense protects us against foreign invaders, but 
we have to also protect the homeland--whether it is against cyber 
security threats or other terrorist activity or other dangers that come 
to our country.
  So why after 2 weeks do we have the Department of Homeland Security 
appropriations for fiscal year 2015? We are ready to vote on it. We 
have a clean bill. I am speaking now as the ranking or vice chair of 
the Senate Appropriations Committee. During fiscal year 2014, I chaired 
the committee. At the end of the year, when we worked on our omnibus, 
it was the will of the Congress that we would fund all government 
agencies except Homeland Security and instead put it on a continuing 
resolution until February 27 because there were those in both Houses 
who were cranky about the fact that President Obama exercised Executive 
authority in certain matters related to immigration.
  So now we are holding up the entire funding for the Department of 
Homeland Security because some people are cranky with President Obama 
over him using an Executive order on immigration. These very people who 
are so cranky are criticizing him for being a weak leader. Oh, where is 
President Obama? Why doesn't he take strong and decisive action? When 
the President takes strong and decisive action, they not only don't 
like it, they are willing to hold up the entire funding for the 
Department of Homeland Security over this. What is this? Do we have a 
new math where 1 and 1 makes 14 or 5?
  We created the Department of Homeland Security after the horrific 
attack of 9/11, and they need to be funded.
  I am here to urge that we pass a clean funding bill to protect the 
Nation from terrorism, cyber security threats which are mounting every 
day, and so we can also help our communities respond to other threats.
  I believe immigration does deserve a debate. I am not arguing about 
that, nor would I ever want to stifle a Senator's ability to speak on 
topics where they have strong beliefs and deeply held views, but let's 
move immigration to a different forum to talk about it.
  In the last Congress the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration 
bill. It went to the House, and it sat there. Gee, it sat there. After 
a while it kind of sat there some more, and then it died as that 
session came to an end.
  The President, frustrated that the House of Representatives refused 
to take up a bill and debate it through its committees and on the 
floor, acted through Executive order.
  So my view is let's bring up immigration, let's move our 
comprehensive bill again with a full and ample debate, full and ample 
amendments. Maybe the House will finally get around to talking about 
immigration instead of talking about President Obama, and then we can 
pass the Homeland Security bill.
  Three times last week the Senate rejected a procedural vote to take 
up Homeland Security. People can ask: Senator Barb, why did you do 
that? I voted not to delay but to move on. We Senate Democrats tried to 
move a clean Homeland Security funding bill. What does that mean? We 
focused only on the money. We said we did not want to have the five 
poison pill immigration riders that are in the House bill. We wanted to 
be able to take that out.
  The President has been very clear. If we send him a bill that 
includes funding plus five poison pill riders on immigration, he will 
veto it. What is the consequence? We become a public spectacle in the 
world's eyes. We play parliamentary ping-pong with the President of the 
United States. We pass a bill because we want to have a temper tantrum. 
He vetoes it. It comes back. We have another debate where we huff and 
puff and hope problems will go away. We then try to override a veto and 
all the while we are eating up time.
  The world is watching us. Our treasured allies are not the only ones 
asking about what is going on with the United States and how the 
greatest deliberative body has become the greatest delaying body. Our 
enemies say we can't get our act together internally to pass the very 
money to take them on, so they are going to try to bring it to us.
  In the end, when all is said and done, more is getting said than 
done. Before we go out for the Presidents Day recess, I urge the Senate 
to pass this bill.
  Tomorrow we are going to vote to confirm the Secretary of Defense, 
Dr. Ashton Carter. He has gone through the process and was reported out 
of committee. I look forward to voting for him.
  Why are we going to move so fast to confirm Dr. Carter? Because we 
need a Secretary of Defense. We have to fight for America. We have to 
stand up for America. We have to be muscular and ready to deal with 
those bad guys. I agree with that.
  I salute our military every day and in every way. They are out there 
on the frontlines, and their families are there to lovingly support 
them.
  We are going to have a Secretary of Defense. Let's not forget we also 
have a Secretary of Homeland Security, Mr. Jeh Johnson. Instead of 
America having deep pockets to fight terrorism, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security will have empty pockets.
  What is this? We are going to rush to confirm Dr. Carter, and I think 
we ought to. There is no dispute from me on that. Shouldn't we also 
rush to complete our work and fund Homeland Security? I think we 
should. We could do it tomorrow. We could do it tomorrow and pass this 
clean bill.
  The Department of Homeland Security's mission is to protect America 
from terrorism and help communities respond to all threats, from 
terrorism to natural disasters. We are talking about the TSA, which 
protects our airports. We are talking about the Border Patrol and ICE, 
so if we are talking about immigration, don't we want to fund the 
agents out there protecting our borders? Don't we want to continue to 
have cyber warriors securing our networks? We need to support the 
people who are dealing with bio and nuclear threats. We need to also 
continue supporting State and local first responders, firefighters, and 
EMS personnel in the different States so they can be ready--whether 
they are responding to a local disaster or something that has been 
caused by a despicable attack. We need to be able to pass this bill.
  The Department of Homeland Security funding runs out on February 27, 
and my view is that instead of running the clock we should move this 
bill. I believe it could pass tomorrow and that we could get our job 
done. But, no, we are all going to go back to our home States and tell 
everybody how they have a government on their side and how they can 
count on us to fight for America. But the way to fight for America is 
to stop fighting with each other.
  Let's try to find a sensible Senator and move this bill forward. I 
believe people on both sides of the aisle are patriots. I believe 
people on both sides of the aisle want to defend America. Let's come 
together on both sides of the aisle, right down the middle, and let's 
find a way to move this bill forward and have a debate on immigration. 
I don't want to stifle or stiff-arm it, but let's move this forward, 
and let's stand shoulder to shoulder doing our job to fund the agency 
that has the principal responsibility for protecting the homeland.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I am here to also talk about the DHS 
funding bill. I will say from the outset that I don't think the 
President did the right thing by taking this unilateral action. I think 
he has made it more difficult to pass immigration reform in this body.
  Having said that, to attempt to use the spending bill in order to try 
to poke a finger in the President's eye, in my view, is not a good 
move. I believe that rather than poke the President in the eye, we 
ought to put legislation on

[[Page 2071]]

his desk, and we ought to use this time--we have already used up 2 
weeks trying to attach measures to a funding bill when we could have 
used this time to move actual immigration legislation.
  Coming from the State of Arizona, we desperately need immigration 
reform. We desperately need to have more resources and better security 
on our border. We have needed that for a long time. We have had 
situations where part of the border gets better and then falls back. As 
soon as the economy ramps up again, we can expect a lot more flow 
across the border. We don't have sufficient border security in the 
State, and Arizonans pay the price in terms of the cost of health care, 
education, criminal justice. We bear the brunt of the Federal 
Government's failure to have a secure border and to provide for a 
secure border.
  We need to pass that kind of legislation. There has been a bill that 
has been introduced in the House and the Senate. I happen to be a 
cosponsor of the bill in the Senate which would help us to get a more 
secure border. That is one piece of legislation we could be moving 
right now so it could be put on the President's desk.
  Second, we all know we need better interior enforcement. We need to 
make sure employers who employ illegal aliens are not able to do so. We 
need to make sure employers have the tools to find out if those they 
are hiring are here legally. That has been needed for a long time. It 
has been provided in other pieces of legislation. We could do a bill 
just on interior enforcement. We could be doing that now rather than 
simply making a statement on a spending bill.
  We also need legislation to expand the guest worker plans and 
programs we have now. There has been legislation introduced in this 
body already to deal with high-tech workers. We need to make sure those 
who are educated in our universities and receive graduate degrees in 
the STEM fields are encouraged to stay. They ought to be encouraged to 
stay to help create jobs in this country rather than returning to their 
home country and competing against us. That has been needed, and that 
is recognized on a bipartisan basis. We could move legislation right 
now with regard to high-tech visas.
  We also need to expand other visa categories. We need an ag worker 
bill to make sure areas where we simply don't have enough labor to deal 
with the needs we have on our farms--we need to pass legislation to do 
that. Legislation has been introduced and could be moved through now. 
We could be doing that.
  We also obviously need to move legislation to deal with those who are 
here illegally now--the so-called DREAMers. They are here through no 
fault of their own. They were brought to this country when they were 2, 
10 or 12 years, and they are now as American as you or I. They ought to 
be given a path where they can stay and have some kind of certainty 
moving ahead, but that needs to be done by Congress. It cannot simply 
be done by the President in Executive action. That kind of legislation 
could move here now as well.
  We obviously need to deal with legislation for the broader class of 
those here illegally. We dealt with it in S. 744, which was introduced 
and passed in the Senate in the last Congress. It provided a way for 
those who are here illegally to get right with the law and to deport 
those who are in a criminal class but also allow those who are here and 
want to adjust their status to find a way to do so and to be able to 
stay. Legislation such as that could move as well but instead we are 
spending weeks trying to make a statement on a spending bill.
  So I hope we will actually do what this Senate is prepared to do and 
is ready to do again, which is actually to legislate--to move 
legislation through the committee process to the floor and on to the 
President's desk. That is how we ought to respond to the action the 
President has taken. I hope we will do so.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, over the last two weeks Republicans in 
Congress have insisted on playing political games with funding for the 
Department of Homeland Security. The same agency that supports States 
such as Massachusetts when disasters hit, the same agency that provides 
grants for equipment to keep firefighters safe when they rush into 
burning buildings, the same agency that helps train and fund local 
police, the same agency that tracks down weapons that terrorists can 
use to threaten our safety here at home, the same agency that keeps our 
borders and airports safe--this is the agency the Republicans are 
willing to shut down. Why? Why put America at such risk? Because 
Republicans want to protest the steps President Obama has taken to try 
to address our country's immigration challenges.
  This is not a responsible way to govern. This is a dangerous way to 
govern. There are real threats out there, from ISIS in the Middle East 
to cyber threats, to acts of terror such as the one in Paris earlier 
this year.
  DHS gives funding to State and local governments to help them prevent 
terror attacks. Massachusetts received over $30 million in these grants 
just last year alone. If DHS shuts down, that funding dries up, leaving 
our firefighters, our police, and our EMTs hanging, putting the safety 
of every American at risk.
  Think about the Customs and Border Protection agents, who screen 
people traveling into the United States through our airports, and the 
men and women of the Coast Guard who patrol our waters. They will still 
have to work those tough, sometimes dangerous jobs, but if the 
Republicans shut down the Department of Homeland Security, these people 
just won't get paid. Tens of thousands of workers nationwide could be 
working to help keep us safe and not get a paycheck to cover their 
groceries and rent. That is no way to treat the people who protect this 
country.
  The solution is simple. Last year Democrats and Republicans agreed on 
a bipartisan bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. That 
bill was ready to go until the Republicans decided they wanted to play 
politics. They decided to hold the Department of Homeland Security 
hostage to try to force the President to reverse an Executive order on 
immigration. That Department of Homeland Security funding bill is still 
ready to go. We could vote on it today and be done with all of this. 
Everyone who works to protect our safety would keep on working and keep 
on getting paid.
  A few days ago the Boston Globe wrote an editorial about this, and 
they said:

       The game of political chicken has to end with the 
     Republicans blinking. It's one thing to disagree with a 
     President's executive actions, but it's another thing 
     altogether to hold crucial funding for a wide range of 
     security programs hostage.

  I couldn't agree more.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the editorial be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Boston Globe, Feb. 7, 2015]

   GOP Should Focus on Fixing Immigration, Not Compromising Security

                              (Editorial)

       In the latest political show vote on Capitol Hill, 
     Republicans are protesting President Obama's executive orders 
     on immigration, enacted in November, by trying to attach 
     language undoing them to a bill that funds the Department of 
     Homeland Security. The attempt is going nowhere: Earlier this 
     week, Democrats in the Senate blocked the bill from reaching 
     Obama's desk. At the same time, the president has vowed to 
     veto any legislation that reverses his immigration measures.
       This game of political chicken has to end with the 
     Republicans blinking. It's one thing to disagree with the 
     president's executive actions, but it's another thing 
     altogether to hold crucial funding for a wide range of 
     security programs hostage.

[[Page 2072]]

       Republicans who believe Obama's executive orders are an 
     abuse of power should instead look for remedy in the courts. 
     If Obama overstepped, the surest way to reverse his orders 
     would be through a judicial ruling. Meanwhile, Congress 
     should pass a ``clean'' Homeland Security funding bill that 
     funds the agency without the immigration language.
       Obama enacted the executive orders only after the House 
     refused to vote on a Senate-passed bill that would have 
     overhauled our current immigration system. In retaliation, 
     the GOP decided to attack the president's orders at the 
     funding source: DHS. The Republican bill included so-called 
     ``poison pill'' amendments that prevent the use of DHS funds 
     or fees to enforce Obama's executive actions, which will 
     benefit about 4 million undocumented immigrants by shielding 
     them from deportation while also allowing them to apply for 
     work permits. The amendments also prevent the use of any 
     funds to continue implementing a 2012 order that protected 
     some undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as 
     children.
       Along with some Republicans who voted against the bill in 
     the House and the Senate, three former secretaries of 
     Homeland Security have also urged the GOP to stop using the 
     agency's budget as a political weapon. Republicans Tom Ridge 
     and Michael Chertoff, and Democrat Janet Napolitano, wrote to 
     Republican leadership: ``DHS's responsibilities are much 
     broader than its responsibility to oversee the federal 
     immigration agencies and to protect our borders . . . Funding 
     for the entire agency should not be put in jeopardy by the 
     debate about immigration.'' They called for a clean funding 
     bill for the rest of the year, like the one Maryland Senator 
     Barbara Mikulski and New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen 
     filed last week.
       Obama has said he would be happy to see Congress pass a law 
     that would make his executive orders unnecessary. 
     Republicans, instead of engaging in quixotic budget tactics, 
     should get to work on a new immigration bill and stop 
     compromising national security.

  Ms. WARREN. Let's be clear. If Republicans in the Senate don't change 
course, they will shut down the Department of Homeland Security and 
compromise the safety of the American people, and they will have done 
it because a handful of extremists in the Republican Party are angry at 
the President because he is trying to fix what we all know is a broken 
immigration system. Well, if they are angry about the President's 
immigration policy, let's debate the President's immigration policy. 
Last Congress the Senate passed a bipartisan bill to address 
immigration. Let's debate that bill again. Or if they want to propose a 
new bill, let's vote on that. But don't play games with the safety of 
the American people.
  The way forward is clear. We need to pass a bill to fund the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________