Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2015 -- Motion to Proceed -- Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, when given the opportunity four times over the last few weeks to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security, while at the same time rolling back the President's unconstitutional Executive action on immigration, four times our Senate Democratic friends have filibustered this funding. At the same time, they have been pointing to this side of the aisle and saying: If there is a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, you are at fault. It is hypocrisy, to say the least.

But of all the Democrats who voted to filibuster the funding of the Department of Homeland Security--which, again, expires at midnight on this Friday night--there are 11 of our Senate Democratic colleagues who come from States which are parties to a lawsuit in Brownsville, TX, where the Federal judge issued a temporary injunction just last week saying that what the President did in his Executive action was illegal--illegal.

So how our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can filibuster the Department of Homeland Security funding because they say it includes a disapproval of the President's action at the same time the States they represent are parties to a lawsuit complaining about the illegality of the President's actions--how they can reconcile that is beyond me. Perhaps they can come to the floor and talk about that. But I think they should be asked that question, and I would be very interested in their answer.

Of course, as we all know, now the Obama administration--after the Federal judge agreed with what the President said 22 different times, that he didn't have the authority to do what he did--and, obviously, he changed his mind. But after the Federal judge agreed with what he said the first 22 times, that he didn't have the authority, now they have asked for a stay of that temporary injunction.

If the reports in the press are correct, Judge Hanen in Brownsville, in the Southern District of Texas, has given the States, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, until March 2 to respond to this request for emergency stay.

One by one, the folks who criticized what the President was doing in one fashion or another came to the floor and have voted in effect to affirm what he did. As I said yesterday, in justifying these votes we heard a common refrain from several of our Democratic colleagues, including some of those 11 whose States have joined the lawsuit against the President's Executive action. They have said to us: We don't necessarily agree with the President's action, but you shouldn't attach that to an appropriations bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

Similarly, from Senate Democratic leadership came the demands for a ``clean bill''--a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security--without these provisions addressing the Executive action attached.

Just 2 days ago here on the floor, the Democratic leader himself called for the Senate to vote on such a bill. A press release issued from Senator Reid's office was unequivocal: ``Reid Remarks Calling On Senate GOP To Avoid A Shutdown By Passing A Clean DHS Funding Bill.''

Monday wasn't the first time we heard this from Democratic leadership. We heard it over and over and over, as the Democrats, in lockstep, filibustered the Department of Homeland Security funding bill.

So imagine my surprise when Senator McConnell, the Senate majority leader, offered to consider two bills, one that would address the President's Executive action from last November--the Collins bill--and a separate one that would fully fund the Department of Homeland Security.

You would, I guess, if logic prevailed in this place, expect that the Democratic leader would embrace that wholeheartedly, instantaneously, saying: That is exactly what we have been demanding, and now we have been offered it. We will take it.

Well, that didn't happen. This place can be very confusing sometimes, and you would be wrong if you thought the Democratic leader embraced what he had been demanding for the last few weeks. So after spending weeks demanding a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, including as recently as Monday, 24 hours have passed and the Democratic leader has still refused to agree to hold a vote on a so-called clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill.

Let me just repeat that so I am absolutely clear. The Democratic leader has so far refused to agree to vote on a clean funding bill for the Department, even after he called on Senate Republicans to pass exactly that as recently as Monday.

So I don't know how to sugar coat it. Call it a flip-flop, call it disingenuous. I don't know what to call it. But when you are offered exactly what you have been demanding and you don't accept it, it tells me you are not particularly serious about wanting to solve the problem. It is this kind of doubletalk which I think causes the Senate to be held in low regard by the American people, where they think that what you say doesn't necessarily translate into action. It is becoming abundantly clear that our friends across the aisle do not seem to have gotten the message from the last election on November 4.

I mentioned this yesterday, and I will repeat it, with reference to some of the gamesmanship that appears to be going on here, at the time when the clock is ticking and the Department of Homeland Security funding runs out at midnight on Friday. Recently, the senior Senator from New York told the Huffington Post that ``it's really fun to be in the Senate Minority,'' as if creating obstacles, slowing things down, and impeding progress toward a goal that we all hold in common--funding the Department of Homeland Security--is somehow having fun. But filibustering critical funding for the men and women that protect us every day and protect the homeland is not what I call fun.

At the end of the day, the Senate will make sure that those who protect our borders, our ports, and our skies get paid.

That is what the American people voted for last November. They were sick and tired. If I heard it once, I heard it 100 times: We are sick and tired of the dysfunction in Washington, DC, and that is why we are voting for a change.

That is why we have nine new colleagues in the Senate--to break that logjam of dysfunction.

So I would implore the Democratic leader to heed his own call for a clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill and to quit playing games. Quit playing games with the lives of the people who work at the Department of Homeland Security. Quit playing games with the American people, whose security is on the line if for some reason the ability of the Department to perform its important functions is disrupted because of the lack of funding. Quit playing games with the funding that pays the salaries of the men and women who protect our ports, who protect our airports, and who protect our border from transnational drug cartels.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source