Department of Homeland Security Funding
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am standing in today for the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, who is absent for a medical procedure. He was with us yesterday and will be returning after the break. We wish him a speedy recovery. He has gone through quite a bit after the accident that he endured on January 1, and we wish him the very best and quick recovery.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING
Mr. President, we are going to have a chance to do something this week that is important, to fund the Department of Homeland Security. This was a department created after 9/11 for obvious purposes. We never want America to be vulnerable again to that type of extremist terrorist attack and all the death and destruction it brought with it.
So on a bipartisan basis we created this Department. Twenty-two different agencies were merged into one so we would have a common effort to keep America safe and secure, and the Department of Homeland Security has done a great job. Secretary Jeh Johnson, who is currently the leader of that agency, is an extraordinarily gifted, talented man, and he is doing his best to keep America safe.
We should do everything we can to keep it safe, too, and that means the Senate and the House of Representatives need to do their job when it comes to the Department of Homeland Security.
As everyone knows, when we talked about funding the agencies of government this past December after the election, there was only one agency, one department, which the Republicans singled out and said we will not properly fund this one department.
What was it? The Department of Homeland Security. I don't understand this.
If the Department of Homeland Security has the singular responsibility of keeping America safe, why would we risk the security and safety of America by not properly funding the Department? But the House Republicans insisted on that position and Senate Republicans backed them up.
Why would they jeopardize America's security over the funding of DHS? So the Republicans could engage in a political debate over President Obama's immigration policy. It is an important debate. It is a worthy debate. There is no reason we shouldn't engage in this debate. But why would the Republicans insist that this debate be at the expense of funding the Department of Homeland Security? It doesn't make any sense. In fact, we are running a great risk by what we call continuing resolutions instead of regular budgetary appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security.
Secretary Johnson has talked to us about what is going to happen if we don't properly fund the Department of Homeland Security. There are grants that are given through DHS to fire departments and police departments across America to train their personnel, to upgrade their equipment, and to be ready, God forbid, for the next challenge that faces America.
Yet the Republicans insist on stopping that grantmaking to the local police departments in your community and mine--and to the fire departments--so they can engage in a debate with the President over immigration.
What is it about the President's immigration policy that infuriates the Republicans? Could it be that the President has said he wants to prioritize deportations in America so that we, in fact, are going to deport those who are the most dangerous in the United States? I hope that is not it because the President's position is something most Americans would endorse, heartily endorse.
Could it be they object to the President's proposal that those who are here undocumented--parents of American citizens and parents of legal residents--that those who are here undocumented step forward, pay their taxes, submit themselves to a criminal background check in order to have a 2-year temporary work permit? I doubt many Americans would disagree with that. It would mean these tax-paying workers would be checked, and if there is any problem, deported.
The Republicans want to stop that. They disagree with the President's Executive order. I think we ought to have that debate but not at the expense of funding the Department of Homeland Security, but that is their position.
So in 16 days the Department of Homeland Security runs out of money. The Department entrusted with keeping America safe from terrorism runs out of money.
What are we going to do about it? There is something very easy we can turn to. It is on the Senate Calendar of Business. It is on every desk on the floor or available to every Senator: S. 272, a bill introduced by Senators Shaheen and Mikulski to make the appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security to give them the budget they need to protect America. It takes out all of the immigration riders insisted on by the House and takes us down to the basics.
So are we going to fund the Department of Homeland Security?
Well, the Republican majority leader has insisted he will stand in the way of funding DHS unless we can get into this political debate about immigration. I think that is shortsighted.
Senator Reid came to the floor a few days ago and said: We are prepared to engage in this debate on immigration--but not at the expense of the Department of Homeland Security. We have had three votes on the floor of the Senate and this effort by the Republicans has fallen woefully short in every single vote to receive the 60 votes necessary.
So why does the majority leader insist on sticking with this approach? It is hard to explain. It could be that within his own caucus--and maybe he personally thinks that the efforts of the President to protect certain people from deportation are just plain wrong.
One of those efforts is one I heartily support myself. It is called DACA. DACA was an Executive order issued by the President in 2012. In that Executive order the President said those who are eligible under the DREAM Act would be given protection from deportation.
The DREAM Act was a piece of legislation I introduced 14 years ago which said: If someone was brought to America as an infant, a toddler, a small child, and they stayed in America, had no serious criminal issue, finished high school, and they were prepared to enlist in the military or go on to college, they would get a path to legalization. That is what the DREAM Act said. It has never become law.
But these young people, we estimate 2 million nationwide, are left in limbo. They came to America, were brought to America at an early age, grew up in America, went to American schools, pledged allegiance to our American flag, sang our national anthem, and believed they were Americans. Then they were told, sorry, but you don't have the necessary documentation. You are not here legally.
So they are left in limbo. They have nowhere to turn. Under the laws of the United States they are subject to deportation. President Obama said on a 2-year basis we will protect these young people from deportation.
They will have a background check, they will pay their fees, and on a 2-year basis they can live in America without fear of deportation and work in America or go to school in America. Those are the DREAMers. That is the DACA provision which the Republicans are opposing in the House of Representatives. It is the provision which the majority leader insists we vote on before we can fund the Department of Homeland Security.
I think it is instructive to introduce these DREAMers to Members of the Senate who may not know who they are, and I want to introduce two of them today: Nelson and John Magdaleno. Nelson is on the left in the suit, and John is on the right on his graduation today. They were brought to the United States from Venezuela when Nelson was 11 and John 9 years old. They were both honor students at Lakeside High School in Atlanta, GA. In high school John was the fourth highest officer and commander of the Air Honor Society in his Junior ROTC.
Nelson and John both went to the Georgia Institute of Technology, one of the most selective engineering schools in America. In 2012 Nelson graduated from Georgia Tech with honors and a major in computer engineering.
President Obama established the DACA Program shortly after Nelson graduated from Georgia Tech. Thanks to DACA, Nelson has been working since 2012 as a computer engineer for a Fortune 500 semiconductor corporation.
John also received DACA in 2012, while he was still a student at Georgia Tech. He then worked for 2 years as a researcher in a biomedical engineering lab at Georgia Tech, researching glaucoma, one of the leading causes of blindness.
In 2014 John graduated from Georgia Tech with a major in chemical and biomedical engineering and with the highest honors. He is now working as a process engineer with a Fortune 500 company.
Nelson Magdaleno wrote me a letter, and here is what he said:
To me DACA means an opportunity to be able to live my dreams and contribute to society in ways that I could not have imagined. DACA means one of my life goals, owning my own company, could be a possibility in the future. DACA means a chance. DACA means the American Dream.
His brother John wrote, and here is what he said:
I consider an American to be someone who loves, and wholeheartedly dedicates themselves to the development of this country. From age nine, I have made the United States my home, and it has made me the man I am today. I proudly call myself an American.
When you hear the stories of these two young men, who attended college and finished without any government assistance or loans, who worked hard to get their degrees in challenging fields such as computer engineering, who went to one of the best schools in America, who now have talents and skills that create opportunities not only for discovery but for innovation and entrepreneurship, I wonder: What are the Republicans thinking when they say these two individuals don't belong in America, that they need to be deported, that they need to be sent back to Venezuela, a country neither of them really knows. Is that the answer to America's future? Is it to export the most talented minds, the hardest working individuals, and that the amazing achievements they have made in their lives are to be ignored? I don't think so.
I think Americans by and large believe in fairness. Fairness says we will not hold the children of the parents who were responsible for wrongdoing responsible themselves. If you are pulled over for speeding, you may get a ticket. But it would be fundamentally unfair to give one to the child sitting in a car seat in the car. They weren't driving. These kids weren't driving either. Their parents came to America without any permission from the children. But they set up a life here and they made a good life here. Should we now penalize these children because their parents came to America?
That doesn't make sense. Frankly, it doesn't represent what this country is all about. We are a nation of immigrants, and the immigrants who come here make a difference. They bring not only a determination for a better life, but they are risk takers. They leave it all behind from wherever they were. They come to America and risk it all in the hopes they will have a better life and, even more importantly, that their children will. That is who we are. That is what America is all about and has been from the beginning of time.
Why would we turn our backs on this heritage? Why would we ignore the opportunity these young people bring? That is the Republican position, at least the one stated by the House of Representatives. It has been summarily rejected now three different times on the floor of the Senate. Yet the majority leader comes to us today and says he may do it again.
This is not fair to the Department of Homeland Security, it is not fair to John and Nelson, and it is not fair to this country. Let us do the right thing. Let's fund the Department of Homeland Security before we leave for any recess. Let's get it done so that Department can protect America.
The majority leader talked about what we have achieved here--the Keystone Canadian pipeline act, which was the highest priority of the Senate Republicans. TransCanada, a Canadian corporation, would be able to transport oil from Canada to a refinery in Texas and then export it from the United States. There are benefits of construction, of course, and 35 permanent pipeline jobs, of course. But in the end the refined oil coming in from Canada will not benefit the American economy. We had an amendment on the floor that would address that very issue, and every single Republican said we will not vote to keep that refined oil product in America.
We also suggested that if we are going to build a pipeline in America, we use American steel. Let's put American workers to work at the steel mills to make the steel that is necessary to build the pipeline, and that too was rejected by the Republicans. They said no, insisting on American steel won't be part of this so-called pipeline jobs projects.
Well, I think there are better ways to get the economy moving forward and to create more jobs. One of them is infrastructure, and I am sure we will debate it at a later time.
The other thing mentioned by the majority leader was the Clay Hunt bill, which was a bill that was needed and important, related to veteran suicide, and it passed overwhelmingly, to no one's surprise.
Why was this bill held up in the previous Congress? There was an objection to bringing the bill to the floor by a Republican Senator--by a Republican Senator. There was no obstruction in passing this bill on the Democratic side, and I am glad it passed. I know the President is about to sign it.
The other thing I want to mention is that it is unfortunate we are leaving this week for the 1-week Presidents Day recess. We are leaving at a time when the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be Attorney General of the United States is still pending. She has been pending, I understand, longer than any nominee for Attorney General in recent history.
I went through the hearing with her and there was no opposition--none. They asked the witnesses who were brought in if any one of them objected to her being Attorney General, and not one would raise their hand. There were no objections. There is no objection to this woman serving our Nation. She has been the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. She has done an amazing job. Why are they holding her up? What is the purpose in this? We should approve her nomination before we leave this week.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source