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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, both from Alabama
and from Maine, for coming down to the floor and saying: Let's do the
work of the Senate. Let's advance to this Department of Homeland
Security bill, let's offer amendments, let's have the debate. Let's
fund the Department.

But let's make sure we do it in the right way, and where we protect
the checks and balances built into this government by our forefathers.

For the last few days I have come to the floor to call attention to
the importance of voting ``yes'' on the motion to proceed to the
Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for 2015--H.R. 240.

I wish that weren't the case. I had hoped that by now we would be
much closer to passing a funding bill for the Department; that the
Senate would have proceeded to the DHS appropriations bill, and that we
could begin the process of debate, of considering amendments, and of
developing consensus--of getting our work done.

Yet here we are on the third day, just trying to proceed to funding
the Department of Homeland Security--a Department that everyone agrees
is vital.

That is what this bill does: It funds the Department fully and
completely, and it does it in the right way by enforcing the law.

I don't have to tell my colleagues that the defining attributes of
the Senate come from the Senators' ability to debate and to amend
legislation. Debate and amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOEVEN. I wish to thank the Senator from the great State of New
Hampshire.

Debate and amendment. Debate and amendment. That is what we are
talking about.

We are talking about going to this bill that funds the Department of
Homeland Security and having the debate and offering amendments. That
is what I am asking for. That is what we need in order to address the
issues such as the one that my good friend and colleague from New
Hampshire raised on Tuesday. She is the ranking member on the
Appropriations Subcommittee of the Department of Homeland Security. She
made a request in terms of a parliamentary point of order--budget point
of order--and she made the inquiry. It is a valid point of order, one
that can and should be debated, and we should have the opportunity to
vote on it. But we can't vote on it unless we proceed to the bill. So
let's proceed to the bill. Let's have that debate. Bring up the point
of order, and let's have a vote. And let's have amendments. That is how
we do our work in the Senate.

But despite the best efforts of Republicans to provide that
opportunity for debate by proceeding to this bill to move forward, we
are met with no's from the other side of the aisle. In essence, we are
being filibustered--a tactic that was decried as obstructionist in the
previous Congress.

In case my friends on the other side of the aisle think this is going
unnoticed, they should check the headlines. Look no further than an
article from CNN on Tuesday: ``Democrats block funding for DHS to
protect Obama immigration orders.''

Or the Washington Times: ``Democrats filibuster DHS spending bill,
block GOP on amnesty debate.''

These headlines speak to a central flaw in the arguments of those who
say we need a DHS bill, but then vote against this Senate proceeding to
that very bill.

On the one hand, they are saying we need a bill, but they won't go to
the funding bill that is here before us. That is exactly what we are
voting and trying to do, is to proceed to the DHS funding bill--with an
amendment process, with open debate.

Yesterday, one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle
stated that if the Senate takes up H.R. 240, the homeland security
appropriations bill, it would simply be a delaying tactic.

Well, how can moving to the bill that directly addresses the DHS
funding issue constitute delay? In order to pass the DHS funding bill,
we have to be allowed to proceed to the bill. The truth, of course, is
the delay is in fact coming from those who won't allow us to take up
the bill, debate it, and consider amendments and pass it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source