[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Page 2231]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I heard the remarks earlier today about how 
we need to move forward with the Department of Homeland Security 
funding bill without any reaction to the President's Executive actions 
of last year. One way to see if that would really meet the test of the 
Senate is to move forward, to have the debate.
  Our friends on the other side are unwilling to debate this. Why would 
that be? Many of them disagree with the actions of the President of 
last November. Enough of them certainly disagreed to have 60 votes on 
the Senate floor that would pass a bill to reverse those actions. Maybe 
not everybody agrees with everything, but we had more amendment votes 
on the Senate floor 2 weeks ago on 2 different days--each of 2 
different days--than we had all of last year. The majority leader has 
shown a commitment to let Senators be heard. If they want to improve 
what the House sent over, let's debate it. If they want to improve what 
the House sent over, let's hear what those improvements are.
  Later today I am joining my colleagues from the Senate Steering 
Committee and the Republican Study Committee to discuss why Senate 
Democrats continue their efforts to filibuster this funding bill, to 
not have a debate on this funding bill. In the last Congress we were 
often accused of not being willing to end debate; seldom were we 
accused of not being willing to have the debate. Our argument was, how 
can we end debate when we have had no amendments? We have not been able 
to be heard on how we would like to change this bill. Why would we end 
that debate?
  Seldom were we accused of not wanting to go to debate. Several times 
that was the case when it was clear that nothing was going to happen 
and the debate was all about politics.
  This is a debate about funding part of the government that is so 
essential that if funding is not there, almost all of the employees 
show up anyway. They are considered essential. They need a paycheck, 
just as families all over America do. We are going to see to it that 
that happens. These are essential employees.
  This is not a situation where we can just decide we don't need to 
have the debate. Our friends on the other side can't continue to think 
that the debate only happens and amendments only happen in the Senate 
if there are provisions with which they agree. Maybe they just don't 
want to explain why the President said 22 times he couldn't take the 
action he took in November. That is a lot of times, even by political 
standards. Twenty-two times saying he can't do something and then 
figuring out a way he can do it is a pretty extraordinary event.
  So we need to have this debate. Frankly, unless we engage in the 
debate, we won't really ever know what is going to happen with the 
debate.
  I think it is time to move forward. I hope Senate Democrats will work 
with us. If they want to offer amendments, I am more than happy to vote 
on their amendments. I think the bill the House sent over is work 
product we should be pursuing. We should be moving forward with it. 
Seldom is there legislation that can't possibly be improved, but it 
can't be improved if we won't talk about it. This is not an option. 
This is an issue we eventually have to deal with.
  Let's have the debate on why it now doesn't matter that the President 
said 22 times he wasn't going to take an action and then took it. If 
there are provisions in the House bill our friends on the other side 
don't like, let's hear what they are and vote on those issues and see 
what happens then.
  We need to continue our efforts to move to this funding bill. I hope 
we will still engage in this debate before the end of the month and 
give this the attention it deserves.
  We should not assume that any legislation that comes to the floor is 
so perfect, it can't be improved. In fact, the tradition for 
appropriations bills of the Senate and the House has always been that 
any Member could challenge anything--until about 7 years ago when 
suddenly no Member could challenge anything. Let's get back to the way 
this work is supposed to be done.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. 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. COATS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to exceed--I 
know morning business expires in 3 or 4 minutes. I doubt I will be 
speaking for more than 10 minutes, but for extra time in morning 
business, I ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________