Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2015—Motion to Proceed—Continued
by Senator Jeanne ShaheenPosted on 2015-02-03
SHAHEEN. Mr. President, as we begin this debate on funding for
the Department of Homeland Security, we face some fundamental
questions: Are we going to prioritize the safety and security of the
American people? Or are we going to put the country at risk because of
an ideological disagreement?
That is the choice I believe we face with this bill. We can either
pass a clean bill that makes critical investments in our Nation's
security or we can put this country at risk by playing politics with
the funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
We all know these are dangerous times that we live in. Every day, new
threats emerge that endanger our citizens at home and our allies
abroad. The Department of Homeland Security's role in protecting our
country from these threats cannot be overstated, and its funding should
not be controversial.
Right now, the U.S. law enforcement community is on high alert for
terror threats after attacks in Sydney, Australia, and Ottawa, Canada,
and in Paris. Just 2 weeks ago, an Ohio man was arrested when
authorities discovered he was plotting to blow up the U.S. Capitol in
an ISIS-inspired plan. I believe, as the Presiding Officer understands,
the man was from Ohio.
ISIS has thousands of foreign fighters, including Americans, among
their ranks who seek to return to their home countries to do harm--not
to mention the barbarity of ISIS today in killing the Jordanian pilot
whom they had in their custody.
These are very real threats--a clear and present danger to the
homeland--and because they are so real, we need our counterterrorism
intelligence community operating at full strength. We need the entire
Department of Homeland Security fully engaged in keeping our Nation
safe.
Last week, President Bush's two Homeland Security Secretaries, Tom
Ridge and Michael Chertoff, joined former DHS Secretary Janet
Napolitano in a letter to Congress. The three of them wrote:
The national security role that the Department of Homeland
Security plays . . . is critical to ensuring that our nation
is safe from harm. . . . It is imperative that we ensure that
DHS is ready, willing, and able to protect the American
people . . . we urge you not to risk funding for the
operations that protect every American and pass a clean DHS
funding bill.
All three former Secretaries--two of whom served under a Republican
President and one under a Democratic President--are warning us that the
safety and security of our Nation are at risk if we hold up funding for
Homeland Security operations.
Anything short of passing a clean funding bill will endanger
important security operations and could very well put our citizens at
risk. But because of the anti-immigration riders that have been
attached by House Republicans, the bill we are about to vote on cannot
become law. Senate Democrats are not going to support it. The President
has already said he will veto it. And, furthermore, according to the
nonpartisan
[[Page S721]]
Congressional Budget Office, the bill also adds $7.5 billion to the
deficit.
Last week, Senator Mikulski and I introduced a clean bill that is
modeled after the bicameral, bipartisan agreement that was negotiated
last December by Senator Mikulski, who was then chair of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, and Congressman Hal Rogers, then chair of the
House Appropriations Committee. The bipartisan bill negotiated by
Senator Mikulski and Congressman Rogers is a good bill. It is in line
with the Murray-Ryan budget deal. It will help keep our Nation safe and
secure, funding key counterterrorism, intelligence, and law enforcement
activities, and will also strengthen the protections on our borders.
So our position on this issue is clear: Congress needs to pass a
clean, full-year funding bill without any controversial immigration
riders that are not going to be able to gain support, that the
President has already said he is going to veto. It is that simple.
There is too much at stake for the security of our Nation to play
politics with this bill.
Before I conclude, I would note again that the House-passed
Department of Homeland Security funding bill includes several
immigration-related provisions that draw budget points of order against
the bill. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the
immigration-related provisions would increase the deficit by $7.5
billion over 10 years. In addition, the bill includes language relating
to the budgetary treatment of these provisions. The result is multiple
points of order that would not apply to the bill if the immigration
provisions had not been added.
Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: Does a budget point of
order lie against H.R. 240 pursuant to section 311(a)(2)(B) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised that the point of order
lies.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Does a budget point of order lie against the bill
pursuant to section 311(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised that the point of order
does lie.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. And does a budget point of order lie against the bill
pursuant to section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is advised again that the budget
point of order does lie.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from North Dakota.