[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2874-2878]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 240, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 240) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2015, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell (for Cochran) amendment No. 255, of a perfecting 
     nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 256 (to amendment No. 255), to 
     change the enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 257 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 255), to change the enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 258 (to amendment No. 257), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       McConnell motion to commit the bill to the Committee on 
     Appropriations, with instructions, McConnell amendment No. 
     259, to change the enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 260 (to (the instructions) 
     amendment No. 259), of a perfecting nature.
       McConnell amendment No. 261 (to amendment No. 260), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 10 
a.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, as the vice chair of the Committee on 
Appropriations, I rise to speak on the Homeland Security funding bill.
  This morning the Senate moves to fulfill its responsibility--its 
national responsibility--to pass the Homeland Security bill which would 
fully fund the Department through the fiscal year 2015. This fulfills a 
constitutional oath we Senators took to protect and defend the 
Constitution and the people of the United States against all foes, 
foreign and domestic. The domestic is here today. The domestic is in 
homeland security. The domestic is in what we need to do to fulfill our 
responsibility. We take oaths to the Constitution. We say we want a 
constitutionally driven government. So do I. We need to get off of our 
press releases and pass this bill.
  I am really proud of the fact that we on the Committee on 
Appropriations did our job, and we did it in December. The subcommittee 
chairs of Homeland Security did their due diligence and came up with an 
affordable framework for funding the Homeland Security bill. It met the 
bottom line, met the budget caps, but also met our compelling national 
security needs.
  Congressman Hal Rogers in the House, for whom I have nothing but 
great respect, and I came to a fiscal agreement, but we did not have 
the ability to move it forward because there were those who wanted to 
delay putting it in the omnibus because they were having a temper 
tantrum with the President of the United States over his Executive 
authority. Could he move his Executive authority on the topic of 
immigration? So there was a solution to delay the funding so that we 
could have cooler heads prevail: Oh golly, do it after the election. 
And once again we punted and delayed and parsed, punted and issued 
press releases. That is what we got out of the House and somewhat out 
of the Senate.
  Where are we today? Thanks to the leadership of the two leaders, 
Senators McConnell and Reid, we have a path forward. I urge my 
colleagues to look at this path. The significant part of it is to pass 
a clean funding bill to make sure Homeland Security is funded the 
entire year so we can meet the needs of the national programs, such as 
the Coast Guard, and make sure that grants go out to our first 
responders, who are truly our boots on the ground, such as volunteer 
fire departments that right now are out there in some parts of our 
communities getting sick people out with snowmobiles. Senator Collins 
of Maine and I have talked about her Maine and my Garrett County, 
where, when we have had a hurricane, these people go and get elderly 
people out on Zodiacs, sometimes wading through water and wondering if 
they are going to step on power lines.
  We have to get real here. There are those who want to increase 
defense funding so we can protect America against ISIL. We protect 
America from ISIL right here in this bill. You want to protect America, 
vote for the clean funding bill. You want to protect America's border, 
fight for the funding bill. You want to make sure we don't have illegal 
aliens in this country, make sure you are funding the Border Patrol--
23,000 people all in uniform out there on the border manning the best 
technology we can afford. So whatever we say we want to do, this is the 
way to do it. This is the way to do it.
  We understand the Senate would also like to debate immigration. We 
respect that viewpoint. We also respect that the matter that is of 
concern about the President's Executive authority is going through the 
courts. Don't punish the Border Patrol agent, don't punish the person 
working in the Coast Guard out on an ice cutter, don't punish the 
volunteer firefighter because you are angry at Obama. I say to my folks 
on my side of the aisle, make sure we vote to pass a clean funding bill 
here today. And I say also to the other side of the aisle to do it.
  I really appreciate the fact that Senator Reid and Senator McConnell 
have arrived at this parliamentary Senate vote to get us where we need 
to be going. But I say to my friends in the House, to delay this 3 more 
weeks is reckless and it is dangerous. What are we going to know? We 
are waiting for the courts to decide? Who knows when the courts will 
decide. What we do know is not what the courts will decide, but we know 
we have a legal process. A judge has made a decision. It will go 
through the court of appeals, maybe even to the Supreme Court. Let the 
court follow its process. But in the meantime, while the courts are 
doing their job, can we at least get around to doing our job so that 
the men and women who provide for us and fight every day, whether it is 
the local volunteer fire department or our Secret Service, our Coast 
Guard, or those working in cyber security--and the Director of National 
Intelligence, Director Clapper, says cyber security is a bigger threat 
than ISIL--can do theirs?
  So let's get on with it, and let's fulfill our constitutional 
responsibility when we said we take the oath to protect America against 
all enemies, foreign and domestic.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to stripping 
off all of the House language from the Homeland Security funding bill 
and proceeding with a ``clean bill.''
  I do so because I took a constitutional oath, and I take that oath 
very seriously. The language which we are debating in the Homeland 
Security funding bill from the House goes directly to that oath and 
goes directly to that responsibility. It does so for two reasons.
  First of all, this Executive amnesty, which has about 5 million 
illegal aliens getting blanket significant amnesty because of the 
President's Executive action, is a big deal. It is a big deal in terms 
of policy. It is a big deal regarding his overreaching his legal and 
constitutional authority.
  First, policy. It is a fundamental rule of economics--it is a 
fundamental rule of life--that when you reward behavior, you get more 
of it. When you penalize certain behavior, you get less of it.
  A blanket overarching amnesty which gives about 5 million illegal 
aliens in the country here amnesty is rewarding behavior. It is 
rewarding behavior we say we want to curtail, we say we want to stop, 
but we are rewarding it, and we are going to get more of it. That is 
not just me saying that

[[Page 2875]]

theoretically. We have lived that over and over again.
  The President a few years ago took a similar but smaller Executive 
action commonly referred to as DACA. That focused on younger illegal 
aliens. Guess what. Soon after that action, a wave of new young illegal 
minors, unaccompanied minors, started coming into this country in 
numbers like we had never seen before.
  Does anyone think that was unrelated? Does anyone think that timing 
was just coincidence? Of course it wasn't. The President rewarded 
illegal crossings and--surprise, surprise--he got a whole lot more of 
them in exactly the class--younger, illegal, unaccompanied minors--that 
he had acted on through DACA.
  So this is going to happen again on a much larger scale. We are going 
to grow the problem through this policy, not get control of it.
  The second concern I have is even far more fundamental, because it 
goes to his constitutional power and authority, and the fact that he is 
going well beyond that constitutional power and authority, I think, 
clearly.
  Presidents have significant authority. They are the Executive. They 
need to execute the law. In executing the law, they often have to fill 
in the blanks, fill in the details that Congress has not fully 
provided. But that is very different from acting contrary to the law--
180 degrees contrary to statutory law--and that is what the President 
is doing in this instance. No President has that authority. If they 
want to do that, they need to change the law. As every schoolkid knows, 
that goes through Congress, and then the President obviously has a role 
in terms of a veto. But the President doesn't want to do that. He can't 
do that. Congress disagrees with him. So he is just changing the law 
with the stroke of a pen. That is what is clearly illegal and 
unconstitutional, because he is acting contrary to statutory law.
  Some of his apologists--including
Loretta Lynch, for example--say: Well, every President can set 
prosecution priorities. We are simply setting priorities. We are simply 
saying this class of folks is not a priority for legal action, 
deportation prosecution.
  I asked Ms. Lynch directly after she said that: Isn't it true the 
President is going beyond that? Isn't it true he is giving this entire 
class of illegal aliens a new legal status? She had no substantive 
response.
  I said: Isn't it true the President is going beyond that? He is 
creating a new document out of thin air, with ``work permit'' at the 
top, and handing it to these illegal aliens and suggesting they now 
have a right to work legally in this country, even though statutory law 
makes it crystal clear they do not. She had no substantive answer to 
that.
  I urge my colleagues not to strip out this important House language. 
The President's action is bad policy that will grow the illegal 
immigration problem, and it is acting clearly beyond his legal 
constitutional authority.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, this morning we have the opportunity to 
accomplish two important goals.
  First, we can pass legislation which will fully fund the Department 
of Homeland Security so it can perform its vital mission.
  Second, we have the opportunity to stand up for our constitutional 
system of separation of powers.
  I support and voted for comprehensive immigration reform. But the 
President's overreach usurps the role of Congress and undermines our 
constitutional system of checks and balances.
  The failure of Congress to pass a law to the President's liking 
cannot become an excuse for the President to usurp the powers of the 
legislative branch.
  The President knows he lacks the authority to write the law. He has 
said so 22 times, on 22 different occasions.
  Allow me to describe my bill very briefly. Specifically, it does four 
things.
  First, it bars the administration from using funds to implement the 
immigration orders issued by the President in November of last year.
  Second, it has absolutely no effect on the much more constrained and 
limited Executive orders the President issued in 2012, the so-called 
DACA Program that protects the DREAMers, to whom I am very sympathetic.
  Third, it directs the Department to give the highest enforcement 
priority to the deportation of foreign nationals in our country 
illegally who have been convicted of domestic violence, child abuse, 
exploitation, or a sex crime. Why would we want to keep in this country 
someone who is deportable who is a sex offender, who has been convicted 
of child molestation or domestic violence? It makes no sense.
  Ironically, just this week the Senate Judiciary Committee held an 
excellent hearing on sex trafficking. We heard heartbreaking stories of 
very young girls who had been abused by men. If there are foreign 
nationals in this country who have been convicted of these crimes, they 
should be deported.
  And, fourth, it includes a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that the 
executive branch should not act to give foreign nationals who are here 
illegally an edge in competing for jobs against American citizens or 
legal residents with green cards.
  The Founders gave us a system of separation of powers and checks and 
balances not to tear us apart but to pull us together. They gave us no 
shortcuts on purpose.
  The President's November 2014 Executive actions are ill-advised 
precisely because they attempt to shortcut the process by usurping 
Congress's authority to pass legislation.
  My legislation would block that effort without in any way altering or 
diminishing the more constrained and important 2012 DACA Program.
  I want to see the Department of Homeland Security fully funded. It 
has an absolutely vital mission at a time when our country faces 
numerous threats.
  I urge my colleagues this morning both to vote for the clean DHS bill 
and for my legislation to stand up for the role of Congress in our 
constitutional system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining on the 
Democratic side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 4 minutes remaining on the Democratic 
side.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me say at the outset Senator Collins 
is my friend and colleague, and we have worked on many things together. 
I respect her especially because the Department of Homeland Security 
was literally her creation, along with Senator Lieberman and others.
  The fact that we have now agreed on a bipartisan basis to set aside 
this immigration debate and to fully fund this critical Department is 
the right thing to do. A 98-to-2 vote is unusual on the Senate floor. 
It reflects the fact that we finally reached that consensus on funding 
the Department of Homeland Security. I hope our vote later today also 
reflects that. But I do take exception to some of the statements she 
has made about her own measure which she is offering.
  First I would like to invite her--and I am sure she has been there a 
thousand times--to walk down this corridor and look up the staircase to 
the painting, a painting that shows Abraham Lincoln with his Cabinet. 
It is the moment when he signed an Executive order. President Lincoln 
signed an Executive order, and with that Executive order 152 years ago, 
the Emancipation Proclamation freed 3 million slaves in the United 
States of America.
  Barack Obama is not the first President to issue an Executive order 
nor is he the first President to issue one which affects millions of 
people. Which President held the record for an Executive order giving 
rights to 1.5 million immigrants in this country before Barack Obama? 
George Herbert Walker Bush. In fact, virtually every President since 
Eisenhower has issued an Executive order relative to immigration. Now 
we didn't see Republican hair on fire when it was being done by 
President George W. Bush or George Herbert Walker Bush. It is only when 
Barack

[[Page 2876]]

Obama does it that they scream and rage it is unconstitutional. Yet 
let's look at the argument they are making.
  Senator Collins is making the argument that the Executive order 
signed by President Obama, known as DACA, that affected children who 
might qualify under the DREAM Act and could protect up to 2 million 
young people in America, was legal. I agree. She says her bill that she 
is offering today reflects that.
  Then she says that 2 years later, when the President issued an 
Executive order that could protect on a temporary basis up to 5 
million, that was clearly unconstitutional. What is the difference? 
Well, it is a difference the courts will have to try to resolve. I 
think we ought to think twice before we try to defund or repeal the 
President's Executive orders of November 2014.
  President Obama makes it clear that if you are the parent of an 
American citizen child or a legal resident alien child, you have to 
come forward, pay a filing fee, submit your name for a criminal 
background check, and if you have a bad criminal record, you are gone. 
If your record clears and you have no criminal history to be concerned 
about, then you can work in the United States on a temporary basis for 
2 years. That is it. It doesn't give you permanent citizenship or legal 
status beyond that.
  Isn't it better that our country be safe enough to know that these 
millions of people are no threat to us, where they live, who they work 
for? I think that makes sense.
  It is a shame Congress hasn't done it. We can still do it, and I hope 
we will. But the Collins approach, sadly, is going to deny that, and it 
is going to say, frankly, that the priorities currently set for 
deportation of dangerous people will be swept away but for the 
specified crimes which she includes in her bill.
  I will state that the President's Executive order already covers 
every one of those offenses--every one of those felonies. So Ms. 
Collins is not adding anything to the debate. I know that the Senator 
offered this in good faith, and I believe she can be an important part 
in finding a bipartisan solution to the immigration question. But I 
urge my colleagues to reject the Collins bill that comes before us 
today. It was a bill crafted in the House of Representatives in anger 
over the President's Executive order. It does not protect DACA and the 
DREAMers, and that is why the immigration groups to a person have come 
out against the Collins amendment.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in voting against the measure.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all votes 
after the first vote be 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 240, making 
     appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015.
         Mitch McConnell, Orrin G. Hatch, Susan M. Collins, 
           Lindsey Graham, Daniel Coats, Thad Cochran, Roger F. 
           Wicker, John Barrasso, Jeff Flake, John McCain, Mark 
           Kirk, Kelly Ayotte, Lamar Alexander, Lisa Murkowski, 
           Bob Corker, John Cornyn.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on H.R. 
240, a bill making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other 
purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 68, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 59 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tillis
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING-- 1

       
     Boxer
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 68, the nays are 
31.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Cloture having been invoked, the motion to commit falls as 
inconsistent with cloture.
  Under the previous order, all postcloture time is yielded back with 
the exception of 10 minutes for the Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee, or his 
designee.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, in November 2014, the President of the 
United States issued a series of Executive orders effectively granting 
amnesty to millions of people who were in the United States unlawfully, 
outside of what our laws allow--laws passed by Congress and signed into 
law by the President of the United States.
  In other words, under article I, section 8, we, as a Congress, are 
given power to establish a uniform system of laws governing immigration 
and naturalization. If our laws allow someone to come in, they may come 
in, but if they do not, then those people need to make sure they go 
about getting into the country legally and lawfully.
  If and when the President of the United States, or anyone else for 
that matter, thinks these laws are inadequate, there is a way to change 
them. The way to change them is to go back to the Congress of the 
United States, go back to the lawmaking body, go back to that entity 
recognized in article I, section 1 of the Constitution, to the very 
first substantive line which says, ``All legislative Powers herein 
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall 
consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.''
  Unfortunately, the President of the United States chose not to change 
the law that way. Unfortunately, the President of the United States, 
contradicting his own prior statements, chose to take Executive action 
to legalize millions of people currently in the United States 
illegally.
  Ultimately, this is an issue that ought to be of concern to every one 
of us. It is an issue that is neither Republican nor Democratic. It is 
neither liberal nor conservative. It is simply an American issue. It is 
simply an issue that flows from the rule of law, flows from the notion 
that ours is a system that runs under the rule of law and not under the 
rule of individuals.
  There is a means by which we as a Congress can resist the 
encroachments of an overreaching Chief Executive. It

[[Page 2877]]

is the same means identified by James Madison in the Federalist papers, 
and that means involves the use of the power of the purse.
  Congress, of course, funds the operations of the Federal Government. 
The President of the United States cannot do that all on his own. So 
should we choose to do so, as Congress has chosen to do on so many 
other occasions--when we see something within the government, whether 
implemented legally at the outset or not, when we see something we 
don't like, we can choose not to fund that.
  We have, over the last few weeks, tried to do precisely that in 
response to this Executive action. One month ago the House of 
Representatives passed a bill to keep the Department of Homeland 
Security funded, with the understanding that at midnight tonight that 
funding stream would expire. At the time the House of Representatives 
passed that legislation, the House of Representatives--a body most 
accountable to the people at the most frequent intervals--made a 
decision. They said, We are going to keep everything else within the 
Department of Homeland Security funded, and the House of 
Representatives said, We will, however, direct the Department of 
Homeland Security not to spend any money implementing certain Executive 
orders issued by the President, in November 2014 and previously, 
dealing with Executive amnesty.
  The Senate has been trying to proceed to that bill for nearly 4 
weeks. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
refused to allow us to proceed to that bill. They have blocked our 
attempts. They have engaged in obstruction and they have not allowed us 
to proceed to it. Why? Because they didn't like that appropriations 
rider. They didn't like that spending restriction. Apparently, they do 
not think we should be exercising that power described by James Madison 
and foreseen by our Founding Fathers as that last great protection 
against an overreaching Executive. So they refused to allow us to get 
onto the bill.
  As we are on the verge of getting on the bill--as we are just getting 
onto the bill--all of a sudden, they say, OK, we are OK with doing this 
as long as we are the only ones who get to offer amendments, as long as 
we get our amendment--the amendment that strips out all of the spending 
limitation language in the House-passed bill. We are OK with it as long 
as we, the Democrats, get our amendment, but no Republican gets his or 
her amendment. That isn't fair.
  I wish to make clear that those of us who are supporting this have 
not objected to the running of the time. Those of us who are supporting 
this have not objected to anyone else getting amendments. Those of us 
who are supporting this simply want a vote. We want a vote on a product 
that is even narrower than what was sent over from the House of 
Representatives.
  In a moment I will be calling up my amendment No. 265 and I will be 
asking this body to consider it and vote on it. What it says is that we 
will not allow the Department of Homeland Security to spend any money 
on implementing the November 2014 Executive amnesty Executive order. 
That is what we are trying to do. In the event it is objected to, then 
I will be moving to table the procedural mechanism by which other 
amendments are being blocked.
  I implore all of my colleagues to remember themselves as operating 
within the constitutional framework, in which, far more than our status 
as Democrat or Republican, as liberal or conservative, we are here to 
defend our own power, our own authority that we have been given by our 
own people.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 265.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 258

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I move to table the McConnell amendment No. 
258 for the purposes of offering my amendment No. 265, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 65, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 60 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--65

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Tillis
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Boxer
       
  The motion was rejected.


               Amendment Nos. 258, 257, and 256 Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment Nos. 258, 
257, and 256 are withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 255

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 255, 
offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell.
  Who yields time?
  Ms. COLLINS. We yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, all time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 61 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--33

     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Moran

[[Page 2878]]


     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Boxer
       
  The amendment (No. 255) was agreed to.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote on passage of H.R. 
240, as amended.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, the Senate is about to vote on a full-
year funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. All of us in 
this Chamber understand that we need to support the Department because 
they are critical to defending the homeland. If we want to fight ISIL, 
then we can fight them here at home by passing the bill to fully fund 
DHS.
  We can keep Homeland Security on the job. We can keep breaking the 
ice to keep the economy moving on our lakes and our oceans. We can 
secure our borders. We can prevent attacks from terrorists. Our enemies 
are watching. Now it is time to defend America. I urge all of my 
colleagues to vote yes on this full funding bill.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the bill having been 
read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 62 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tillis
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Boxer
       
  The bill (H.R. 240), as amended, was passed.

                          ____________________