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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in light of the eloquent remarks from the
assistant Democratic leader who is my friend, I hope he will listen
carefully to the proposal I am about to outline.

In just over 3 weeks the law that funds the Department of Homeland
Security will expire, jeopardizing the Department's ability to carry
out its critical mission. Legislation to provide funding to the
Department throughout the remainder of this fiscal year has passed the
House and is awaiting action in the Senate, but progress has stalled.
The Democrats have blocked it from even being considered because it is
not a clean bill.

On my side of the aisle House Republicans have insisted that
provisions remain in the bill directing the administration to spend no
funds implementing a series of Presidential orders issued over the past
few years.

The Senate has held two votes this week to try to begin debate on
this bill, both of which have failed on near-party lines. Thus, we have
reached an impasse.

In an attempt to find a path forward, yesterday I filed an amendment
in the nature of a substitute that would accomplish three goals. First,
it would ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is fully
funded to perform its vital mission to protect our people. Second, it would allow the Senate to go on record in strong opposition to the President's extraordinarily broad immigration Executive order issued last November. Third, it would protect the
DREAMers whom Senator Durbin just talked about.

I wish to go back to the November Executive order. This particular
Executive order represents a misuse of the President's authority that
threatens to undermine the separation of powers doctrine in our
Constitution. As the President himself has said more than 20 times, he
does not have the authority to expand the law in this manner. He made
the exact point in remarks of July 2011 when he said:

I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. . . . Now,
I know some people want me to bypass Congress and 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.

The President was exactly right when he stated that reality. The
substitute I proposed would block the sweeping 2014 Executive order,
but it does not overturn the more limited Executive orders from past
years.

Specifically, my amendment would not undo the 2012 deferred action
program that allowed DREAMers, young people brought to the United
States by their parents years ago, to receive legal status as long as
they meet certain requirements.

The House bill includes a controversial amendment, which I do not
support, that would invalidate this 2012 program retroactively.

My substitute accomplishes my third goal of protecting these children
who have grown up here, who speak English, have clean criminal records,
and often know no other country. They did not make the choice to come
to America. That decision was made by their parent or parents.

My substitute amendment, therefore, is straightforward. First, the
amendment mirrors the underlying bill with respect to the funding
levels provided to the Department of Homeland Security so it can carry
out its functions. Ironically, there is no dispute over those funding
levels. Second, it strikes the House provision restricting the
expenditure of funds to implement the DREAMers Program that I described
and that Senator Durbin just commented on.

And third, it retains the House prohibition on expenditures to fund
the President's unauthorized action on immigration announced in
November of last year.

Now, let me make clear that Congress should consider comprehensive
immigration reform. The fact that there are now an estimated 11 million
illegal immigrants in the United States is irrefutable evidence that
our immigration and border security systems are badly broken. That is
why I supported the bipartisan immigration reform bill that passed the
Senate in 2013.

While I was disappointed that immigration reform legislation of some
sort did not become law, I reject the notion that its failure can serve
as the justification for the action taken by the President last
November. He cannot do by Executive fiat what Congress 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.

Our Constitution vests the power to make law in the legislative
branch--with Congress--not with the President. To the President it
assigns the obligation to take care that the laws are faithfully
executed. That was the rule used by the Supreme Court in 1952 in the
famous Youngstown Sheet & Tubing case that overturned President
Truman's Executive Order nationalizing the steel industry to prevent a
strike during the Korean War.

As the Court explained, the President's power to faithfully execute
the laws does not make him a lawmaker. The Court said:

(T)he Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking
process to the recommending of laws that he thinks wise and
the vetoing of laws he thinks bad.

In other words, the President is not free to pick and choose among
laws, enforcing the ones that he likes and ignoring the ones that he
doesn't.

The President is fully aware of this fact. He has often made the
point that he could go no further than to protect the DREAMers. Here is
what 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, 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.

Those are the President's own words. The action taken by the
President in November is a direct contradiction to his own statements.
By acting unilaterally, ironically, the President is making it less
likely that Congress will act to pass comprehensive reforms. He is
undermining the efforts of those of us who favor immigration reform by
diverting energy and attention from that goal.

I urge my colleagues to give consideration to the proposed compromise
that I filed as a substitute yesterday. It will ensure that the men and
women on the front lines of the Department of Homeland Security can do
their vitally important jobs, it will overturn the President's misuse
of his Executive authority last November, and it will protect the legal
status of children brought to this country by their parents years ago.

Mr. President, I believe I have put forth a reasonable, constructive
compromise that could get us out of this impasse that is such a
disservice to so many. I hope my colleagues will join together and
support the substitute I have proposed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source