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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago I came to the Senate floor to
speak on an amendment which I had hoped would provide a framework that
would accomplish three goals:

First, to provide funding for the Department of Homeland Security so
that it could perform its vital mission of protecting the people of our
country;

Second, to put the Senate on record as opposing the President's
extraordinarily broad immigration actions issued by Executive order in November of 2014;

And, third, to ensure that individuals who were brought to this
country as children and qualify for treatment under the June 2012
Executive order on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals--the so-
called DREAMers that Senator Durbin has just spoken of--could continue
to benefit under that program.

I am very pleased that it looks like we are moving forward on a bill
to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. We had a very strong
vote on that yesterday. Indeed, I have not heard a single Senator on
either side of the aisle say that we should shut down the Department of
Homeland Security. Each of us recognizes its vital mission.

As someone who served as the chairman or ranking member of the
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for a decade, I
certainly understand how vital the mission of this Department is.

I am keenly aware, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, of the
threats against our country and the risks that we face from those who
would do us harm.

At the same time, as members of the legislative branch, we have an
obligation to speak out and to register our opposition when we believe
that the President has exceeded his grant of Executive authority under
the Constitution in a way that would undermine the separation of powers
doctrine. I wish to read what a constitutional scholar has said about
the President's Executive order and how far the President could or
could not go. This is what this constitutional scholar says:

Congress has said ``here is the law'' when it comes to
those who are undocumented. . . . What we can do is to carve
out the DREAM Act, saying young people who have basically
grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. . . . But
if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be
ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very
difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option.

Who was that constitutional scholar? It was the President of the
United States, Barack Obama. He said this in September of 2013.
President Obama got it right back then. I believe that he was within
the scope of his Executive authority when he issued the 2012 Executive
orders that created DACA, which allowed for the DREAMers to stay here.

Let me also make clear that I am a supporter of comprehensive
immigration reform. While I was disappointed that immigration reform
legislation of some sort did not become law when we passed it a few
years ago, I reject the notion that its failure can serve as
justification for the actions taken by the President last November. He
simply cannot do by Executive fiat what Congress has refused to pass
regardless of the wisdom of Congress's decision. Such unilateral action
is contrary to how our constitutional system is supposed to work, and
it risks undermining the separation of powers doctrine, which is
central to our constitutional framework.

That is really what this debate is about. It is about the proper
constitutional constraints on unilateral Executive action. It happens
to be an Executive action that deals with immigration, but it could be
an Executive action on any other issue. That is why it is important
that we draw those lines.

Indeed, the legislation I proposed, which we will be voting on at
some point, is fully consistent with the court ruling in Texas, which
my colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, is very familiar with and
knows much more about than I do. But it is fully consistent with that
ruling which lets stand the 2012 Executive order but stayed the
implementation of the 2014 Executive order. There is a difference.

Now, I consider the Senator from Illinois to be an excellent Senator
and a dear friend, and it truly pains me to disagree with his analysis
of my amendment. I know that he acts in good faith. But there are
either misunderstandings or misinterpretations or just plain
disagreements. So I would like to go through some of the points that he
has made about my amendment

One of the chief objections of the Senator from Illinois to my bill
is that it strikes provisions of the November 2014 immigration action
that would expand--that is the key word; it would expand--the 2012 DACA
Program to add certain individuals who are not eligible under that
program.

He talks about expanding the age limit, for example.

Now, let's take a look at exactly what the criteria are for DREAMers
under the 2012 Executive order. These are criteria that were praised by
my friend from Illinois and numerous other Senators on the Democratic
side of the aisle when the President issued his Executive order. I,
too, agree with these criteria.

In order to qualify, an individual has to have come to the United
States under the age of 16, has to have continually resided in the
United States for at least 5 years preceding the date of this
memorandum, and has to be present on the date of the June 15, 2012,
memorandum.

The individual has to be currently either in school, have graduated
from high school, have obtained a general education development
certificate or has to be an honorably discharged member of the Coast
Guard or our military. In addition, the individual has to have a pretty
good record. The person cannot have been convicted of a felony offense,
a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses or
otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety. And they
cannot be above the age of 30.

These are reasonable criteria that the President came up with.

Frankly, I am not enthralled with the one that allows for multiple
misdemeanors, and the Executive order also states that the individual
cannot have multiple misdemeanors. The form that is used by DHS says
the individual can have up to three misdemeanors. I personally would
require an absolutely clean record. But these are reasonable criteria,
and these are not changed by the Collins bill in any way. The 2012
Executive order stands.

So the argument of my friend from Illinois is focused on the fact
that he wants an expansion of these criteria and to add other
categories of individuals, and that is what the November 2014
immigration action does. It has nothing to do with the status of the
individuals who were allowed to stay in this country as a result of the
2012 Executive order. My amendment protects the 2012 Executive order
and those who benefited from it.

So we have a sincere disagreement over what is appropriate to be done
by Executive action and what needs to be done by legislation. Even
though I support many of the policies that are in the 2014 Executive
order, I just don't think the President can unilaterally proclaim those
changes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am happy to respond to the point made
by the Senator from Illinois.

The point is that the President's 2014 Executive order goes far
beyond those who would ``age out,'' in his words; it adds entirely new
categories of people. In fact, the estimates are that some 5 million
undocumented individuals would be covered by the 2014 Executive order.
Should the President unilaterally be allowed to make that kind of
Executive order, that kind of change in our immigration law? The court
has said no, and I believe the court is right about that. In fact, when
these criteria were issued in 2012, the Senator from Illinois said in a
press release as recently as June of last year, before the November
Executive order, that this was a smart and lawful approach.

So the answer is, how do you draw the line, and what is the
appropriate role of the executive branch vis-a-vis the legislative
branch? And I say that as someone who believes and hopes that later
this year we will take up a comprehensive immigration bill, and I hope
to be able to support it again. But this is an issue of what is the
proper role of Congress vis-a-vis the President under our
constitutional system. And I was not surprised when the Texas court
kept the 2012 Executive order but blocked the 2014 Executive order.

There is another issue the Senator from Illinois has raised that I
think is a very important point to make. He has said that my bill could
bar some of those who received the ability to stay in this country
through the 2012 Executive order from renewing their status.

That is simply not how I read the Executive order, and I think it is
very clear. Let's look at the 2012 Executive order. This is what it
says. This is what Janet Napolitano talked about in ``exercising
prosecutorial discretion.'' The June 15, 2012, DACA Executive order
grants deferred action ``for a period of two years''--here are the key
words--``subject to renewal.'' So there is nothing in my amendment that
prevents children and young adults--people up to age 30--from getting a
renewal of the deferred status that they have been granted through this
Executive order. It says it right there: ``subject to renewal.''

But let's look further at the data. This is on DHS's Web site.
According to the data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
the government has renewed more than 148,000 2012 applications as of
the first quarter of this fiscal year, and many of them were completed
before the November 2014 Executive orders were even issued.

So there is nothing in my bill that prevents the renewal of those
individuals who received this status. It is very clear--148,000 of them
have had their applications renewed.

The Senator from Illinois has said that I would prevent DHS from
issuing a memorandum that allows for the renewal. There is no need for
such a memorandum; otherwise, 148,000 of these young people would not
have been able to get a renewal--and before the 2014 Executive order
was even issued.

The Senator has also said that my bill calls into question the very
legality of the 2012 DACA order because it is a ``very similar program
to the 2014 Executive action.''

To restate my basic point, my bill does not affect the 2012 DACA
Program. It is substantially different from the 2014 Executive order.
In fact, if you read the language of the 2014 Executive order, it
embraces that distinction. It specifically states that it does not
rescind or supersede the 2012 DACA order.

Let me say that again. The 2014 Executive order specifically states
that it does not rescind or supersede the Executive order that was
issued in 2012. Instead, it says it seeks to supplement or amend it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if I could respond to the senior Senator
from Texas, he raises an excellent point. I would bring up a quote that
is just one of those 22 quotes in which the President has said over and
over again that he would like to do more on immigration, that he was
very disappointed the House didn't take up the comprehensive
immigration bill but that his hands were tied. I believe at one point
he even said, ``I am not a king.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it doesn't surprise me that there are
both Democratic Senators and Republican Senators who are extremely
uncomfortable with what the President did last November because it is
so outside of the scope of his authority as President that I think that
most of my colleagues, in their hearts, on the other side of the aisle
must have qualms and misgivings about what the President did. In fact,
I would almost guarantee that if a Republican President had exceeded
his Executive authority to that degree, there would have been an
uproar. So I think this is important in terms of our protecting the
checks and balances that our Founding Fathers so wisely incorporated
into the Constitution. And I do believe there are even more Senators on
the other side who may not have said what they were thinking but who
really do have qualms about it even if they agree with the policy.

We need to distinguish between the policy--whether or not some
Members agree with the policy; some Members don't--but the question is,
Does the President's frustration with Congress's failure to pass
immigration reform allow him to unilaterally write the law?

The Senator from Texas is a former Supreme Court justice in Texas,
and through the Chair I would pose that question to him.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas, who has a fine
legal mind and has served on the Texas Supreme Court, is exactly right.

Moreover, I wish to read what President Obama himself said about the
very point the Senator from Texas made about the oath when we held up
our right hand and were sworn into this body, and the oath the
President took when he became President. Here is what the President
said in July 2011:

I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books . . . Now,
I know some people want me to bypass Congress and to change
the laws on my own . . . But that's not how our system works.
That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our
Constitution is written.

President Obama had it exactly right when he stated that reality.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, to respond to the Senator from Texas, I
hope that will not happen. I have put forth a way forward for this
body. I want to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is
fully funded throughout the fiscal year. I want to ensure that we do
not overturn the 2012 DACA Executive order, which is narrow enough that
it does not raise the very troubling issues the Senator from Texas has
so eloquently outlined. But I do believe it is important for each of us
to take a stand against the President's overreach here. This is
important. This matters.

It is our job to protect the Constitution and to uphold our role, and
that is what I am trying to do here--accomplish those three goals--and
that is what the Senator from Texas is discussing.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am familiar with the issue the Senator
from Texas refers to, and I kept a provision included in the bill that
we will be voting on at some point, on that issue. It seems to me, if
you are a convicted sex offender, why do we want you in this country?

The irony is that just this week the Senate Judiciary Committee held
a hearing on sex trafficking, and we heard heartbreaking stories of
very young girls who had been abused by men, who had been taken from
State to State, coerced into prostitution. I do not want
those individuals, if they come from another country, to be allowed to
stay here. All 20 of the women of the Senate requested this hearing
from the Judiciary Committee, and the Senator from Texas and the
Senator from Minnesota have bills that deal with this kind of human
trafficking. We are trying to send a message that these individuals
should be a high priority for deportation, but I want to make it clear
that contrary to allegations that have been made about my bill--and,
frankly, it is a completely specious argument--there is nothing in my
bill that deprives the Department of Homeland Security of the authority
it needs to pursue those who would seek to harm our country--those, for
example, who are terrorists or belong to gangs or pose some sort of
public safety or national security threat.

Indeed, the public safety threat is big enough to cover the people we
are talking about, but we think they merit special mention in our bill.
Why would we want to keep someone in our country who is deportable, who
is a sex offender, who has been convicted of child molestation or
domestic violence? It makes no sense.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his
contributions to this very important debate. I believe he helped to
clarify a lot of important issues that I hope Members on both sides of
the aisle will consider as they cast their votes.

I am for comprehensive immigration reform. I have voted that way.
That is not what this is about. My bill simply prevents the executive
branch from usurping the legislative power by creating categorical
exceptions from the law for whole classes of people. That power belongs
to Congress. Whether Congress was wrong or whether Congress was right,
it does not give the President the authority to write the law on his
own, and that is what he has done with his November 2014 Executive
order.

I wish to make two other points before I close. The first point is
there is nothing in my legislation that in any way undoes the more
limited 2012 Executive order that applies to the DREAMers--nothing. It
doesn't prevent them from being renewed nor does it take away their
status. There is nothing that changes that Executive order. The first
version of the House bill did, and I opposed that provision and it is
not in my bill.

The second point I will make is that this debate is not about
immigration. It really is about the power of the President versus the
powers delineated in our Constitution for Congress and the judicial
branch.

I will close, once again, with President Obama's own words, because
he got it right back in September of 2013. He said:

Congress has said ``here is the law'' when it comes to
those who are undocumented . . . What we can do is to carve
out the DREAM Act--

And that is what he did with his 2012 Executive order.

saying young people who have basically grown up here are
Americans that we should welcome . . . But if we start
broadening that--

Which is exactly what he did in his 2014 Executive order.

then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I
think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's
not an option.

That is why the court stayed the implementation of the 2014 Executive
order.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source