Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2015 -- Motion to Proceed -- Continued
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you, Madam President.
I was very pleased to hear the ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee, Senator Mikulski, who has done such great work on the
committee in putting together the bipartisan agreement that was
negotiated last December with the chairman of the House Appropriations
Committee, Congressman Rogers. That was a bill which, as the Senator
pointed out, funded the efforts of the Department of Homeland Security
to keep people safe, to address emergencies, to try to protect us from
cyber security threats--a whole range of efforts at the Department.
I want Senator Mikulski to hear a comment that I understand was made
by the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee chairman
John Carter, who is a Republican from Texas. When he was asked about
what the outcome of this debate would be on funding the Department of
Homeland Security, his comment was, ``Ultimately, there may be a clean
bill.''
Well, I say to Senator Mikulski, if the House Republicans and the
chair of the subcommittee in the House are acknowledging that
ultimately there may be a clean bill to fund the Department to do what
was negotiated by you and Congressman Rogers last December, doesn't it
make sense that we should get a clean bill done as soon as possible so
there is certainty for the Department of Homeland Security so they can
continue the planning efforts and they can continue to address the
threats to our national security? Shouldn't we just get this done now
and stop this ideological fighting and putting at risk people of this
country because somebody has an ideological concern about this bill?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I certainly agree with the ranking
member of the Appropriations Committee. I will just point out that in
the last 2 days, we have heard from the Conference of Mayors, which has
urged us to pass a clean bill to fund the Department of Homeland
Security. We have heard from the emergency managers across this country
who are concerned about the risks of assistance for disaster relief and
for FEMA, and today we got a letter from the National Association of
Counties urging the passage of a clean bill to ensure that the safety
of our communities can be maintained.
As the Senator said, we should not put these communities at risk, the
efforts that are going on across this country to keep the Nation safe,
because there are those people who are angry at the President about an
Executive action. We can have that debate, but we should have that
debate separately. We need to fund the Department of Homeland Security
now to ensure that there are no risks to our citizens.
I thank Senator Mikulski and the Presiding Officer.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. SHAHEEN. I appreciate the work my colleague has done on this
funding bill, and I think we certainly agree on the funding that is in
the bill. That is not what the debate we are having is about.
I ask the Senator from North Dakota if he has heard the comments of
Chairman John Carter of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Homeland Security, a Republican from Texas, who said: ``Ultimately,
there may be a clean bill.''
If the House is acknowledging that ultimately we may have a clean
bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, doesn't it make sense
that we would move forward to get this funding done, and we would make
sure there is certainty to address the risks facing this country?
We can debate immigration. I don't think there is anybody on the
Democratic side who doesn't want to have an immigration debate. We are
happy to have it. But we should have that as a separate debate. As the
Republican majority knows, they control the debate in the Senate. So
they can decide to bring up an immigration bill as soon as we pass
funding for the Department of Homeland Security. So I hope, as the
House suggests, ultimately there is going to be a clean bill and that
we would pass it as soon as possible to provide certainty and then move
on to debate the other issues facing this country.
I ask my colleague from North Dakota if he has spoken to the chairman
of the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, and does he
share his view that ultimately there may be a clean bill?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I point out to my colleague that Senator
Mikulski and I have introduced a clean bill that addresses funding for
the Department of Homeland Security.
The fact is we find ourselves in this situation on the appropriations
bill because of the riders that were attached by the House of
Representatives. Those riders defund immigration directives that were
issued by the President last year.
Yesterday, the senior Senator from Texas suggested that Senate
Democrats don't want to debate immigration. In fact, we are happy to
debate immigration. In fact, this body, in 2013, passed a comprehensive
immigration reform bill with a very strong bipartisan vote.
The debate we are having today is about whether we are going to fund
the Department of Homeland Security. The bill that is before us raises
concerns about what is in the original clean bill that funds the
Department of Homeland Security.
As the Senator from North Dakota and I were just discussing, Senate
Republicans control the Senate. If they want to vote on immigration
measures, they can bring a bill that would do that to the floor by the
end of this week because they control what we consider in the Senate.
But the issue that is before us today is whether we are going to fund
the Department of Homeland Security. This is an issue that is critical
because right now our Nation faces serious national security and
terrorism threats.
This bill is not about the President's Executive action; it is about
whether we are going to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Since
we have heard from so many of our Republican colleagues that they want
to discuss immigration and border security, I spent some time yesterday
speaking about all of the important investments that a clean, full-year
funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security would make in our
border security. If we don't pass a clean funding bill, we will fail to
make significant upgrades to technology on the border. We will fail to
fund expanded enforcement activities for immigration officers. If we
are serious about border security, we should support a clean full-year
bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank the Chair.
I also think it is instructive at this time to note for the Record
that included in the Executive actions that Republicans are trying to
defund are provisions that increase border security, prioritize
enforcement resources, and ensure accountability in our immigration
system. The House bill that is before us today defunds--takes away the
money--for the new policy of prioritizing criminals and national
security threats for removal from the United States. So one of the
orders that have been issued by DHS that Republicans want to defund
directs law enforcement officers to place top priority on removing
national security threats, convicted felons, gang members, and illegal
entrants apprehended at the border.
The House bill also defunds increased and strategic border security.
Another one of the memos issued by DHS is on the Southern Border and
Approaches Campaign, which establishes three joint task forces to
reduce the terrorism risks to the Nation, combat transnational criminal
organizations, and prevent the illegal flow of people and goods along
our border. So that is another part of this legislation our colleagues
want to defund.
It doesn't make sense, if we are concerned about border security,
that we would want to pass a bill that includes measures to defund
these efforts.
I understand my time has expired. I certainly hope everybody
understands what the bill before us, which includes those five House
riders, would actually do.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source